- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 03 2010,21:47) 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
Pierre,
Think of the Son as a continuation of all the Father is in the person of the Son. The Father gave Him all things that He Himself had.As far as the Job verse, I haven't looked at that lately but I don't recall Job literally seeing even a vision of God. Sometimes perceiving with the mind is what scripture is talking about when the word 'seeing' is used.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 03 2010,20:43) 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?
MikeFirst of all it is a “loaded” question for it assumes that the word “God” is exclusive to the Father when we know that the followers of Jesus called him their God, the Father called him God and the early church Fathers called him their God.
When you ask questions like that why don't you guys ever use the title “Father” since you always say the Son?
So the answer is “yes” it clearly distinguishes between the Father and Jesus. But Jesus was in very nature God as the Father is in very nature God and he was the Word that was with God and was God before time and who came in the likeness of sinful flesh and as a man called the Father God.
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, “The mighty God ('el gibbowr) , The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isa 9:6
And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and such as are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the “LORD (YHWH)” , the Holy One of Israel, in truth. The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto “the mighty God ('el gibbowr )”. Isa 10:20, 21
Isaiah speaks of Jesus being called the “Mighty God ('el gibbowr)” and says the government will be on his shoulder. And in the next chapter he uses the same word structure and says that the remnant of Jacob will return to the “Mighty God”.
Then Jesus “The Mighty God” says…
“Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Matt 11:26
And Paul says…
”while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ“, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and “to purify for himself a people that are his very own”, eager to do what is good“. Tit 2:13, 14
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see who the Mighty God is that the remnant of Jacob returns to.
Do you see the big bold letters above? They are the LORD (YHWH)
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 03 2010,23:38) 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,
mike
MikeIs the Father “in the form of God”? Or do you believe he has no form?
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 03 2010,23:46) Quote (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
MikeIs Jesus the “Only of its kind” Son (for kathis sake) or not?
If so then his oneness with the Father is ontologically the same.
WJ
Hi Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 03 2010,23:47) 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?'
No, I assumed you already knew what it meant, since the NET and the Majority of the translations do not render it “Begotten” because the word is misleading.Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 03 2010,23:47) Well, at least you aren't writing the 'one and only' or the 'only unique one,' so that's good.
It can also mean that.Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 03 2010,23:47) The creeds have no problem using the word 'begotten' why aren't you using the word also?
I have no problem with the word begotten as long as you know it does not always mean procreate, right? As far as the creeds, what does “eternally begotten” mean. You keep saying the creeds but you don’t agree with them.Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 03 2010,23:47) 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.
What are you saying Kathi, that Jesus was not begotten at his birth?And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born (gennaō) Jesus, who is called Christ. Matt 1:16
Gennaō is the same word in the LXX for Pss 2:6 and Acts 13:33 and Heb 1:5 and Heb 5:5.
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 03 2010,23:47) 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.
Okay I can live with that, but why don’t you live with the NETs definition of the word “Monogenes”?Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 03 2010,23:47) 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?'
Did you even read my post and the references? And why do you stop at the quote, “begotten, not made” when in context it is…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“.
You see the “One Being [substance] with the Father” don’t you? You divide the substance by saying they are two gods.
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 03 2010,23:47) 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.
When have I said like begets something less? Like as far as God is concerned is an eternal unchangeable essence that cannot be divided into something other than eternal unchangeable essence. In other words the Father and the Son has always had an eternal relationship as One God.Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 03 2010,23:47) 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.
I agree with it but you don’t because you do not believe the Father and the Son had an eternal relationship because to you the Son had a beginning. Sorry Kathi, but did you miss these quotes…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.
And…
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.
* true G
od 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.
And…
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.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 04 2010,23:18) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 03 2010,23:46) Quote (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
MikeIs Jesus the “Only of its kind” Son (for kathis sake) or not?
If so then his oneness with the Father is ontologically the same.
WJ
WJyou really have a way with words;Adj. 1. ontological – of or relating to ontology; “ontological speculations”
you were never strong on truth ,you have your own way ,
you do not understand scriptures you do not even care about truth ,
this is my respond to your comment
Pierre
WJ,
Quote When have I said like begets something less? Like as far as God is concerned is an eternal unchangeable essence that cannot be divided into something other than eternal unchangeable essence. In other words the Father and the Son has always had an eternal relationship as One God.
Not that i disagree with you,
but If God takes action or participates within Time and Space, isnt that a limitation of his eternal power?Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 04 2010,10:05) WJ, Quote When have I said like begets something less? Like as far as God is concerned is an eternal unchangeable essence that cannot be divided into something other than eternal unchangeable essence. In other words the Father and the Son has always had an eternal relationship as One God.
