- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 24 2010,17:07) My purpose is to show you that there is more to their view than what you think and that is the part I quote because I want you to see their other views that contradict yours.
KathiHow?
For Athanasius and others to say that Jesus is “eternally begotten” and “without a beginning” is contradictory to your belief.
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 24 2010,17:08) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 24 2010,15:57) Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 24 2010,15:34) The term 'eternally begotten' is quite an elusive term, don't you think?
KathiYou mean like “God begetting a God” before the ages or time?
WJ
Keith,
How many quotes do I have to show you that say “God OF God” before you will get it?
KathiSo? I can say Keith is “Man of Man”, does that mean that I am not 100% percent man?
WJ
I am reposting what Chrysostom says about how the Father beget another “of Himself, like Himself, except Him not being the Father.”
Quote “And every tongue,” should “confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” That is, that all should say so; and this is glory to the Father. Seest thou how wherever the Son is glorified, the Father is also glorified? Thus too when the Son is dishonored, the Father is dishonored also. If this be so with us, where the difference is great between fathers and sons, much more in respect of God, where there is no difference, doth honor and insult pass on to Him. If the world be subjected to the Son, this is glory to the Father. And so when we say that He is perfect, wanting nothing, and not inferior to the Father, this is glory to the Father, that he begat such a one. This is a great proof of His power also, and goodness, and wisdom, that He begat one no whit inferior, neither in wisdom nor in goodness. When I say that He is wise as the Father, and no whit inferior, this is a proof of the great wisdom of the Father; when I say that He is powerful as the Father, this is a proof of the Father’s power. When I say that He is good as the Father, this is the greatest evidence of His goodness, that He begat such (a Son), in no whit less or inferior to Himself. When I say that He begat Him not inferior in substance but equal, and not of another substance, in this I again wonder at God, His power, and goodness, and wisdom, that He hath manifested to us another, of Himself, such as Himself, except in His not being the Father. Thus whatsoever great things I say of the Son, pass on to the Father. Now if this small and light matter (for it is but a light thing to God’s glory that the world should worship Him) is to the glory of God, how much more so are all those other things? Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 24 2010,17:15) I am reposting what Chrysostom says about how the Father beget another “of Himself, like Himself, except Him not being the Father.” Quote “And every tongue,” should “confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” That is, that all should say so; and this is glory to the Father. Seest thou how wherever the Son is glorified, the Father is also glorified? Thus too when the Son is dishonored, the Father is dishonored also. If this be so with us, where the difference is great between fathers and sons, much more in respect of God, where there is no difference, doth honor and insult pass on to Him. If the world be subjected to the Son, this is glory to the Father. And so when we say that He is perfect, wanting nothing, and not inferior to the Father, this is glory to the Father, that he begat such a one. This is a great proof of His power also, and goodness, and wisdom, that He begat one no whit inferior, neither in wisdom nor in goodness. When I say that He is wise as the Father, and no whit inferior, this is a proof of the great wisdom of the Father; when I say that He is powerful as the Father, this is a proof of the Father’s power. When I say that He is good as the Father, this is the greatest evidence of His goodness, that He begat such (a Son), in no whit less or inferior to Himself. When I say that He begat Him not inferior in substance but equal, and not of another substance, in this I again wonder at God, His power, and goodness, and wisdom, that He hath manifested to us another, of Himself, such as Himself, except in His not being the Father. Thus whatsoever great things I say of the Son, pass on to the Father. Now if this small and light matter (for it is but a light thing to God’s glory that the world should worship Him) is to the glory of God, how much more so are all those other things?
