Does the father have a penis?

[KangarooJack]

Lightenup said:

Quote

I believe in a literal Son of God and you don't.  When I started seeing a literal Son of God who existed from before creation, I started to understand the message of the New Testament.  It changed my life 16 years ago.

To All,
Though I have a great love for our sister Kathi she commits the ultimate Unitarian error in her statement that Christ was the literal Son of God. Jesus Himself said that “God is spirit“. This in turn infers that Jesus is a “son” in a spiritual sense. Or does God have a penis?

And she says that she saw a “literal Son of God before creation.” This means that the Father consummated with a female God that always existed. So the Father is NOT the only true God. There is another female God who had sex with the Father and they begat Jesus, the lesser “god.”

Can you see the similiarity that  Unitarianism has with the ancient doctrines of the pagans? The lesser “gods” were generated by the sexual acts of higher gods.

Unitarianism shows it pagan roots.

thinker

[Lightenup]

Quote (thethinker @ April 21 2009,13:31)

Lightenup said: Quote I believe in a literal Son of God and you don't.  When I started seeing a literal Son of God who existed from before creation, I started to understand the message of the New Testament.  It changed my life 16 years ago. To All, Though I have a great love for our sister Kathi she commits the ultimate Unitarian error in her statement that Christ was the literal Son of God. Jesus Himself said that “God is spirit“. This in turn infers that Jesus is a “son” in a spiritual sense. Or does God have a penis? And she says that she saw a “literal Son of God before creation.” This means that the Father consummated with a female God that always existed. So the Father is NOT the only true God. There is another female God who had sex with the Father and they begat Jesus, the lesser “god.” Can you see the similiarity that  Unitarianism has with the ancient doctrines of the pagans? The lesser “gods” were generated by the sexual acts of higher gods. Unitarianism shows it pagan roots. thinker

Thinker,
Good grief why would God who is complete need a counterpart to reproduce? Man needs a helpmate, God does not.

After all, God who is spirit created other spirits (angels) without the aid of a female God, why would He need someone to reproduce with?

I am not Unitarian, read my posts.

Thank you for your concern tho,
Kathi

[KangarooJack]

Lightenup said:

Quote

Good grief why would God who is complete need a counterpart to reproduce?  Man needs a helpmate, God does not.

Kathi,
Agreed. Then why do you say that Jesus is the “literal” Son of God? Explain yourself for it looks like ancient paganism to me. How is Jesus the “literal” Son of God if the Father did not consummate with another God?

luv ya though yur confused,
thinker

[NickHassan]

Hi tt,
Men make gods in their image and it shows their small view of God.

God is Spirit and he begat a son.

[Lightenup]

Quote (thethinker @ April 21 2009,15:06)

Lightenup said: Quote Good grief why would God who is complete need a counterpart to reproduce?  Man needs a helpmate, God does not. Kathi, Agreed. Then why do you say that Jesus is the “literal” Son of God? Explain yourself for it looks like ancient paganism to me. How is Jesus the “literal” Son of God if the Father did not consummate with another God? luv ya though yur confused, thinker

Thinker,
I can't tell you how GOD would reproduce, He doesn't tell us those details. It tells us that the one who came in the flesh was begotten of God, born of God and that He was in the beginning, God. GOD begat God. One of His own kind, not created…but born…a firstborn. A literal firstborn.

Mary had a part in the Son's flesh body production, not in the Son's spirit production which was born directly by GOD, IMO.

I wish we could discuss this in person…I feel limited here.

God bless,
Kathi

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 22 2009,07:32)

Hi tt, Men make gods in their image and it shows their small view of God. God is Spirit and he begat a son.

Nick,
How did God beget a son? If God is spirit how did He beget?

BTW, to “beget” is NOT to create.

thinker

[NickHassan]

Hi T,
Only you do not understand HOW and think it must be as we do?
Is that wisdom?

