- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 03 2010,12:46) You can't BE “THE GOD”, and at the same time be WITH “THE GOD” Keith.
Why not? You can be with your wife and still be one flesh, right? They share the same Spirit and nature and they are “One God”.WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 03 2010,12:53) There are many lines of logical thinking about the “one flesh” thing Keith. Would you like to delve into it or not?
MikeI am not having any more “debates” with you. IMO you are not an honest man in debates.
I may have some discussion with you as I am led but I will not chase your rabbit trails anymore or deal with someone who will not be honest and admit other possibilities.
WJ
Quote (shimmer @ Oct. 03 2010,04:44) Lu, all I did was post some facts on mormonism. These are the points I was drawing attention to….
Mormonism teaches that Jesus is a procreated being, the literal offspring of God the Father
To support their view, Mormons appeal to John 3:16, which states Jesus is the “only begotten.”
The Greek word used there is monogenes, which means “unique” or “one of a kind.”
It does not mean procreated, but emphasizes uniqueness.
Mormons also appeal to Colossians 1:15, which calls Christ the “Firstborn over all creation.”
The Greek word for firstborn is prototokos, meaning “first in rank, preeminent one.”
It carries the idea of positional supremacy. Christ is the firstborn in the sense that He is preeminent over all creation.
Shimmer,
No, you didn't just post some facts about Mormonism, you made a claim that what is spoken here is of Mormonism:you said:
Quote The only ones who believe God procreated another equal god are Mormans, what is spoken of here is mormanism. If you find similarities in one faith do you automatically assume that it must be that faith that is spoken of because SOME of the ideas are similar? For example, many on here believe that God COULD NOT have a literal offspring. Do you want to jump up and down and say they are teaching the Islam faith? I don't think that would be wise either.
Did you know that procreate a natural offspring is the same thing as begetting a natural offspring? The two ideas are the same thing. Is the Son of God called the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD? Only begotten means only procreated…it is the same thing with a very few exceptions of designating someone as their begotten son.
So is the only begotten Son of God truly the only begotten Son of God and was He always the only begotten Son of God? Is He the Only begotten Son by name only?
The Mormon God begat sons with his spirit wives. Jesus and satan were two of them.
That is far different than God alone begetting His own Son.
John 3:16-18
16″For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.17″For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
18″He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Now, is He the only begotten Son of God or not?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 03 2010,13:00) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 03 2010,12:46) You can't BE “THE GOD”, and at the same time be WITH “THE GOD” Keith.
Why not? You can be with your wife and still be one flesh, right? They share the same Spirit and nature and they are “One God”.WJ
Keith,
This is a different comparison:Gen 2:23
Then the man said, “This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one will be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”Compare that with this from the Nicene Creed:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];by whom all things were made;I'm curious Keith, how do you understand “very God of very God?”
Ok,
So what is the outcome of this thread question?Does God procreate?
Who's thread is this. Can he do a summary as it seems there's little,more to add and the thread is getting a little frayed…i'm afraid…
A highlight verse from Irene: Ephesians 4:6: 'One God and FATHER of all…'
Father of All, does this include Jesus?
Father of All. If God is their Father, then they are His Sons.
Who are 'they'(ALL)?
If God is their Father and the Father of All then ALL are created…and that includes Jesus…he who became known as 'Jesus'. And if God created them then they are Angels because there are only Angels in Heaven with God, Spirit Sons of God, and He is their Spirit Father.
If Jesus is 'Son of God' then God is his Father.
And God is 'Father of All'.
But according to many in this forum only Jesus is 'Son of God', yet Scriptures says God is Father to ALL.
What is that JustAskin has been saying ALL along: 'ALL beings 'created' by God are Sons of God.
All created beings with the Spirit of God in them are Son's of God.