KathiHere is what he believes in context…
St. Chrysostom 347-407
“What then do I say? THAT THIS FIRST “WAS,” APPLIED TO “THE WORD,” IS ONLY INDICATIVE OF HIS ETERNAL BEING, (for “In the beginning,” he saith, “was the Word,”) and that the second “was,” (“and the Word was with God,”) denotes His relative Being. For since to be eternal and without beginning is most peculiar to God, this he puts first; and then, lest any one hearing that He was “in the beginning,” should assert, that He was “unbegotten” also, he immediately remedies this by saying, before he declares what He was, that He was “with God.” AND HE HAS PREVENTED ANY ONE FROM SUPPOSING, “that this “Word” is simply such a one as is either UTTERED προφορικὸν. or CONCEIVED, ἐ νδιάθετον. by the addition, as I beforesaid, of the article, as well as by this second expression. For he does not say, was “in God,” but was “with God”: declaring to us His eternity as to person. ὑ πόστασιν. Then, as he advances, he has more clearly revealed it, by adding, that this “Word” also “was God.” Source
St. Chrysostom 347-407For this, as I before said, he has shown by the term “Word.” As therefore the expression, ““In the beginning was the Word,” shows His Eternity, so “was in the beginning with God,” has declared to us His Co-eternity. For that you may not, when you hear “In the beginning was the Word,” suppose Him to be Eternal, and “yet imagine the life of 17 the Father to differ from His by some interval and longer duration, and so assign a BEGINING to the Only-Begotten, he adds, “was in the beginning with God”; so eternally even as the Father Himself, for the Father was never without the Word, but He was always God with God, yet Each in His proper Person. Source
Do you see Kathi that he believes that Jesus was not concieved but in fact is an “eternal being” with the Father?
Do you see how his interpretation of John 1:1 is in line with mine and the majority of the scholars like AT Robertson?
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 24 2010,17:15) I am reposting what Chrysostom says about how the Father beget another “of Himself, like Himself, except Him not being the Father.” Quote “And every tongue,” should “confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” That is, that all should say so; and this is glory to the Father. Seest thou how wherever the Son is glorified, the Father is also glorified? Thus too when the Son is dishonored, the Father is dishonored also. If this be so with us, where the difference is great between fathers and sons, much more in respect of God, where there is no difference, doth honor and insult pass on to Him. If the world be subjected to the Son, this is glory to the Father. And so when we say that He is perfect, wanting nothing, and not inferior to the Father, this is glory to the Father, that he begat such a one. This is a great proof of His power also, and goodness, and wisdom, that He begat one no whit inferior, neither in wisdom nor in goodness. When I say that He is wise as the Father, and no whit inferior, this is a proof of the great wisdom of the Father; when I say that He is powerful as the Father, this is a proof of the Father’s power. When I say that He is good as the Father, this is the greatest evidence of His goodness, that He begat such (a Son), in no whit less or inferior to Himself. When I say that He begat Him not inferior in substance but equal, and not of another substance, in this I again wonder at God, His power, and goodness, and wisdom, that He hath manifested to us another, of Himself, such as Himself, except in His not being the Father. Thus whatsoever great things I say of the Son, pass on to the Father. Now if this small and light matter (for it is but a light thing to God’s glory that the world should worship Him) is to the glory of God, how much more so are all those other things?
KathiWhen was Jesus “manifest” as another person? Wasn't it hidden until his coming in the flesh? The Trinity doesn't deny Jesus is a seperate person but only that Jesus is “another God”.
Maybe you can find a quote for that.
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 24 2010,17:00) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 24 2010,16:27) Hi All Athanasius opposed the Arius belief that Jesus had a beginning before coming in the flesh.
Opposition to Arianism
Further information: Arian controversy
In about 319, when Athanasius was a deacon, a presbyter named Arius came into a direct conflict with Alexander of Alexandria. It appears that Arius reproached Alexander for what he felt were misguided or heretical teachings being taught by the bishop.[11] Arius’ theological views appear to have been firmly rooted in Alexandrian Christianity, and his Christological views were certainly not radical at all.[12] He embraced a subordinationist Christology (that God did not have a beginning, but the Logos did), heavily influenced by Alexandrian thinkers like Origen,[13] which was a common Christological view in Alexandria at the time.[14] Support for Arius from powerful Bishops like Eusebius of Caesarea[15] and Eusebius of Nicomedia,[16] further illustrate how Arius' subordinationist Christology was shared by other Christians in the Empire. Arius was subsequently excommunicated by Alexander, and he would begin to elicit the support of many bishops who agreed with his position. Athanasius may have accompanied Alexander to the First Council of Nicaea in 325, the council which produced the Nicene Creed and anathematized Arius and his followers. SourceWJ
Arius is about a beginning being made out of nothing. That is not what I am suggesting these church fathers are saying at all. I am saying that He was begotten from that which always existed within the Father.