[942767]

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,08:01)

Quote (thethinker @ April 21 2009,15:06) Lightenup said: Quote Good grief why would God who is complete need a counterpart to reproduce?  Man needs a helpmate, God does not. Kathi, Agreed. Then why do you say that Jesus is the “literal” Son of God? Explain yourself for it looks like ancient paganism to me. How is Jesus the “literal” Son of God if the Father did not consummate with another God? luv ya though yur confused, thinker Thinker, I can't tell you how GOD would reproduce, He doesn't tell us those details.  It tells us that the one who came in the flesh was begotten of God, born of God and that He was in the beginning, God. GOD begat God. One of His own kind, not created…but born…a firstborn.   A literal firstborn. Mary had a part in the Son's flesh body production, not in the Son's spirit production which was born directly by GOD, IMO. I wish we could discuss this in person…I feel limited here. God bless, Kathi

Hi LU:

Yes, He does tell us that the one who was born of the flesh is His Only Begotten Son, and the scriptures tell us that the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary and she conceived, and the His Only Begotten Son was born of the Virgin Mary.

We should stick to what the scriptures tell us. The scriptures do not tell us that Yahshua was born of God before this.

Love in Christ,
Marty

[Lightenup]

Quote (942767 @ April 21 2009,17:15)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,08:01) Quote (thethinker @ April 21 2009,15:06) Lightenup said: Quote Good grief why would God who is complete need a counterpart to reproduce?  Man needs a helpmate, God does not. Kathi, Agreed. Then why do you say that Jesus is the “literal” Son of God? Explain yourself for it looks like ancient paganism to me. How is Jesus the “literal” Son of God if the Father did not consummate with another God? luv ya though yur confused, thinker Thinker, I can't tell you how GOD would reproduce, He doesn't tell us those details.  It tells us that the one who came in the flesh was begotten of God, born of God and that He was in the beginning, God. GOD begat God. One of His own kind, not created…but born…a firstborn.   A literal firstborn. Mary had a part in the Son's flesh body production, not in the Son's spirit production which was born directly by GOD, IMO. I wish we could discuss this in person…I feel limited here. God bless, Kathi Hi LU: Yes, He does tell us that the one who was born of the flesh is His Only Begotten Son, and the scriptures tell us that the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary and she conceived, and the His Only Begotten Son was born of the Virgin Mary. We should stick to what the scriptures tell us.  The scriptures do not tell us that Yahshua was born of God before this. Love in Christ, Marty

Hi Marty,
We are understanding the term “firstborn” of all creation differently. I think that you have replaced the word “of” with the word “over” if I am not mistaken. In the Greek the word for creation is in the genitive case and requires the word “of” to translate it. All genitive case words have the word “of” in front of it. If it was “over,” that is a preposition and is not found in the Greek in that verse.

Do you think that it is impossible for the first to receive life apart from GOD be His own son?

The Son had to be a son before creation occured for the Father to tell us that it was by the Son that the foundation was laid in Hebrews 1.

God bless ya Marty,
Kathi

[KangarooJack]

Lightenup said:

Quote

I can't tell you how GOD would reproduce, He doesn't tell us those details.

Kathi,
So you do think that God reproduced? This is a pagan idea. I do NOT mean to say that you are pagan. However, the idea is pagan.

LU said:

Quote

It tells us that the one who came in the flesh was begotten of God, born of God and that He was in the beginning, God.

Yes! Jesus was in the beginning God.

LU said:

Quote

One of His own kind, not created…but born…a firstborn.   A literal firstborn.

Yes! Jesus was God's own kind NOT created. However, Jesus was NOT literally firstborn. As Jacob He is the firstborn by name. Jacob's brother Esau was the literal firstborn. Jacob was the firstborn by name only and he was the type of Christ.

LU said:

Quote

Mary had a part in the Son's flesh body production, not in the Son's spirit production which was born directly by GOD

We agree about the flesh of the Son. As to the spirit God cannot reproduce.

Kathi,
I must say that your confusion is manifesting itself more than ever. You have said that the Son was “in the beginning God” which is correct. You say also that the Son is “produced” which negates that He could be “in the beginning God.”