Adam was a Son of God when he was created, because he had the Spirit of God in him. But when he sinned that Holy Spirit was removed and he became no longer a Son of God in the flesh, hence Jesus becoming man and acquiring the Holy Spirit then became the new 'Son of God in the flesh'.Note that it says 'the Son of God'. Does this then exclude all the other 'SPIRIT' Sons of God? No, because it means, 'The Son of God in the flesh', the Second Adam.
So, where does 'procreate' fit in here. Did God 'proCreate' Jesus, God from God.
Mike, that is what your posts speak no matter what else you claim you mean. You are saying that God created another God.You have no [clear] idea what you are saying.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 04 2010,12:00) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 03 2010,12:46) You can't BE “THE GOD”, and at the same time be WITH “THE GOD” Keith.
Why not? You can be with your wife and still be one flesh, right? They share the same Spirit and nature and they are “One God”.WJ
WJwhy are you have to twist things around,i thing your mind is twisted,
God and Christ are one in thoughts,like Christ is always submissive to his father, his God .
and they do not share there identity.are you sharing your identity with your wife ?
Pierre
Kathy
my question did all those questions and study give s us more inside or more confussion ??
John 3:16-18
16″For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.17″For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
18″He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Now, is He the only begotten Son of God or not?
are we still in square one with this question?
why we do not leave scriptures as it was ,i am sure that the people who translated the bible must have gone trough those questions as well,and re bring all this does not bring as closer to God or his son and the truth.
we are left without conclusion and answers anyway.
Pierre
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 04 2010,05:00) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 03 2010,12:46) You can't BE “THE GOD”, and at the same time be WITH “THE GOD” Keith.
Why not? You can be with your wife and still be one flesh, right? They share the same Spirit and nature and they are “One God”.WJ
Hi Keith,Kathi and Pierre both answered this well enough, and my first thought was along Pierre's line of reasoning. My first thought was to ask if we can now call you “Mrs. Worshipping Jesus” since you and your wife are “one flesh”.
And you ignored the other part of my point. Since Jesus' hope is for some of us to become “one” with him and his God, will some of us also become members of the “Godhead”?
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 04 2010,05:05) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 03 2010,12:53) There are many lines of logical thinking about the “one flesh” thing Keith. Would you like to delve into it or not?
MikeI am not having any more “debates” with you. IMO you are not an honest man in debates.
I may have some discussion with you as I am led but I will not chase your rabbit trails anymore or deal with someone who will not be honest and admit other possibilities.
WJ
Hi Keith,You know, I've been on HN for about 9 months now. And I've have seen the same people posting the same claims throughout that time.
I have watched Irene post so many scriptures about the pre-existence of Jesus to Gene and Martian, but they act as if they can't read them and just keep posting the same claims over and over.
I have seen t8 and others post scriptures to you and Jack about the trinity, but you either ignore them or “rationalize” them with reasoning so lame a third grader could dismantle it. (For example – see your “rationalization” for God being WITH God using the “one flesh” scriptures.)
I'm still debating Jodi Lee and Gene and barley about “pre-existence”, but they can't seem to answer the end part of Phil 2:7 where it says after emptying himself of the “form/nature” of God, Jesus was made into a human being.
I keep asking: If Jesus already WAS a human being while being in the “form of God”, then why does Paul say he emptied himself and WAS MADE INTO THE LIKENESS OF A HUMAN BEING?
Do you think that's a fair question? It's what the scripture says, so why shouldn't I ask it? And I've been asking and asking…….and Gene keeps ignoring and sidestepping around it. Is that fair Keith? Shouldn't those guys at least come up with some kind of explanation of how someone who already is a human being can then be made in the likeness of a human being?
My point is that this question has been asked of Gene many times for about a month now. And while he hasn't actually attempted to answer it, at least he hasn't hit me with accusations of “We already answered. You just don't like the answer so you keep asking the same thing.”
And kudos for him Keith. While IMO, they should just come out and say, “I don't have an explanation for it at this time”, like I did with John 20:28 when you asked me about it the first couple of times, at least their not pinning their loss to explain Phil 2:7 on me.