KathiOk if what yoiu say is true then show me Arius quote. The above says nothing about him having a beginning out of nothing.
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 24 2010,17:01) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 24 2010,16:06) Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 24 2010,15:34) The majority of Christian trinitarians agree with the creeds.
KathiAnd so do I. I have already shown you that I can say that Jesus was begotten from eternity just like we were chosen in him before the foundation of the world.
WJ
Well Keith, if that is what you are saying that is totally not what the church fathers are saying, nor are the creeds saying that.
KathiSo you say. But the early Church Fathers believed in the Trinity, how about you?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 24 2010,17:28) Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 24 2010,17:00) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 24 2010,16:27) Hi All Athanasius opposed the Arius belief that Jesus had a beginning before coming in the flesh.
Opposition to Arianism
Further information: Arian controversy
In about 319, when Athanasius was a deacon, a presbyter named Arius came into a direct conflict with Alexander of Alexandria. It appears that Arius reproached Alexander for what he felt were misguided or heretical teachings being taught by the bishop.[11] Arius’ theological views appear to have been firmly rooted in Alexandrian Christianity, and his Christological views were certainly not radical at all.[12] He embraced a subordinationist Christology (that God did not have a beginning, but the Logos did), heavily influenced by Alexandrian thinkers like Origen,[13] which was a common Christological view in Alexandria at the time.[14] Support for Arius from powerful Bishops like Eusebius of Caesarea[15] and Eusebius of Nicomedia,[16] further illustrate how Arius' subordinationist Christology was shared by other Christians in the Empire. Arius was subsequently excommunicated by Alexander, and he would begin to elicit the support of many bishops who agreed with his position. Athanasius may have accompanied Alexander to the First Council of Nicaea in 325, the council which produced the Nicene Creed and anathematized Arius and his followers. SourceWJ
Arius is about a beginning being made out of nothing. That is not what I am suggesting these church fathers are saying at all. I am saying that He was begotten from that which always existed within the Father.
KathiOk if what yoiu say is true then show me Arius quote. The above says nothing about him having a beginning out of nothing.
WJ
Keith:Quote In explaining his actions against Arius, Alexander of Alexandria wrote a letter to Alexander of Constantinople and Eusebius of Nicomedia (where the emperor was then residing), detailing the errors into which he believed Arius had fallen. According to Alexander, Arius taught:
That God was not always the Father, but that there was a period when he was not the Father; that the Word of God was not from eternity, but was made out of nothing; for that the ever-existing God (‘the I AM’—the eternal One) made him who did not previously exist, out of nothing; wherefore there was a time when he did not exist, inasmuch as the Son is a creature and a work. That he is neither like the Father as it regards his essence, nor is by nature either the Father’s true Word, or true Wisdom, but indeed one of his works and creatures, being erroneously called Word and Wisdom, since he was himself made of God’s own Word and the Wisdom which is in God, whereby God both made all things and him also. Wherefore he is as to his nature mutable and susceptible of change, as all other rational creatures are: hence the Word is alien to and other than the essence of God; and the Father is inexplicable by the Son, and invisible to him, for neither does the Word perfectly and accurately know the Father, neither can he distinctly see him. The Son knows not the nature of his own essence: for he was made on our account, in order that God might create us by him, as by an instrument; nor would he ever have existed, unless God had wished to create us.[41]Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 24 2010,17:30) Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 24 2010,17:01) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 24 2010,16:06) Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 24 2010,15:34) The majority of Christian trinitarians agree with the creeds.
