Does god procreate?

[terraricca]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 19 2010,16:15)

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 18 2010,16:53) Gene;1;1 says;Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. this is before God start to transform the earth into a living place for men. like i have said many times before ,WJ you only see what you want to see and it is not the truth of God. Pierre Pierre And you never have anything good to say do you? But since you want to nose in, then tell me how my statement does not match Gen 1:1? Did “day one” come after the beginning or not? “IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH No mention of days there, ah but we do find days after the beginning in Gen 1:5. If all you can do is critisize then don't say anything. There is no fruit coming out of your mouth. I asked you this once before, do you have the Spirit of God in you? Because the Spirit of God does not run around accusing the brethren and it seems that is all you do. WJ

WJ
[QUOTEThere is no fruit coming out of your mouth. I asked you this once before, do you have the Spirit of God in you? Because the Spirit of God does not run around accusing the brethren and it seems that is all you do.
][/QUOTE]

first lets be clear i am not your brother in your faith,

we have two different roads.

BUT YOU RIGHT IN WHAT YOU SAY IN GEN;1;1
AND FOR THAT I APOLOGIES ,;IT IS TRUE THAT JESUS WAS THERE IN BEGINNING OF CREATION SO John 1;1 IS ALSO TRUE
AND MANY OTHER SCRIPTURES BUT NOT THE TRINITY.

Pierre

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 19 2010,04:46)

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: “though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool”. Isa 1:18

Hi Keith,

The way I understand it, our sins have been washed in the blood of the Lamb – someone other than God by the way. If the Lamb took on our sins, then he came into contact with sin, right?

Or am I mistaken?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Kathi:

Quote

Hi Mike, The first offshoot of the first tree is not a part of the group of the offshoots of the bushes.  All offshoots are not equal

But scripture clearly says it is…..believe what you want.  I agree that all other trees are not even or equal.  God is the biggest tree.  Jesus is the second biggest tree, but make no mistake, he IS a separate tree, not a branch of the first one.
And all other trees fall in somewhere below the first two at different levels.  ALL of the trees came FROM the first tree in one way or another, so ALL of the trees are part of the group of “trees that came FROM the first tree”.

Kathi:

Quote

Also, do you remember the story of Abraham and the conversation we had about one of the three 'men' was the Son as YHVH?

Yeah….and something I posted to the Professor got me thinking about that again.  I'll have to take a closer look because God clearly told Moses that He was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob….BUT they never knew him by that name.  They didn't know the Most High God by His personal name, so they couldn't literally be calling ANY angel “YHVH”.  But Moses, who did know God's personal name wrote it as if they DID know it.    Something to think about and study more deeply eh?

Kathi:

Quote

AND I told you so long ago now, that I thought the Son was the 'arm' of the Lord that lead the people out of Egypt,

Do you think Jesus was an appendage of his God?  Or is he his own being?  Cyrus was also “the arm of God”, but he was a man, right?

Kathi:

Quote

The sin was put on the son of man as pertaining to the 'flesh.'

But you maintain that Jesus shares God's “substance” always, right?  Did the sin just touch the “non-God-substance” part of Jesus?  This is Bod's point, and I think a good one, but he has a thread about it called “Thank you Francis”.  I'd like to see you and WJ over there and see if Bod, who is much more intelligent than me, can defend his logic.

I'm sure it will just come to WJ and you saying that the sin only touched the “flesh” part of Jesus, not his “Godly substance” part…..because that's the explanation that fits best into your doctrines.

Kathi:

Quote

Your turn to chew…

Not really.  My “eat from ONLY one tree” analogy summed it up clear enough.  You have proven that, given the choice, you will go against God's direct command and Jesus' reminder and still eat of fruit from another tree.  I know you do it out of love for Jesus.  I know you think it actually shows more love to God to also worship His Son.  It comes from human reasoning and from a good place in your heart.  But consider how God rewarded King Saul for using his “human reasoning” instead of following God's direct commands.

1 Samuel 15 NIV
3 [God said]Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' ”

9 But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed.

10 Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel: 11 “I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.”