Esau was Isaac's literal firstborn. Jacob became the firstborn by name after Esau sold his birthright.  Jacob's new title gave him all the rights and privileges of the firstborn son. Since Jacob was a type of Christ then Christ is also the firstborn by name or title and NOT literally.

thinker

[NickHassan]

Hi tt,
Do you define the limits of our God?
Ps2
7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

[942767]

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,09:31)

Quote (942767 @ April 21 2009,17:15) Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,08:01) Quote (thethinker @ April 21 2009,15:06) Lightenup said: Quote Good grief why would God who is complete need a counterpart to reproduce?  Man needs a helpmate, God does not. Kathi, Agreed. Then why do you say that Jesus is the “literal” Son of God? Explain yourself for it looks like ancient paganism to me. How is Jesus the “literal” Son of God if the Father did not consummate with another God? luv ya though yur confused, thinker Thinker, I can't tell you how GOD would reproduce, He doesn't tell us those details.  It tells us that the one who came in the flesh was begotten of God, born of God and that He was in the beginning, God. GOD begat God. One of His own kind, not created…but born…a firstborn.   A literal firstborn. Mary had a part in the Son's flesh body production, not in the Son's spirit production which was born directly by GOD, IMO. I wish we could discuss this in person…I feel limited here. God bless, Kathi Hi LU: Yes, He does tell us that the one who was born of the flesh is His Only Begotten Son, and the scriptures tell us that the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary and she conceived, and the His Only Begotten Son was born of the Virgin Mary. We should stick to what the scriptures tell us.  The scriptures do not tell us that Yahshua was born of God before this. Love in Christ, Marty Hi Marty, We are understanding the term “firstborn” of all creation differently.  I think that you have replaced the word “of” with the word “over” if I am not mistaken.  In the Greek the word for creation is in the genitive case and requires the word “of” to translate it.  All genitive case words have the word “of” in front of it.  If it was “over,” that is a preposition and is not found in the Greek in that verse. Do you think that it is impossible for the first to receive life apart from GOD be His own son? The Son had to be a son before creation occured for the Father to tell us that it was by the Son that the foundation was laid in Hebrews 1. God bless ya Marty, Kathi

Hi LU:

He is the “firstborn of God” of all creation, but the scriptures tell us when he was born of God.

Love in Christ,
Marty

[KangarooJack]

942767 wrote:

Quote

Hi LU: He is the “firstborn of God” of all creation, but the scriptures tell us when he was born of God.

Marty,
The expression “all creation” is the Greek pasa ktisis and always refers to mankind. Jesus said to go into all the world and preach the gospel to “all creation” (pasa ktisis). The gospel is preached to men.  Therefore, Jesus is the firstborn over ALL MANKIND. It means that He is supreme over all mankind for the firstborn has the supremacy. It has nothing to do with His being created.

thinker

[NickHassan]

Hi TT,
Were the angels created?

[942767]

Quote (thethinker @ April 22 2009,10:29)

942767 wrote: Quote Hi LU: He is the “firstborn of God” of all creation, but the scriptures tell us when he was born of God. Marty, The expression “all creation” is the Greek pasa ktisis and always refers to mankind. Jesus said to go into all the world and presach the gospel to “all creation” (pasa ktisis). The gospel is preached to men.  Therefore, Jesus is the firstborn over ALL MANKIND. It means that He is supreme over all mankind for the firstborn has the supremacy. It has nothing to do with His being created. thinker

Hi thethinker:

He is the firstborn over all of creation now, and that happened when he was born again from the dead and God exalted him to his current postion as head of the church.

I never said that he was created. Adam and Eve were created. He is the firstborn of God of all of mankind, and the first of mankind to born again from the dead. He was conceived of the Holy Ghost making Him the Only Begotten Son of God and he was born of a woman. He was and is a man. Not just any man, mind you, but nevertheless a man.

Love in Christ,
Marty

[KangarooJack]

942767 said:

Quote

I never said that he was created.

Boom! So you agree with me that He was NOT created.

thinker

[942767]

Quote (thethinker @ April 22 2009,11:09)

942767 said: Quote I never said that he was created. Boom! So you agree with me that He was NOT created. thinker

I agree that he was not created.

[Lightenup]