KathiAnd so do I. I have already shown you that I can say that Jesus was begotten from eternity just like we were chosen in him before the foundation of the world.
WJ
Well Keith, if that is what you are saying that is totally not what the church fathers are saying, nor are the creeds saying that.
KathiSo you say. But the early Church Fathers believed in the Trinity, how about you?
WJ
Keith,
I believe in what many of the early church fathers teach, it could be called a trinity in that they worship the Father, Son and Holy Spirit but in their 'trinity' there is one true God, who is the Father, and the Son is OF Him and another of His kind, and the Spirit proceeds from Him and the Son and this is a unity.I don't believe in the trinity that is modern mentioning three persons always existing in one God or the trinity that you believe in.
No where do we find that the Father is in God. No where do we read that the HS is a person.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 24 2010,17:21) Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 24 2010,17:15) I am reposting what Chrysostom says about how the Father beget another “of Himself, like Himself, except Him not being the Father.” Quote “And every tongue,” should “confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” That is, that all should say so; and this is glory to the Father. Seest thou how wherever the Son is glorified, the Father is also glorified? Thus too when the Son is dishonored, the Father is dishonored also. If this be so with us, where the difference is great between fathers and sons, much more in respect of God, where there is no difference, doth honor and insult pass on to Him. If the world be subjected to the Son, this is glory to the Father. And so when we say that He is perfect, wanting nothing, and not inferior to the Father, this is glory to the Father, that he begat such a one. This is a great proof of His power also, and goodness, and wisdom, that He begat one no whit inferior, neither in wisdom nor in goodness. When I say that He is wise as the Father, and no whit inferior, this is a proof of the great wisdom of the Father; when I say that He is powerful as the Father, this is a proof of the Father’s power. When I say that He is good as the Father, this is the greatest evidence of His goodness, that He begat such (a Son), in no whit less or inferior to Himself. When I say that He begat Him not inferior in substance but equal, and not of another substance, in this I again wonder at God, His power, and goodness, and wisdom, that He hath manifested to us another, of Himself, such as Himself, except in His not being the Father. Thus whatsoever great things I say of the Son, pass on to the Father. Now if this small and light matter (for it is but a light thing to God’s glory that the world should worship Him) is to the glory of God, how much more so are all those other things?
KathiHere is what he believes in context…
St. Chrysostom 347-407
“What then do I say? THAT THIS FIRST “WAS,” APPLIED TO “THE WORD,” IS ONLY INDICATIVE OF HIS ETERNAL BEING, (for “In the beginning,” he saith, “was the Word,”) and that the second “was,” (“and the Word was with God,”) denotes His relative Being. For since to be eternal and without beginning is most peculiar to God, this he puts first; and then, lest any one hearing that He was “in the beginning,” should assert, that He was “unbegotten” also, he immediately remedies this by saying, before he declares what He was, that He was “with God.” AND HE HAS PREVENTED ANY ONE FROM SUPPOSING, “that this “Word” is simply such a one as is either UTTERED προφορικὸν. or CONCEIVED, ἐ νδιάθετον. by the addition, as I beforesaid, of the article, as well as by this second expression. For he does not say, was “in God,” but was “with God”: declaring to us His eternity as to person. ὑ πόστασιν. Then, as he advances, he has more clearly revealed it, by adding, that this “Word” also “was God.” Source
St. Chrysostom 347-407For this, as I before said, he has shown by the term “Word.” As therefore the expression, ““In the beginning was the Word,” shows His Eternity, so “was in the beginning with God,” has declared to us His Co-eternity. For that you may not, when you hear “In the beginning was the Word,” suppose Him to be Eternal, and “yet imagine the life of 17 the Father to differ from His by some interval and longer duration, and so assign a BEGINING to the Only-Begotten, he adds, “was in the beginning with God”; so eternally even as the Father Himself, for the Father was never without the Word, but He was always God with God, yet Each in His proper Person. Source
Do you see Kathi that he believes that Jesus was not concieved but in fact is an “eternal being” with the Father?