Saul thought it out with his own human reasoning and decided that even though God commanded one thing, it would be alright to do something different.  Saul might have even thought, “Well God won't mind if we don't kill these harmless animals that He Himself created….after all, we killed all those things that God thought were 'bad'.  Sparing these animals could even be considered as 'honoring' our God, even though He said to totally destroy everything.”

I can't say that's what Saul was thinking, but I know that's how you try to rationalize and justify not obeying God's direct command. Something to think about.

peace and love,
mike

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2010,19:15)

Kathi: Quote Hi Mike, The first offshoot of the first tree is not a part of the group of the offshoots of the bushes.  All offshoots are not equal   But scripture clearly says it is…..believe what you want.  I agree that all other trees are not even or equal.  God is the biggest tree.  Jesus is the second biggest tree, but make no mistake, he IS a separate tree, not a branch of the first one. And all other trees fall in somewhere below the first two at different levels.  ALL of the trees came FROM the first tree in one way or another, so ALL of the trees are part of the group of “trees that came FROM the first tree”. Kathi: Quote Also, do you remember the story of Abraham and the conversation we had about one of the three 'men' was the Son as YHVH? Yeah….and something I posted to the Professor got me thinking about that again.  I'll have to take a closer look because God clearly told Moses that He was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob….BUT they never knew him by that name.  They didn't know the Most High God by His personal name, so they couldn't literally be calling ANY angel “YHVH”.  But Moses, who did know God's personal name wrote it as if they DID know it.    Something to think about and study more deeply eh? Kathi: Quote AND I told you so long ago now, that I thought the Son was the 'arm' of the Lord that lead the people out of Egypt, Do you think Jesus was an appendage of his God?  Or is he his own being?  Cyrus was also “the arm of God”, but he was a man, right? Kathi: Quote The sin was put on the son of man as pertaining to the 'flesh.'   But you maintain that Jesus shares God's “substance” always, right?  Did the sin just touch the “non-God-substance” part of Jesus?  This is Bod's point, and I think a good one, but he has a thread about it called “Thank you Francis”.  I'd like to see you and WJ over there and see if Bod, who is much more intelligent than me, can defend his logic. I'm sure it will just come to WJ and you saying that the sin only touched the “flesh” part of Jesus, not his “Godly substance” part…..because that's the explanation that fits best into your doctrines. Kathi: Quote Your turn to chew… Not really.  My “eat from ONLY one tree” analogy summed it up clear enough.  You have proven that, given the choice, you will go against God's direct command and Jesus' reminder and still eat of fruit from another tree.  I know you do it out of love for Jesus.  I know you think it actually shows more love to God to also worship His Son.  It comes from human reasoning and from a good place in your heart.  But consider how God rewarded King Saul for using his “human reasoning” instead of following God's direct commands. 1 Samuel 15 NIV 3 [God said]Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' ” 9 But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed. 10 Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel: 11 “I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Saul thought it out with his own human reasoning and decided that even though God commanded one thing, it would be alright to do something different.  Saul might have even thought, “Well God won't mind if we don't kill these harmless animals that He Himself created….after all, we killed all those things that God thought were 'bad'.  Sparing these animals could even be considered as 'honoring' our God, even though He said to totally destroy everything.” I can't say that's what Saul was thinking, but I know that's how you try to rationalize and justify not obeying God's direct command.  Something to think about. peace and love, mike

Hi Mike,
Look at this quote of yours:

Quote

By the way, I enjoyed your picture of the ONE palm tree with 5 trunks. I'll bet this picture was taken at an Arizona golf course or park. Despite what the caption says about it being unique, they grow like that all over down here……but it's still ONE tree.

There you call the offshoots “trunks” and now you insist calling the offshoot a “branch.” It is like you want to purposely not understand this analogy. The offshoot is a trunk with branches, leaves and fruit on the tree I am picturing. It is not a branch with leaves and fruit but a trunk with branches, plural, etc.

So, please don't change my words from trunk to branch because that paints an incorrect picture of my presentation. Also, don't replace bushes for other trees. Creation isn't just a bunch of more Gods, creation is a completely different type than God.