Quote (942767 @ April 21 2009,17:50)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,09:31) Quote (942767 @ April 21 2009,17:15) Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,08:01) Quote (thethinker @ April 21 2009,15:06) Lightenup said: Quote Good grief why would God who is complete need a counterpart to reproduce?  Man needs a helpmate, God does not. Kathi, Agreed. Then why do you say that Jesus is the “literal” Son of God? Explain yourself for it looks like ancient paganism to me. How is Jesus the “literal” Son of God if the Father did not consummate with another God? luv ya though yur confused, thinker Thinker, I can't tell you how GOD would reproduce, He doesn't tell us those details.  It tells us that the one who came in the flesh was begotten of God, born of God and that He was in the beginning, God. GOD begat God. One of His own kind, not created…but born…a firstborn.   A literal firstborn. Mary had a part in the Son's flesh body production, not in the Son's spirit production which was born directly by GOD, IMO. I wish we could discuss this in person…I feel limited here. God bless, Kathi Hi LU: Yes, He does tell us that the one who was born of the flesh is His Only Begotten Son, and the scriptures tell us that the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary and she conceived, and the His Only Begotten Son was born of the Virgin Mary. We should stick to what the scriptures tell us.  The scriptures do not tell us that Yahshua was born of God before this. Love in Christ, Marty Hi Marty, We are understanding the term “firstborn” of all creation differently.  I think that you have replaced the word “of” with the word “over” if I am not mistaken.  In the Greek the word for creation is in the genitive case and requires the word “of” to translate it.  All genitive case words have the word “of” in front of it.  If it was “over,” that is a preposition and is not found in the Greek in that verse. Do you think that it is impossible for the first to receive life apart from GOD be His own son? The Son had to be a son before creation occured for the Father to tell us that it was by the Son that the foundation was laid in Hebrews 1. God bless ya Marty, Kathi Hi LU: He is the “firstborn of God” of all creation, but the scriptures tell us when he was born of God. Love in Christ, Marty

Hi Marty,
The Bible does tell us that He existed, although not yet in the flesh, in the beginning therefore He had to have been born by then. He is the firstborn of all creation of which the angels are part of as well as men.
God bless ya,
Kathi

[942767]

Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,12:53)

Quote (942767 @ April 21 2009,17:50) Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,09:31) Quote (942767 @ April 21 2009,17:15) Quote (Lightenup @ April 22 2009,08:01) Quote (thethinker @ April 21 2009,15:06) Lightenup said: Quote Good grief why would God who is complete need a counterpart to reproduce?  Man needs a helpmate, God does not. Kathi, Agreed. Then why do you say that Jesus is the “literal” Son of God? Explain yourself for it looks like ancient paganism to me. How is Jesus the “literal” Son of God if the Father did not consummate with another God? luv ya though yur confused, thinker Thinker, I can't tell you how GOD would reproduce, He doesn't tell us those details.  It tells us that the one who came in the flesh was begotten of God, born of God and that He was in the beginning, God. GOD begat God. One of His own kind, not created…but born…a firstborn.   A literal firstborn. Mary had a part in the Son's flesh body production, not in the Son's spirit production which was born directly by GOD, IMO. I wish we could discuss this in person…I feel limited here. God bless, Kathi Hi LU: Yes, He does tell us that the one who was born of the flesh is His Only Begotten Son, and the scriptures tell us that the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary and she conceived, and the His Only Begotten Son was born of the Virgin Mary. We should stick to what the scriptures tell us.  The scriptures do not tell us that Yahshua was born of God before this. Love in Christ, Marty Hi Marty, We are understanding the term “firstborn” of all creation differently.  I think that you have replaced the word “of” with the word “over” if I am not mistaken.  In the Greek the word for creation is in the genitive case and requires the word “of” to translate it.  All genitive case words have the word “of” in front of it.  If it was “over,” that is a preposition and is not found in the Greek in that verse. Do you think that it is impossible for the first to receive life apart from GOD be His own son? The Son had to be a son before creation occured for the Father to tell us that it was by the Son that the foundation was laid in Hebrews 1. God bless ya Marty, Kathi Hi LU: He is the “firstborn of God” of all creation, but the scriptures tell us when he was born of God. Love in Christ, Marty Hi Marty, The Bible does tell us that He existed, although not yet in the flesh, in the beginning therefore He had to have been born by then.  He is the firstborn of all creation of which the angels are part of as well as men. God bless ya, Kathi

Kathi:

There is no where in the scriptures that states that Jesus was born before he was born of the virgin Mary.

The scripture states that he was foreordained. He existed in the bosom of the Father. God knew that a precise moment in time that he would conceive a Son and send him into the world to be the saviour of mankind.

When you say “he had to be born because of this or that” you are speculating that this is the case. There is no scripture which states that he was born prior to what is shown in the scriptures.

Love in Christ,
Marty

[Lightenup]

Marty,
It says that His origins are from ancient time and it does say that He laid the foundations of the world in an active living way.
Kathi

[Author]

Posts