Do you see how his interpretation of John 1:1 is in line with mine and the majority of the scholars like AT Robertson?
WJ
Keith,
Here the writer is describing a word which doesn't mean what we usually think of when we think of a word. We can conceive, in our mind, a new thought and then express that which was conceived…we utter the word (speak it). That is what the writer was talking about, not conceiving an offspring. The point is the term 'word' is not something that is uttered or conceived in our mind like we would normally think of as a word.He is saying that the Father was never without the word and I describe the same thing when I say the lake is never without the water that fills the river.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 24 2010,17:23) Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 24 2010,17:15) I am reposting what Chrysostom says about how the Father beget another “of Himself, like Himself, except Him not being the Father.” Quote “And every tongue,” should “confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” That is, that all should say so; and this is glory to the Father. Seest thou how wherever the Son is glorified, the Father is also glorified? Thus too when the Son is dishonored, the Father is dishonored also. If this be so with us, where the difference is great between fathers and sons, much more in respect of God, where there is no difference, doth honor and insult pass on to Him. If the world be subjected to the Son, this is glory to the Father. And so when we say that He is perfect, wanting nothing, and not inferior to the Father, this is glory to the Father, that he begat such a one. This is a great proof of His power also, and goodness, and wisdom, that He begat one no whit inferior, neither in wisdom nor in goodness. When I say that He is wise as the Father, and no whit inferior, this is a proof of the great wisdom of the Father; when I say that He is powerful as the Father, this is a proof of the Father’s power. When I say that He is good as the Father, this is the greatest evidence of His goodness, that He begat such (a Son), in no whit less or inferior to Himself. When I say that He begat Him not inferior in substance but equal, and not of another substance, in this I again wonder at God, His power, and goodness, and wisdom, that He hath manifested to us another, of Himself, such as Himself, except in His not being the Father. Thus whatsoever great things I say of the Son, pass on to the Father. Now if this small and light matter (for it is but a light thing to God’s glory that the world should worship Him) is to the glory of God, how much more so are all those other things?
KathiWhen was Jesus “manifest” as another person? Wasn't it hidden until his coming in the flesh? The Trinity doesn't deny Jesus is a seperate person but only that Jesus is “another God”.
Maybe you can find a quote for that.
WJ
Keith,
The Son was likely the one that was talking to Abraham, the one that showed up to Joshua in Jericho, the one that walked with Shadrach, Mishak, and Abednego in the fiery furnace, etc. The relationship of “Son” and that He was to be the Messiah is what was hidden as well as Him becoming flesh.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 24 2010,17:12) Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 24 2010,17:07) My purpose is to show you that there is more to their view than what you think and that is the part I quote because I want you to see their other views that contradict yours.
KathiHow?
For Athanasius and others to say that Jesus is “eternally begotten” and “without a beginning” is contradictory to your belief.
WJ
Keith,
They are referring to His nature as being eternal and so am I…the water was ALWAYS in the lake that pours out into a river.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 24 2010,17:09) Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 24 2010,16:57) Keith,
Are you more comfortable if I said that begotten means He came FROM the Father as an offspring as opposed to being self-existent?Do you like those words better?
KathiIt doesn't matter how you word it. I you believe at any point Jesus had a beginning before he came in the flesh, then you are in the Arian camp.
Just think about it Kathi. You say that the Son is exactly like his Father in every way except age.
If that is true then Jesus would be an “infinite being” that had a beginnning.
And if Jesus is not infinite in power and Love and knowledge like the Father then he is not exactly like the Father for the Father is infinite, right?
How can infinite bring birth to infinite?