He is the firstborn of God of all those born of God, of all creation. He is also the only one that was originally born of God, the others come by a rebirth.

You see the Son as a separate tree but only sin can separate us from God. The Son is perfectly sinless. He bore our sins in His body of flesh, not in His spirit and they were our sins, not His.

Regarding the Abraham story, I had mentioned the verse about Abraham not knowing the Most High God's personal name but He uses it anyway. Of course, I understand that the Son is being called YHVH in the story and there are two that are YHVH.

Notice two YHVH's:

Gen 19:24
24 Then the Lord (YHVH) rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord (YHVH) out of heaven,
NASU

Going back to the tree with another tree shooting out of it…

Here is a picture of a Joshua tree with another tree growing out of it:

http://www.fotosearch.com/IDX101/is687rf-00000063-001/

When you look at the picture you can call that a Joshua tree, you can
also call the tree growing out of the parent tree a Joshua tree, right? Same name but used in a different context. If you just saw a close up of that picture, not showing the one common trunk, you might think that was two completely separate trees but in the bigger picture, you can see that one tree is growing out of the other. It is just funny that the tree is named 'Joshua' which is also Yeshua, or Jehovah saves.

Quote

Do you think Jesus was an appendage of his God?  Or is he his own being?  Cyrus was also “the arm of God”, but he was a man, right?

Yes, Cyrus was a man but the Son as the Arm was an offspring and one with His Father, not in being the Father but in being the Son, as in the Joshua tree.

Quote

You have proven that, given the choice, you will go against God's direct command and Jesus' reminder and still eat of fruit from another tree.

Again, your perspective of two separate trees compared to my perspective of one tree with an offshoot. The same fruit comes from the main trunk that comes from the offshoot and together they are one tree.

It seems that you are not trying to understand, Mike. You can't even admit that you can see my point of view. Why is that? Just the fact that you have changed the word from trunk to branch and tree to bush is telling that you are not wanting to show understanding. It appears that way to me anyway, Mike. In other words, your view is not the only view possible and until you realize that you will not be able to see another view of understanding.

Maybe instead of showing me the treatment of Saul, Jesus would handle my understanding more like Peter and say that “Matt 16:17
“Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.”
NASU

Something to think about

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 19 2010,12:41)

It seems that you are not trying to understand, Mike.  You can't even admit that you can see my point of view.  Why is that?  Just the fact that you have changed the word from trunk to branch and tree to bush is telling that you are not wanting to show understanding.  It appears that way to me anyway, Mike.  In other words, your view is not the only view possible and until you realize that you will not be able to see another view of understanding.

Oh I understand alright.  I understand that you will bend over backwards to deny that Jesus is the first creation of his God.  I'm sorry Kathi, but created OR begotten (scripture says both), Jesus is a brand new creature that is NOT the God who created him.  My son is like me, but he is a brand new creature, not another “trunk” growing out of my “trunk”.

And my view isn't the only possible one, but it is the scriptural one.  I'll obey the command of my God to worship and serve Him only.  I'll keep in mind the reminder of this command that His Son gave us.  You……..well, you can do whatever you want.  You don't have answer to me now OR in the end, but to our God.  I guess you'll find out then if your human reasoning that it would be better to worship two against God's command to only worship One was sound reasoning or not.

Maybe He'll take into consideration that you had good human intentions for breaking His explicite command by reasoning it would actually somehow bring Him more honor by disregarding His instructions.  Who knows?

As for me, someone who reads the scriptures and who also believes he is led by God's Spirit – I will just stick with what God commanded.

peace and love,
mike

[Lightenup]

Hi Mike,
I don't see Ignatius calling the Son a creation or Polycarp either. Why do you think that is?