Not that i disagree with you,
but If God takes action or participates within Time and Space, isnt that a limitation of his eternal power?
SFIt’s a yes or no answer IMO. God can “limit” himself as he has done throughout time.
He has revealed himself and his Glory to man by degrees for no man could see God in all of his Glory and live.
So God can “limit” himself but the key is he has the power to do so, yet still remain the “eternal, unchangeable” God who exists outside of time or dimension.
The literal meaning of “I am that I am” is “I will be what I will be”. God is not limited to be anything he wants to.
God is a “paradox” to the human and finite mind. God can be infinitely big as well as infinitely small at the same time or else how can his eyes see all right down to the molecular structure of the Universe?
WJ
WJ,Mike
Sorry to intrude (not really!)WJ, your 'Mighty God' quote is misleading.
WJ, the initial quote is “Mighty God”.
The second quote is “The Mighty God”.These denote different persons. The first can be ANY person of high Power and Authority. A Judge can be 'Mighty God'. I called you 'Mighty [trinity] God' in this forum. Mike is 'Mighty [Master deBator] God' of debate threads that are everlasting.
But there is only One that can be 'The [All] Mighty God'. Only One can be 'ALL' Mighty, even if another is also 'A mighty God' in their own, of their own, between their own kind.
YHVH God is the Mighty God of All Gods, of all that can be called Gods because from Him proceeds ALL things and in Him ALL things subsist, including His begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to whom he delivered power and authority to rule for a period of time till all things that fell away are restored to his satisfaction and that of Him who gave him that power and authority.WJ, Mike,
Ephesians 4:6 (thanks Kathi). What does it say?
WJ, you try to be tricksy asking us to say Father, and Son. Are you so blind, or think we are so blind, as to not realise WHY you make the suggestion.
Mike had you pinned and you beg to relieve yourself before he executes you…why?Ephesians. God, YHVH, is Father of ALL. Says it all.
Mike, the verse says it all.
To ALL, Ephesians 4:6, says it all for this thread.
If God 'procreates' then ALL are procreated.
If God 'creates' then ALL are created.
For God is FATHER of ALL.
He did not 'create' one and 'procreate' another.
Nor did God 'procreate' one and 'create' another.
Again, God did not 'pro'/Create one and that one 'pro'/created the others.
Why? Because the thing that enables a creature to be such is it's LIFE, it's Spirit, and Only God provides a Life by the Spirit and unto God does that life return when God requests it, and such He does so He may return it renewed to that one.Who will refute this?
And as God is Father of All, we, in Spirit, are His children, and all the Angels are His children, His Sons in the Spirit.
Jesus, alone, is both Son in Flesh, and Son in Spirit, only begotten, in the flesh and in the spirit.
For which of the Angels who are His Sons in Spirit did he ever say, 'You are my Son, Today I have bdgotten you'? None, because none other became flesh and yet even abided by His Word except this one, Jesus Christ.WJ
you say;;God is a “paradox” to the human and finite mind. God can be infinitely big as well as infinitely small at the same time or else how can his eyes see all right down to the molecular structure of the Universe?
WJ
——————————————
how do you interpret the scripture were it says; MEN CAN NOT SEE GOD AND LIVE;
you have very peculiar ways to ignoring scriptures.
Pierre
Quote (JustAskin @ Oct. 04 2010,12:21) WJ,Mike
Sorry to intrude.WJ, your 'Mighty God' quote is misleading.
WJ, the initial quote is “Mighty God”.
The second quote is “The Mighty God”.
JAWe have been over this, the translators added the “definite article” depending on the translation.
The structure of the verses are identicle.
WJ
WJ,
Not so. You speak untruthfully for your own sake.
The title is 'Mighty God', not 'The Mighty God'.
Witness also the following title of 'PRINCE of Peace'. How is he to be 'THE Mighty God' yet ONLY 'Prince' of Peace.
Why not 'God of Peace' or 'Father of Peace'?Also, he is 'TO BE CALLED' these Titles. He will become the owner of such titles. Does this say that at that time he was NOT the owner of those titles? Yes, most certainly he was not, else why the future tense?
WJ,
You well know what the Definite Article denotes, different from the Indefinite.Please do not play this game with me. In fact, 'don't play this game with me'…the first is an indefinite request. The latter is a definite request.
Quote (JustAskin @ Oct. 04 2010,13:42) WJ, Not so. You speak untruthfully for your own sake.
The title is 'Mighty God', not 'The Mighty God'.