WJ
He didn't have a beginning in nature, He had a beginning in relationship. He who once was within God came to be along side God also (before the ages).You think that He became a Son and that is saying that you think as a Son, He had a beginning, right? And you place that beginning when He was conceived in Mary, right? Therefore, you think the Son had a beginning.
We are both saying that the Son had a beginning as in being the Son but that which He was before existed from eternity. I just think that He was the divine Son before the ages literally and you think that started in Mary.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 24 2010,17:14) Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 24 2010,17:08) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 24 2010,15:57) Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 24 2010,15:34) The term 'eternally begotten' is quite an elusive term, don't you think?
KathiYou mean like “God begetting a God” before the ages or time?
WJ
Keith,
How many quotes do I have to show you that say “God OF God” before you will get it?
KathiSo? I can say Keith is “Man of Man”, does that mean that I am not 100% percent man?
WJ
Yes Keith you would be 100% man from another man.The Son is 100% God from another God. The Son is the God OF God and not the self-existent God. Although we are not to think of two different Father Gods or two different types of Gods but one true God and one OF that one true God as an offspring.
Like the river is not the lake and the lake is not the river but it is the same water, not two different types of water from different sources.
Excuse me LU and WJ,
LU, you are right that Jesus is the river from the Lake. But so are all the others who are from the same lake only smaller tributaries.
Jesus is “Son of God” – ALL sentient beings are “Sons of God”
Jesus is “River from the Lake” – All sentient beings are “Rivers from the Lake”When Jesus “EMPTIED” himself and became Man through the flesh of Mary what was it that he “Emptied” himself of?
This is not difficult to understand – it was his Divinity. Plain and simple. A Spiritual entity cannot die, does not have a body, is eternal, is immortal, exists in the Heavens and is (to the greater degree) sinless and unsinning.
Jesus emptied himself of his divinity and became as Mankind, which means being subject to dying, having a fleshly body requiring sustenance (Chemical elements – Dust of the earth), is not eternal nor immortal (Except by continued renewal through the Holy spirit of God – which was removed from Mankind by the sinning of Adam), subject to frailty to sin (Yes, Jesus COULD sin but DID NOT – else why was he tested?), and cannot exist in the Heavens.
The question I put all the time – that never gets answered; “What is a Son of God”? How is Mankind – the elect and others – to become “Sons of God” if Jesus, alone, is “Son of God” and is EXACTLY Like God because he is “Son of God”.
Please, can you not see that “Son of God” is not a singular person but a phrase describing ANYONE who walks in the ways of God – therefore Anyone, everyone, All, who walk in the ways of God – like Jesus walks in the way of God (That is, with Truth and Righteousness) is a “Son of God” – which then answer the question of how can one from Mankind become “a Son of God” – as Scriptures says many will become after shedding the flesh and taking on the Spirit [form]…
They (Note I say 'they' not 'we') will have “Power and Authority” directly from God – as Jesus has Power and Authority directly from God – They will be Brothers with Jesus – sharing the heirship (Jesus being the Senior heir) and will call God “Father” – them being “Sons”, sons in his power.
Jesus, having emptied himself of the divine position in heaven, became flesh and showed mankind that it is possible to live a godly if and walk in the ways of God – A Fleshly “Son of God” – but mankind cannot attain such a position because he is inherently sinful, unlike Jesus. Therefore – it is only when he sheds the flesh, is Spiritually baptised in the Holy Spirit, and takes on the Spirit [form] that he will attain the Sonship.
And there will only be 144,000 who will attain such Sonship!
The Thread title: Does God Procreate is simple to answer: “No, God does not procreate” – Procreation is only from Mankind to mankind – The rather simplistic definition is not applicable to God. Spirit entities do not 'create' or 'give birth to' other Spirits: name one Spirit that has 'Procreated'? None- Angels to not create [life] nor procreate [life] – only flesh and blood man (and animals) procreates [life].
How were the Angels formed then if they weren't 'procreated' – simple: we don't have a word for it because the concept is not within human reasoning, human knowledge (to most) – God is Energy – God is Pure Energy Energy can generate Energy – Energy from energy – nothing is “Created” in that formation – it is just that – Formed!