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 19 2010,03:42)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 19 2010,16:15) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 18 2010,16:53) Gene;1;1 says;Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. this is before God start to transform the earth into a living place for men. like i have said many times before ,WJ you only see what you want to see and it is not the truth of God. Pierre Pierre And you never have anything good to say do you? But since you want to nose in, then tell me how my statement does not match Gen 1:1? Did “day one” come after the beginning or not? “IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH No mention of days there, ah but we do find days after the beginning in Gen 1:5. If all you can do is critisize then don't say anything. There is no fruit coming out of your mouth. I asked you this once before, do you have the Spirit of God in you? Because the Spirit of God does not run around accusing the brethren and it seems that is all you do. WJ WJ [QUOTEThere is no fruit coming out of your mouth. I asked you this once before, do you have the Spirit of God in you? Because the Spirit of God does not run around accusing the brethren and it seems that is all you do. ][/QUOTE] first lets be clear i am not your brother in your faith, we have two different roads. BUT YOU RIGHT IN WHAT YOU SAY IN GEN;1;1 AND FOR THAT I APOLOGIES ,;IT IS TRUE THAT JESUS WAS THERE IN BEGINNING OF CREATION SO John 1;1 IS ALSO TRUE AND MANY OTHER SCRIPTURES BUT NOT THE TRINITY. Pierre

Terra rica,

1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
1 John 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

Becareful how far you go, remember no matter what you believe,
Above everything else is Love,

1 Corinthinas 13:13

Con mucho amor,

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 19 2010,03:42)

Hi Keith and Mike, I see that you are discussing 'today' again.  I would like to mention that somewhere outside of our realm there is no night, just day as far as I can tell. Rev 21:23-25 23 And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb. 24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. 25 In the daytime (for there will be no night there) its gates will never be closed; NASU During eternity there was God's illumination and no darkness…always daytime.  In the beginning, darkness covered the earth and that was in a different realm.  The beginning of the first day in Genesis was in relation to the realm of our earth and doesn't necessarily imply there was no daytime in any other realm unless you think that God did not have glory which illuminated before the ages of the earth. imo

I think Lu,
That there will be no daytime.
I made a reference to this study not to long ago.
but the point is that If God's light were to illumniate everything,
than it would mean that even in your body you will have light, and even when your facing God, you will have light shininng on your back.

Than means we will live in clarity without the need of a alternate lightsource to illumniate details of something more.

In Genesis,
in my “when did the devil fall” thread, i stated that the only thing that is meant by darkness is that there was a Lack of light. somethign that that i wad void, and empty, just a lack of whats needed to sustain life basically.

Just some food for thought

[terraricca]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Sep. 20 2010,01:56)

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 19 2010,03:42) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 19 2010,16:15) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 18 2010,16:53) Gene;1;1 says;Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. this is before God start to transform the earth into a living place for men. like i have said many times before ,WJ you only see what you want to see and it is not the truth of God. Pierre Pierre And you never have anything good to say do you? But since you want to nose in, then tell me how my statement does not match Gen 1:1? Did “day one” come after the beginning or not? “IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH No mention of days there, ah but we do find days after the beginning in Gen 1:5. If all you can do is critisize then don't say anything. There is no fruit coming out of your mouth. I asked you this once before, do you have the Spirit of God in you? Because the Spirit of God does not run around accusing the brethren and it seems that is all you do. WJ WJ [QUOTEThere is no fruit coming out of your mouth. I asked you this once before, do you have the Spirit of God in you? Because the Spirit of God does not run around accusing the brethren and it seems that is all you do. ] first lets be clear i am not your brother in your faith, we have two different roads. BUT YOU RIGHT IN WHAT YOU SAY IN GEN;1;1 AND FOR THAT I APOLOGIES ,;IT IS TRUE THAT JESUS WAS THERE IN BEGINNING OF CREATION SO John 1;1 IS ALSO TRUE AND MANY OTHER SCRIPTURES BUT NOT THE TRINITY. Pierre[/quote] Terra rica, 1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. 1 John 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? Becareful how far you go, remember no matter what you believe, Above everything else is Love, 1 Corinthinas 13:13 Con mucho amor,

SF

thanks ,but those things were said to true believers ,

Jas 4:8 Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.

Rev 9:20 The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood—idols that cannot see or hear or walk.

1Ti 5:22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.

Gal 2:9 James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to….