You can learn from that Keith. If you can't explain Micah 5:4 at this time, then just say so. Don't make it a personal thing about the way I asked the questions. Seriously man, it sounds like you're saying, “I'm not dealing with Mike. He doesn't play fair – he keeps asking hard questions.”
So Keith, Micah 5:4? Does it or does it not clearly distinguish this “future ruler” as someone other than and lessor to God Himself?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (terraricca @ Oct. 03 2010,19:59) Kathy my question did all those questions and study give s us more inside or more confussion ??
John 3:16-18
16″For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.17″For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
18″He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Now, is He the only begotten Son of God or not?
are we still in square one with this question?
why we do not leave scriptures as it was ,i am sure that the people who translated the bible must have gone trough those questions as well,and re bring all this does not bring as closer to God or his son and the truth.
we are left without conclusion and answers anyway.
Pierre
Pierre,
I am more convinced now than ever that the Word of God is actually the true Son of God and exactly like His Father except that He is the Son and not the Father. I do believe that the Father is fully capable to beget another just like Himself who has His wisdom and power and contains the eternal nature all of which was given to Him as the only begotten offspring of God. If you have seen the Son, you have seen the Father…If you think the Father is amazing you will think the Son is amazing too.When you realize that the word to beget is the same as to procreate and that to procreate is different than to create, it helps understand the answer. We do have an only begotten Son of God which is the begotten God from God the Father, inseparable…nothing less, nothing more.
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 04 2010,19:49) Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 03 2010,19:59) Kathy my question did all those questions and study give s us more inside or more confussion ??
John 3:16-18
16″For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.17″For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
18″He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Now, is He the only begotten Son of God or not?
are we still in square one with this question?
why we do not leave scriptures as it was ,i am sure that the people who translated the bible must have gone trough those questions as well,and re bring all this does not bring as closer to God or his son and the truth.
we are left without conclusion and answers anyway.
Pierre
Pierre,
I am more convinced now than ever that the Word of God is actually the true Son of God and exactly like His Father except that He is the Son and not the Father. I do believe that the Father is fully capable to beget another just like Himself who has His wisdom and power and contains the eternal nature all of which was given to Him as the only begotten offspring of God. If you have seen the Son, you have seen the Father…If you think the Father is amazing you will think the Son is amazing too.When you realize that the word to beget is the same as to procreate and that to procreate is different than to create, it helps understand the answer. We do have an only begotten Son of God which is the begotten God from God the Father, inseparable…nothing less, nothing more.
kathyJn 14:7 If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
Jn 14:9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?WHAT IS JESUS MEANS WEN HE SAYS “IF YOU RELLY KNEW ME,YOU WOULD KNOW MY FATHER” ??
UNDERSTAND THIS;Job 42:5 My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.DID JOB SEE GOD ?
Pierre
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 03 2010,15:08) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 03 2010,13:00) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 03 2010,12:46) You can't BE “THE GOD”, and at the same time be WITH “THE GOD” Keith.
Why not? You can be with your wife and still be one flesh, right? They share the same Spirit and nature and they are “One God”.WJ
Keith,
This is a different comparison:Gen 2:23
Then the man said, “This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one will be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”Compare that with this from the Nicene Creed:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];by whom all things were made;
KathiThere is one “humanity” which shares the same flesh. The term “one flesh” in regards to a husband and a wife, Paul says is a “Mystery”, never the less it is real.
God is Spirit and we know that there is only “One Spirit” that lives in us, the Father, Jesus, and the Comforter. They are of one essence and one substance and are equally what makes God, God.
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 03 2010,15:08) I'm curious Keith, how do you understand “very God of very God?”
I'm curious as to how you understand “not dividing the substance” or his being.4. “Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance“.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. “So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God“;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
Thank you Kathi and Mike for causing me to dig deeper and becoming more and more convinced that you and Mike are in the “Arian Camp”.