God is not simply Energy, but also Intelligence, therefore “Energy with intelligence”. Angels are “Powerful entities with intelligence” – powerful but controlled intelligent Energy Forces, Spirit creatures that transcend dimensions, space and time – but they cannot “Create Life” – Life can only come from God – So another question:
Did Jesus create the Angels – No!
Did Jesus create Adam and Eve – No!No, meaning – did not give them LIFE.
An Angel can create a flesh and bone body – but it cannot give LIFE to that flesh and bone body (Thank God for that, too!) for all life is “Spirit from God, Waters from the lake, for it is the Lake alone that sustains the powerful flowing river(s) (The Principal Sons of God) and the gentle meandering tributaries (The normal sons of God) and the static boundard ponds (Mankind).
Lu and WJ,
Both of you agree just using different Terms to describe it.
I think Lu stated that if Christ existed than thats when Time began.
Since the Word created everything than that would make sense.Hi Dennison,
I stated that if anything exists there is time. So we know that God always existed, therefore time existed. Time and existence go hand in hand with each other imo. Because God exists, therefore time exists and in that order. What happened on day one of creation was a beginning to a specific time period measured in a peculiar way, with a sun and rotation and orbits. There will be an end to this time period. This time period exists within an infinite timeline.Here is an illustration of a time period within an infinite timeline:
<—————————l——————-l——————————->
A. B. C.
A.Eternity PastDuring eternity past God has always existed
The Word/Son that had always been 'within'
God was begotten at some point
within eternity past, and then was 'with' God
and was God as in God OF God.B. Creation to the destruction of this earth
C. Eternity FutureThat is how I see it. Does that help?
Lu,
Here is the Definition of Time
Time–noun
1. the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.
2. duration regarded as belonging to the present life as distinct from the life to come or from eternity; finite duration.
3. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a system or method of measuring or reckoning the passage of time: mean time; apparent time; Greenwich Time.
4. a limited period or interval, as between two successive events: a long time.God is like an Ocean which represents eternity, endless dept, and a forever distance,
Time is like a bubble within that ocean.The Ocean is Infinite,
The Bubble is Finite,Infinite cannto be measured,
Finite Can be measured,This is the way i look at time.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 24 2010,16:27) Kathi Ok if what yoiu say is true then show me Arius quote. The above says nothing about him having a beginning out of nothing.
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 24 2010,17:58) Keith: Quote In explaining his actions against Arius, Alexander of Alexandria wrote a letter to Alexander of Constantinople and Eusebius of Nicomedia (where the emperor was then residing), detailing the errors into which he believed Arius had fallen. According to Alexander, Arius taught:
That God was not always the Father, but that there was a period when he was not the Father; that the Word of God was not from eternity, but was made out of nothing; for that the ever-existing God (‘the I AM’—the eternal One) made him who did not previously exist, out of nothing; wherefore there was a time when he did not exist, inasmuch as the Son is a creature and a work. That he is neither like the Father as it regards his essence, nor is by nature either the Father’s true Word, or true Wisdom, but indeed one of his works and creatures, being erroneously called Word and Wisdom, since he was himself made of God’s own Word and the Wisdom which is in God, whereby God both made all things and him also. Wherefore he is as to his nature mutable and susceptible of change, as all other rational creatures are: hence the Word is alien to and other than the essence of God; and the Father is inexplicable by the Son, and invisible to him, for neither does the Word perfectly and accurately know the Father, neither can he distinctly see him. The Son knows not the nature of his own essence: for he was made on our account, in order that God might create us by him, as by an instrument; nor would he ever have existed, unless God had wished to create us.[41]
KathiThanks, but do you purposely just close your eyes to the other facts…
“THAT GOD WAS NOT ALWAYS THE FATHER, but that there was a period when he was not the Father; that “THE WORD OF GOD WAS NOT FROM ETERNITY, but was made out of nothing; for that the ever-existing God (‘the I AM’—the eternal One) made him who did not previously exist, out of nothing; “wherefore there was a time when he did not exist”, inasmuch as the Son is a creature and a work.