Jn 10:12 The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it.
Jn 10:13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep

1Ti 6:3 If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching,
Tit 2:12 It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age,
1Jn 2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.

Hab 2:18 “Of what value is an idol, since a man has carved it?
Or an image that teaches lies?
For he who makes it trusts in his own creation;
he makes idols that cannot speak.

Ps 25:9 He guides the humble in what is right
and teaches them his way..

it is my responsibility to pick my brothers in the faith ,if i find any,
remember they will also reflect on you,what they believe or do not believe,guilty by association in a way,
if you do not keep you separated from the false teachers then you become part of them.

THE LOVE OF GOD ,IS THE LOVE FOR TRUTH.

Pierre

[Lightenup]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Sep. 19 2010,03:04)

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 19 2010,03:42) Hi Keith and Mike, I see that you are discussing 'today' again.  I would like to mention that somewhere outside of our realm there is no night, just day as far as I can tell. Rev 21:23-25 23 And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb. 24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. 25 In the daytime (for there will be no night there) its gates will never be closed; NASU During eternity there was God's illumination and no darkness…always daytime.  In the beginning, darkness covered the earth and that was in a different realm.  The beginning of the first day in Genesis was in relation to the realm of our earth and doesn't necessarily imply there was no daytime in any other realm unless you think that God did not have glory which illuminated before the ages of the earth. imo I think Lu, That there will be no daytime. I made a reference to this study not to long ago. but the point is that If God's light were to illumniate everything, than it would mean that even in your body you will have light, and even when your facing God, you will have light shininng on your back. Than means we will live in clarity without the need of a alternate lightsource to illumniate details of something more. In Genesis, in my “when did the devil fall” thread, i stated that the only thing that is meant by darkness is that there was a Lack of light.  somethign that that i wad void, and empty, just a lack of whats needed to sustain life basically. Just some food for thought

Hi Dennison,
Revelations mentions “in the daytime” so I don't think we can say there will be no daytime. God will be the light source and the Lamb will be our lamp. There will be no sun as you say, however daytime will exist and exist always.

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2010,22:36)

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 19 2010,12:41) It seems that you are not trying to understand, Mike.  You can't even admit that you can see my point of view.  Why is that?  Just the fact that you have changed the word from trunk to branch and tree to bush is telling that you are not wanting to show understanding.  It appears that way to me anyway, Mike.  In other words, your view is not the only view possible and until you realize that you will not be able to see another view of understanding. Oh I understand alright.  I understand that you will bend over backwards to deny that Jesus is the first creation of his God.  I'm sorry Kathi, but created OR begotten (scripture says both), Jesus is a brand new creature that is NOT the God who created him.  My son is like me, but he is a brand new creature, not another “trunk” growing out of my “trunk”. And my view isn't the only possible one, but it is the scriptural one.  I'll obey the command of my God to worship and serve Him only.  I'll keep in mind the reminder of this command that His Son gave us.  You……..well, you can do whatever you want.  You don't have answer to me now OR in the end, but to our God.  I guess you'll find out then if your human reasoning that it would be better to worship two against God's command to only worship One was sound reasoning or not. Maybe He'll take into consideration that you had good human intentions for breaking His explicite command by reasoning it would actually somehow bring Him more honor by disregarding His instructions.  Who knows? As for me, someone who reads the scriptures and who also believes he is led by God's Spirit – I will just stick with what God commanded. peace and love, mike

Thanks for your hope of possible 'mercy' Mike. You may find that you have a bad case of tunnel vision and please realize that you are developing a new religion from the earliest church fathers…we will be held responsible for what we teach others.

Remember, you son cannot forgive someone of their sins that they committed against you but God's only Son can forgive those who sin against His Father.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 19 2010,16:36)

Hi Mike, I don't see Ignatius calling the Son a creation or Polycarp either.  Why do you think that is?

But you DO see Eusebius calling him a creature…….so what's your point?  I don't really care what your early church fathers say Kathi.  WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE SAY?

mike

[mikeboll64]

And what do you think Ignatius means by this?

Jesus Christ His only-begotten Son, and “the first-born of every creature,” but of the seed of David according to the flesh.