What reading of the Creed do you have…
We believe in one God the Father, the Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, “the only Son of God, ETERNALLY begotten” of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, “not made, of ONE BEING [substance] with the Father“. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made truly human. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen
I still can't understand why you keep referring to a creed that you do not fully believe. Anyway here is some more info on why your theology is in line with Arius and the modern day Arians, the JW’s.
When the Nicene Creed was drawn up, the chief enemy was Arianism, “which denied that Jesus was fully God“. Arius was a presbyter (elder) in Alexandria in Egypt, in the early 300's. “He taught that the Father, in the beginning, created (or begot) the Son“, and that the Son, in conjunction with the Father, then proceeded to create the world. The result of this was to make the Son a created being, and hence not God in any meaningful sense. It was also suspiciously like the theories of those Gnostics and pagans who held that God was too perfect to create something like a material world, and so introduced one or more intermediate beings between God and the world. God created A, who created B, who created C, . . . who created Z, who created the world. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, sent for Arius and questioned him. Arius stuck to his position, and was finally excommunicated by a council of Egyptian bishops. He went to Nicomedia in Asia, where he wrote letters defending his position to various bishops. Finally, the Emperor Constantine summoned a council of Bishops in Nicea (across the straits from modern Istanbul), and there in 325 the Bishops of the Church, by a decided majority, repudiated Arius and produced “the first draft” of what is now called the Nicene Creed. A chief spokesman for the full deity of Christ was Athanasius, deacon of Alexandria, assistant (and later successor) to the aging Alexander. The Arian position has been revived in our own day by the Watchtower Society (the JW's), who explicitly hail Arius as a great witness to the truth.
I here print the Creed modern wording a second time, with notes inserted.
* We believe in one God,
* the Father, the Almighty,
* maker of heaven and earth,
* of all that is, seen and unseen.* We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
* the only son of God,Here and elsewhere (such as John 1:14) where the Greek has MONOGENETOS HUIOS, an English translation may read either “only Son” or “only begotten Son.” The Greek is ambiguous. The root GEN is found in words like “genital, genetics, generation,” and suggests begetting. However, it is also found in words like “genus” and suggests family or sort or kind. Accordingly, we may take MONOGENETOS to mean either “only begotten” or “one-of-a-kind, only, sole, unique.”
* eternally begotten of the Father,
Here the older translation has “begotten of the Father before all worlds.” One might suppose that this means, “before the galaxies were formed,” or something of the kind. But in fact the English word “w
orld” used to mean something a little different. It is related to “were” (pronounced “weer”), an old word for “man,” as in “werewolf” or “weregild.” (Compare with Latin VIR.) Hence a “world” was originally a span of time equal to the normal lifespan of a man. Often in the KJV Bible, one finds “world” translating the Greek AION (“eon”), and a better translation today would be “age.” (Thus, for example, in Matthew 24:3, the question is one of “the end of the age,” which makes it possible to understand what follows as a description of the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70, and of the end of an era in the spiritual history of mankind. But I digress.) So here we have “begotten of the Father before all times, before all ages.” Arius was fond of saying, “The Logos is not eternal. God begat him, and before he was begotten, he did not exist.” The Athanasians replied that the begetting of the Logos was not an event in time, but an eternal relationship.* God from God, Light from Light,
A favorite analogy of the Athanasians was the following: Light is continuously streaming forth from the sun. (In those days, it was generally assumed that light was instantaneous, so that there was no delay at all between the time that a ray of light left the sun and the time it struck the earth.) The rays of light are derived from the sun, and not vice versa. But it is not the case that first the sun existed and afterwards the Light. It is possible to imagine that the sun has always existed, and always emitted light. The Light, then, is derived from the sun, but the Light and the sun exist simultaneously throughout eternity. They are co-eternal. Just so, the Son exists because the Father exists, but there was never a time before the Father produced the Son. The analogy is further appropriate because we can know the sun only through the rays of light that it emits. To see the sunlight is to see the sun. Just so, Jesus says, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” (John 14:9)
* true God from true God,
* begotten, not made,This line was inserted by way of repudiating Arius' teaching that the Son was the first thing that the Father created, and that to say that the Father begets the Son is simply another way of saying that the Father has created the Son.
