Conception

[Not3in1]

As Nick says: TOPICAL (Nick, where are you? Holiday?)

94 and WJ – this is also related to what we are discussing on John 1:1. Nick and I had a pretty lively debate here…..

[olive]

31 writes:

'it's impossible for this body to be already “prepared” for him. '

It is written:

Mat 19:26 Christ having earnestly beheld, said to them, `With men this is impossible, but with Yahweh all things are possible.'

There are three threads on this subject, you chose which one you would like to continue in.

blessings and love

[Not3in1]

All of the threads are related.

Of course all is possible with God. However, that being said, God also has purpose and specific plans. Just because certain theories want Jesus to be preexistent doesn't mean that he is. Scripture is vary vague on these issues. Conception is not a vague teaching.

[Not3in1]

I prefer the conception thread, myself. But I know Nick likes the Monogenes and he started the Genno (sp) thread. So….I'm fine in whatever everyone decides. I'm only happy to be discussing this topic as it is my favorite, and I feel, nearly the most important on discovering who and what Jesus is.

Happy weekend (our camping trip fell through).

[olive]

Hey 31,
You write:
'Conception is not a vague teaching. '

In secular terms I agree, but we are talking about the Son of Yah, so secular cannot even come in to play here, do you not agree ?

Sorry, about your trip, father willing your next one will go as planned.

much love

[olive]

Pray all is well w/ Nick.

[Not3in1]

God chose conception to bring his Son into the world to show us something? What?

Otherwise, God could have had Jesus “just appear” or by means of another way. Why was “conception” as his enterance so important?

[NickHassan]

Hi,
Adam was the first human son of God.
Christ is the second Adam.

1Cor 15
“45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit

46Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. “

He was not but became a quickening spirit-the source to men given by God through whom men can find the fountain springing up to eternal life. Adam was the first man. Christ is called the second. Adam was unique in being God's firstborn and the second son does not have to be formed in exactly the same way. If God says he is man he is man no matter if his origins are, unlike ours, from everlasting.

[Not3in1]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 27 2007,19:52)

Hi, Adam was the first human son of God. Christ is the second Adam. Adam was unique in being God's firstborn and the second son does not have to be formed in exactly the same way.

Was Adam God's firstborn? Where does it say that? Thanks.

[NickHassan]

Hi Not3,
There were other sons before Adam, and Christ is the firstborn.
Were there other human sons before Adam?
No Adam is the firstborn human son.

Lk 3
” 36Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

37Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,

38Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.”

[Not3in1]

It does not say that Adam was the firstborn of God because that is reserved soley for the Son of God who is the Christ.

Firstborn is reserved for Jesus because being born of God is the greatest message to us that God could ever send.

1 John 4:9
This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him.”

[NickHassan]

Hi not3,
The same is used of Israel
“Exodus 4:22
And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

Being the monogenes son begotten of God alone defines the glory of Christ.

[Not3in1]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 28 2007,08:33)

Hi not3, The same is used of Israel “Exodus 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: Being the monogenes son begotten of God alone defines the glory of Christ.

No where is Israel said to be begotten though, right? Is there a difference, then, between Israel being the firstborn and Jesus being the firstborn? I would think there would have to be.

[Not3in1]

Actually, I just read the passage and God then likens his firstborn of Israel to the firstborn son of Pharaoh. Hmmm? I wonder what this means?

[NickHassan]

Hi not3,
The firstborn son is the monogenes son.
That son was sent into the world.[1Jn4]

[Not3in1]

Nick, please tell me what is wrong with what I believe…..

I've been wrong before (the Trinity); I'm not closed to being wrong again. Why can't I believe that Jesus is the literal Son of God and he had his beginning at conception? Thanks.

[NickHassan]

Hi not3,
Because it denies his glorious origins.

Jn 1
YLT
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;

2this one was in the beginning with God;

3all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened.

4In him was life, and the life was the light of men,

5and the light in the darkness did shine, and the darkness did not perceive it.

6There came a man — having been sent from God — whose name [is] John,

7this one came for testimony, that he might testify about the Light, that all might believe through him;

8that one was not the Light, but — that he might testify about the Light.

9He was the true Light, which doth enlighten every man, coming to the world;

10in the world he was, and the world through him was made, and the world did not know him:

11to his own things he came, and his own people did not receive him;

12but as many as did receive him to them he gave authority to become sons of God — to those believing in his name,

13who — not of blood nor of a will of flesh, nor of a will of man but — of God were begotten.

14And the Word became flesh, and did tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full of grace and truth.

15John doth testify concerning him, and hath cried, saying, `This was he of whom I said, He who after me is coming, hath come before me, for he was before me;'

16and out of his fulness did we all receive, and grace over-against grace;

17for the law through Moses was given, the grace and the truth through Jesus Christ did come;

18God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father — he did declare.

[Not3in1]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 28 2007,12:51)

Hi not3, Because it denies his glorious origins.

Jesus is the Son of God. God is the source of Jesus. I do not deny this.

In fact, I dare boast that I affirm Jesus' glorious origins more than other beliefs. I believe that Jesus literally “came from” the Ancient of Days himself – a chip of the old block!

[NickHassan]

Hi not3,
You forget Mary.
Was God exulting in Ps 2 about the conception?
Should He not rather have said.
“today WE have begotten you”
if that was the case?

[Not3in1]

The very word “beget” is to produce offspring. God would not confuse us, would he? Of course he did not produce offspring without Mary.

In Ps 2 is speaking of what will be……did these things happen in heaven before Jesus was born on earth? No. They are a future fortelling of what will be his as God's Son. Therefore, the “begetting” is also in the future.

[Author]

Posts