I take it to mean Jesus is the first creature that was ever created……BUT then again OF the seed of David ACCORDING TO THE FLESH.

Kathi, there is no reason to think otherwise EXCEPT for trinitarians who don't want Jesus to have a beginning and for you, who somehow have a problem with Jesus being created even though scripture says he was.  You guys purposely misinterpret what Col 1:15 and Rev 3:14 say in order to fill the needs of your own doctrines.

Eusebius wrote:

…..Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father,

Apparently these guys both believed that “firstborn of every creature” meant exactly what it says…….that Jesus was the creature that was born before any other creature.  Then add that to Rev 3:14 where Jesus says he is the “beginning of the creation by God”.

I don't know what else to say Kathi.  Scripture very plainly says that Jesus is part of the creation by his God.  Scripture very plainly tells us to worship One person ONLY.

If you want to follow your own human thoughts over scripture, that's up to you.  Do whatever you want.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Keith:

Quote

Mike I did check and the English translation of the LXX and the Masoretic text have it the same.

Keith, do you agree that both the original Hebrew and the LXX use the word “day” in the text?

You are missing the whole point here.  Is it over your head, or are you just pretending it is?  

Jesus' BEGINNING was from DAYS of eternity. (LXX)
Jesus' GOINGS FORTH were from DAYS of antquity.  (Hebrew)

Now I agree with you that “DAYS” as we humans understand them were created by our God through His Son, so HOW COULD THERE BE “DAYS” BEFORE GOD CREATED THEM THROUGH HIS SON?

Do you understand what I'm saying?  The scripture doesn't say Jesus' beginning/goings forth were from BEFORE days of eternity/antquity right?

So can we assume that the word “day” was just a “figure of speech” since “days” didn't exist before Jesus did?

Can we assume that “days” meant “a particular time period” before God even created literal “days” as we understand them?

mike

[Lightenup]

Mike,
You know that you and Eusebius aren't in agreement.  He worships the Son as God and he says that the Father and the Son are the creator.  If anyone calls the Son a creature and then worships Him and thinks of Him as the creator with the Father, it is more likely with the idea of His being a person, not as a created being.  What does begotten, not created mean to you anyway, Mike?

You might look at the quotes in the “other writings” section under the firstborn of all creation thread and see if those understandings line up with what you teach.

My opinion of the term 'firstborn' is that no one can be both firstborn and first created because to be a firstborn implies a birth/begetting from another resulting in an offspring of like kind and first created implies being the first of a new kind, not an offspring, with a different and inferior nature from the creator.

Is your son a creature like you or are you two different types of creatures?

The Son of God is the exact representation of the Father's nature, not a close representation of the Father' nature.

[Lightenup]

Mike,
Athanasius pretty well captures the meaning of firstborn of all creation:

Quote

3. He is then by nature an Offspring, perfect from the Perfect, begotten before all the hills (Prov. viii. 25), that is before every rational and intelligent essence, as Paul also in another place calls Him ‘first-born of all creation’ (Col. i. 15). But by calling Him First-born, He shews that He is not a Creature, but Offspring of the Father. For it would be inconsistent with His deity for Him to be called a creature. For all things were created by the Father through the Son, but the Son alone was eternally begotten from the Father, whence God the Word is ‘first-born of all creation,’ unchangeable from unchangeable.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.x.ii.html

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 19 2010,13:20)

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 19 2010,16:36) Hi Mike, I don't see Ignatius calling the Son a creation or Polycarp either.  Why do you think that is? But you DO see Eusebius calling him a creature…….so what's your point?  I don't really care what your early church fathers say Kathi.  WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE SAY? mike

Mike,
I am sure your setting aside so carelessly what the early church fathers wrote is not pleasing to God if they were His laborers and worked for Him. Whether they were His laborers is what we need the Spirit to discern. If they were and we do not receive them, I do believe this is Christ's attitude towards that:

Quote

Luke 10:1-11 10 Now after this the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them in pairs ahead of Him to every city and place where He Himself was going to come. 2 And He was saying to them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest. 3 “Go; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. 4 “Carry no money belt, no bag, no shoes; and greet no one on the way. 5 “Whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace be to this house.' 6 “If a man of peace is there, your peace will rest on him; but if not, it will return to you. 7 “Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house. 8 “Whatever city you enter and they receive you, eat what is set before you; 9 and heal those in it who are sick, and say to them, 'The kingdom of God has come near to you.' 10 “But whatever city you enter and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, 11 'Even the dust of your city which clings to our feet we wipe off in protest against you; yet be sure of this, that the kingdom of God has come near.' NASU

Quote

Luke 10:17-24 17 The seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.” 18 And He said to them, “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning. 19 “Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will injure you. 20 “Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven.” 21 At that very time He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said, “I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. 22 “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” 23 Turning to the disciples, He said privately, “Blessed are the eyes which see the things you see, 24 for I say to you, that many prophets and kings wished to see the things which you see, and did not see them, and to hear the things which you hear, and did not hear them.” NASU

Now, Mike, can you tell me the names of the seventy others that were appointed by the Lord? Could these be considered the earliest church fathers together with the original disciples? Do you think they wrote letters and taught what they were taught by the Lord Himself? Should we not care about what they wrote? The ones that cared what the seventy were representing got healed and taught truth, the ones that didn't care, the seventy were told to protest against them.

Do you want to care what the early christians taught or not? It is definitely scriptural that more than the writers of the Bible were sent out by Jesus and had been given truth which the prophets and kings did not get to see or hear.

[mikeboll64]

Kathi:

Quote

Mike, You know that you and Eusebius aren't in agreement.  He worships the Son as God and he says that the Father and the Son are the creator.

So what you meant to say is that we aren't in agreement on every single thing he wrote.  And John 1:1 says the Word was god, which I now know means “the Word was a god”, or “mighty one” or “divine being”.  Eusebius, writing in the same Greek language that John wrote in could have just as easliy been saying, “Show reverrence to the Son as 'a mighty one' or as 'a divine being'…… as opposed to the reverrence you would give an earthly king or lord.”

Kathi:

Quote

You might look at the quotes in the “other writings” section under the firstborn of all creation thread and see if those understandings line up with what you teach.

That's okay Kathi.  While I might use those writings to show how certain Greek words might have been understood back then, the minute they start writing something that disagrees with what scripture says, they become useless tools of the Devil.

Kathi:

Quote

My opinion of the term 'firstborn' is that no one can be both firstborn and first created because to be a firstborn implies a birth/begetting from another resulting in an offspring

Then Adam cannot be a son of God, right?  But Luke says he is.  And if a creation can be a son of God, then Jesus can surely be a creation, right?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 20 2010,06:47)

Mike, Athanasius pretty well captures the meaning of firstborn of all creation: Quote 3. He is then by nature an Offspring, perfect from the Perfect, begotten before all the hills (Prov. viii. 25), that is before every rational and intelligent essence, as Paul also in another place calls Him ‘first-born of all creation’ (Col. i. 15). But by calling Him First-born, He shews that He is not a Creature, but Offspring of the Father. For it would be inconsistent with His deity for Him to be called a creature. For all things were created by the Father through the Son, but the Son alone was eternally begotten from the Father, whence God the Word is ‘first-born of all creation,’ unchangeable from unchangeable. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.x.ii.html

So Athanasius decided that the “firstborn” part was to be taken literally, but the “OF all creation” part was not.

Hmmmmm…………

[Lightenup]

Mike,
Eusebius certainly did say that the Son and the Father were the creator so therefore, the Son was not a creation.

you wrote:

Quote

Then Adam cannot be a son of God, right? But Luke says he is. And if a creation can be a son of God, then Jesus can surely be a creation, right?

C'mon Mike, you know that the way Jesus is the Son of God is different than the way men are sons of God. Jesus is the Son of God in a peculiar way and the ONLY SON according to that peculiar way. This automatically puts Him in a category of ONE as far as how His 'sonship' was derived. That should be proof that eliminates Him from any other way the other sons came into 'sonship.'

[Author]

Posts