Arius said that if the Father has begotten the Son, then the Son must be inferior to the Father, as a prince is inferior to a king. Athanasius replied that a son is precisely the same sort of being as his father, and that the only son of a king is destined himself to be a king. It is true that an earthly son is younger than his father, and that there is a time when he is not yet what he will be. But God is not in time. Time, like distance, is a relation between physical events, and has meaning only in the context of the physical universe. When we say that the Son is begotten of the Father, we do not refer to an event in the remote past, but to an eternal and timeless relation between the Persons of the Godhead. Thus, while we say of an earthly prince that he may some day hope to become what his father is now, we say of God the Son that He is eternally what God the Father is eternally.
* of one being with the Father.
This line: “of one essence with the Father, of one substance with the Father, “consubstantial with the Father,” (in Greek, HOMO-OUSIOS TW PATRI) was the crucial one, the acid test. It was the one formula that the Arians could not interpret as meaning what they believed. Without it, they would have continued to teach that the Son is good, and glorious, and holy, and a Mighty Power, and God's chief agent in creating the world, and the means by which God chiefly reveals Himself to us, and therefore deserving in some sense to be called divine. But they would have continued to deny that the Son was God in the same sense in which the Father is God. And they would have pointed out that, since the Council of Nicea had not issued any declaration that they could not accept, it followed that there was room for their position inside the tent of Christian doctrine, as that tent had been defined at Nicea. Arius and his immediate followers would have denied that they were reducing the Son to the position of a high-ranking angel. But their doctrine left no safeguard against it, and if they had triumphed at Nicea, even in the negative sense of having their position acknowledged as a permissible one within the limits of Christian orthodoxy, the damage to the Christian witness to Christ as God made flesh would have been irreparable. Source
And later on came the Athanasian Creed, the final death blow to the Arians and their claim to true Christianity.
Jesus was not procreated “a god” from God, for no matter how you spin it, it still reduces Jesus to a creature or at best a divine one.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 03 2010,20:19) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 04 2010,05:00) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 03 2010,12:46) You can't BE “THE GOD”, and at the same time be WITH “THE GOD” Keith.
Why not? You can be with your wife and still be one flesh, right? They share the same Spirit and nature and they are “One God”.WJ
My first thought was to ask if we can now call you “Mrs. Worshipping Jesus” since you and your wife are “one flesh”.
No, no more than we would call the Father by the name Jesus. But you could call us “one flesh”. We call the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit “One God”.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 03 2010,20:19) And you ignored the other part of my point. Since Jesus' hope is for some of us to become “one” with him and his God, will some of us also become members of the “Godhead”?
There is a difference in being “one by unity” and being “one in ontology”.Jesus is the Only Monogenes Son.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 03 2010,20:43) I keep asking: If Jesus already WAS a human being while being in the “form of God”, then why does Paul say he emptied himself and WAS MADE INTO THE LIKENESS OF A HUMAN BEING?
MikeYou have made a very good point that is totally irrefutable, however on the other hand the message that Paul is making is Jesus being God and taking on the likeness of a human being. John 1:1, 14
If you say the “likeness of a human being” is man, then why do you say the “form of God” is not God?
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 03 2010,20:43) My point is that this question has been asked of Gene many times for about a month now. And while he hasn't actually attempted to answer it, at least he hasn't hit me with accusations of “We already answered. You just don't like the answer so you keep asking the same thing.”