The issue Kathi, is Arius believed there was a time that Jesus didn’t exist or that the Father was not ALWAYS the Father. You do see that don’t you?
WJ
WJ:
Quote Really? OK Mike, so what you are saying is that Psalms 2:6 is speaking of Jesus being set upon his Holy Hill, Mount Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem where thousands of Angels were in Joyful assembly billions of years ago before the beginning in Gen 1:1, then is when Jesus was born from God and the decree was made “Thou art my Son; THIS DAY have I begotten thee.? Is that what you mean?
No Keith. This particular mention of the heavenly Mount Zion is obviously way after Jesus' beginning. What I'm saying is that we know there IS a heavenly Mount Zion, so it could have played out like this:1. God created Jesus
2. God said, “You are my Son. I have just begotten you.”
3. God created the heavenly Mount Zion through His newborn Son – maybe that same hour, maybe millions of years later.
4. Then God, at whatever time period, said he placed Jesus as King on Mount Zion. That could have been right then, or it could have been millions of years later…….even after there was mankind.
5. At the time of his being placed on Mount Zion, Jesus related the decree God made to him…….maybe billions of years before.Do you see what I'm saying? The being placed as King on Zion doesn't necessarily have to be in the same hour, day, or even millenium that God told Jesus “You are my Son”, although it could have been that same day. Jesus could have been reigning as King on Zion before anything else existed. I know that would seem weird to us, but God could have said, “You're the King, now let's create a kingdom for you”.
But……God also could have placed Jesus as King on Zion in say – 70 AD. And upon being placed there, Jesus could have been repeating the decree about God begetting him billions of years before. Do you see? The two statements, one by God and one by Jesus, don't necessarily have to be speaking of events that happened on the same day.
Picture Jeremiah. He was a young man when he became a prophet of God, but God said he already knew him before he was formed in the womb. So those two events, which took place at different times, could have also been said like this:
God: “I have sent Jeremiah as a prophet to God in this year of 647 B.C.”
Jeremiah: “I will declare the decree God told me: 'Today, I know you….even before you are formed in your mother's womb'”
Do you get it now? Jeremiah, many years later, is declaring a decree God said many years earlier…….a decree about an event that also happened many years earlier. By the same token, God could have set Jesus on Mount Zion in 1984 for all we know, but that doesn't mean the decree that Jesus declared means he was begotten in 1984, right?
WJ:
Quote APART FROM HIM NOTHING CAME INTO BEING THAT HAS COME INTO BEING. and that includes the light and the waters which proceeded the days. Again that’s one of the points you just skipped over.
I skipped it because I want you to come to grips with the “day” of Micah before I get into a diversional argument about how John 1:3 clearly means “all OTHER things”. It obviously can't mean Jesus himself was created through the non-existent Jesus. Just like Paul saying, “when it says 'everything', it is clear that it doesn't include God Himself……”. But first, let's finish Micah, okay?WJ:
Quote There has to be one scripture somewhere Mike that says there were days before the “FIRST DAY” in Genesis 1:5. Micah 5:2 proves nothing because of the various meanings and translation of the words. Where is the clear scripture that says there are “Days” before the “FIRST DAY” in Gen 1:5?
You ask for the exact scripture that you deny when it is showed to you. You can't just “blow off” Micah because of “various meanings and translations”. The Hebrew word is “DAYS”. The LXX renders it “DAYS”. It says there were “DAYS of antiquity” or “eternity”.Keith, if you are being honest with yourself, you must admit that the “days” in Micah is a figurative use of the word. And therefore, although it doesn't HAVE to be, the use of the same word in Psalm 2:7 COULD also be figurative.
Do you agree?
peace and love,
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