Witness also the following title of 'PRINCE of Peace'. How is he to be 'THE Mighty God' yet ONLY 'Prince' of Peace.
Why not 'God of Peace' or 'Father of Peace'?Also, he is 'TO BE CALLED' these Titles. He will become the owner of such titles. Does this say that at that time he was NOT the owner of those titles? Yes, most certainly he was not, else why the future tense?
JAThis is why you need to start looking at the Hebrew and Greek Lexicons.
Literal Hebrew for Isaiah 9:6…
yeled yalad ben nathan misrah shĕkem shem qara' pele' ya`ats “gibbowr 'el” `ad 'ab sar shalowm
Literal Hebrew for Isaiah 20:21…
shĕ'ar shuwb shĕ'ar Ya`aqob “gibbowr 'el“
WJ
Quote (JustAskin @ Oct. 04 2010,13:42) Also, he is 'TO BE CALLED' these Titles. He will become the owner of such titles. Does this say that at that time he was NOT the owner of those titles? Yes, most certainly he was not, else why the future tense?
JABecause he wasn't the “Word that was God” made flesh and revealed yet was he? John 1:1, 14
WJ
Ha ha, WJ, WJ…tut tut…
Your designer 'God' seems to assume 'Godship' at different times and in different places according to how the wind of words in the discussion blows.Either Jesus IS Almighty God or he is Not Almighty God.
One cannot BECOME [The] God. But one can BECOME [A] God.
'A God' is not 'The God', for even Moses was 'A God' to Aaron. But he was not 'The God' of Aaron.
And Satan is 'God [only] of this system of things'.
And Mankind is 'God [only] over the animals'.
Quote (JustAskin @ Oct. 04 2010,14:42) Ha ha, WJ, WJ…tut tut…
Your designer 'God' seems to assume 'Godship' at different times and in different places according to how the wind of words in the discussion blows.Either Jesus IS Almighty God or he is Not Almighty God.
One cannot BECOME [The] God. But one can BECOME [A] God.
'A God' is not 'The God', for even Moses was 'A God' to Aaron. But he was not 'The God' of Aaron.
And Satan is 'God [only] of this system of things'.
And Mankind is 'God [only] over the animals'.
JACan you show me a scripture where any Apostle or follower of Jesus called any other being “their God” other than Jesus?
Can you show me in the NT where any other being is called “God” by the Father other than Jesus?
Can you show a early church Father that called any other “Thier God” other than Jesus?
Can you show me a scripture where any other being is given the title “gibbowr 'el” the Mighty God other than Jesus?
Can you show me where any other being is given the name Emmanuel “God with us” by the arch-Angel of God?
I didn't think so.
Trinitarians are the only ones that I know of that call Jesus “Emmanuel” by saying he is “God with us”. One of the titles given to Jesus is “God”. Yet we know there is “Only One True God”. So either Jesus is false or he is not God at all.
Thats all I will say on this for you are hijacking the topic of this thread.
WJ
WJ,
You truly are naive.You ask me to prove something that only you believe…how very naive.
You even answer for me. Thank you. You might have favoured me with the chance to reply. Or were you afraid of what may have been a really raucous recalcitrant reply?
Yes, WJ, Trinitarians are the only ones who address Jesus as Immanuel, 'God with us' meaning 'God with us' because trinitarians are the only ones forcing the meaning to fit the creed devised by the very enemy of God himself.
WJ, are you saying that it was the Arche Angel that gave Jesus that name? Or did the Arche Angel just deliver the message?
WJ, you are amazing…I just showed you that God called Moses, 'As God to Aaron' and your very next post you ask me to show you a proof of such. Exodus 4:16, if you want to look it up. (Exodus, 2nd book in the Bible, two squared is four, four squared is sixteen.)
The rest of your post is just filler, sheer gibberish from THE Desperarian that you ever were.
You need to go back to the drawing board.
Anyway, as you say, you are going back to those who you feel you can argue till the cows come home with and still get no milk from, let alone any meatier substance…hmmm…level for level, 'measure for measure', as Shakespeare wrote.
JA
As I thought, you wouldn't answer the questions. Why not? Justaskin!
Quote (JustAskin @ Oct. 04 2010,16:04) WJ, you are amazing…I just showed you that God called Moses, 'As God to Aaron' and your very next post you ask me to show you a proof of such. Exodus 4:16, if you want to look it up. (Exodus, 2nd book in the Bible, two squared is four, four squared is sixteen.) Moses was “as a God” to Pharoah, Jesus is called “The God”. You do understand the difference don't you?
Now can you show me where any of the children of Israel called Moses “their God”?
The rest of your post is just “ad hominem”.
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