MikeThats because he actually didn't answer you while on the other hand I have, you just don't like my answers, or like you recently said “my answer is not even valid”, then you proceed to berate and misrepresent me.
WJ
Keith:
Quote You have made a very good point that is totally irrefutable,
Thank you. I believe I have done the same with Micah 5:4. Will you discuss it, or just keep saying I'm a “rabbit hole” or whatever?Keith:
Quote If you say the “likeness of a human being” is man, then why do you say the “form of God” is not God?
I've answered this in one of the debate threads I made while you were moving. Maybe you didn't see it.1. Cain had the form of man.
2. He had the form of a human being.
3. He had the form of the only other man in existence at the time – Adam.1. Jesus had the form of God.
2. He had the form of a “mighty one”.
3. He had the form of the only other “mighty one” in existence at the time – Jehovah.Now if Cain wasn't Adam himself, or even a part of the “being of Adam”, then why would you think those same circumstances would make Jesus God Himself, or even a part of the “being of God”?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 04 2010,14:26) There is a difference in being “one by unity” and being “one in ontology”. Jesus is the Only Monogenes Son.
Hi Keith,So your answer is, “If it says Jesus is 'one with God', it means he is the same being as God, but if it says 'we can be one with God', it only means 'one in unity'?
And where is your scripture that tells me that the “one in unity” only applies to us – not Jesus?You point out that Jesus is the “monogenes” Son, which Strong defines as “only begotten” or “only born”. How many father/son relationships are you aware of where the father and the son are the same exact being? Do you have any guess at all why two of the co-equal members of the “Godhead” would choose the titles of “Father” and “Son” to distinguish themselves from each other – knowing how we humans would understand a father/son relationship? Isn't it said that God is NOT a God of confusion?
mike
Keith,
I can't believe that you keep writing the Greek word as if it can't be translated.
Quote Jesus is the Only Monogenes Son. Are you still having problems with monogenes being 'only begotten?' Well, at least you aren't writing the 'one and only' or the 'only unique one,' so that's good. The creeds have no problem using the word 'begotten' why aren't you using the word also?
And eternally begotten is a term in the creeds that is in direct conflict with your belief that the Son was begotten in time through the conception in Mary.
As far as you comparing that the Son was eternally begotten as something that was foreordained from eternity but meant to happen in time through Mary with the lamb that was slain 'before the foundation of the world;' that bit about the lamb slain before the foundation of the world is not considered a true translation. Let's see what the NET translator notes say about that:
2 tn The prepositional phrase “since the foundation of the world” is traditionally translated as a modifier of the immediately preceding phrase in the Greek text, “the Lamb who was killed” (so also G. B. Caird, Revelation [HNTC], 168), but it is more likely that the phrase “since the foundation of the world” modifies the verb “written” (as translated above). Confirmation of this can be found in Rev 17:8 where the phrase “written in the book of life since the foundation of the world” occurs with no ambiguity.
3 tn Or “slaughtered”; traditionally, “slain.”This is how they translate it:
Rev 13:8 and all those who live on the earth will worship the beast, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was killed.You are still misrepresenting me by claiming that I am in the Arian camp. I believe in the Nicene Creed, so how would I be in the Arian camp since the Nicene creed says 'begotten, NOT MADE?' Also, the Son wouldn't be a creature just because He was procreated. If like procreates (begets) like, then a creature can not be procreated from a non-creature. Like does not beget something less and that is what you can't seem to understand. The firstborn cannot be both procreated and created. God begets God, the first God is unbegotten, the second God is begotten, inseparable, and from undivided substance. A begetting is not a dividing of substance but a continuing of substance.
You mentioned this:
Quote The Athanasians replied that the begetting of the Logos was not an event in time, but an eternal relationship. If you agree with that then you have been hiding it real well and we have had years of debate for nothing. So, it is good if you see the truth in that the Father and Son had that relationship before the time of the world and that it didn't begin in Mary.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
