- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 08 2010,11:27) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 06 2010,10:17) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 05 2010,17:09) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 05 2010,14:55) Lightenup,Nov. wrote:Keith,
Quote To say Jesus is another being from God is to divide the essence. Can you tell me your definition of the word 'being' here?
Also, what do you mean when you say 'divide the essence?'
Can you please explain this in a simple way for me?
KathiIt is simple. To divide the essence of God would be making the Father and Jesus into “2 Gods”.
Again, this is what the creed says…
And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. “But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost“. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. “And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. “And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty“. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords.
This is in agreement with the scriptures for we know there is only “One Spirit” which we have recieved and that is God.
They worshipped “One True God” not two.
You keep dodging this question Kathi…
Do you worship “One True God” or 2 Kathi?
WJ
Quote It is simple. To divide the essence of God would be making the Father and Jesus into “2 Gods”. Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 05 2010,17:09) I don't buy that understanding for a minute. Essence is nature. Did your nature divide when you had kids.
Yes, my kids are two beings aren't they?WJ
Keith,
Your two beings are of one essence and all three of you are not 1/3 of that one essence are you? No division of essence was necessary. This whole idea of 'dividing of essence' is not understood by you, imo.
KathiSo this means that there are “Two Gods” of the same essence, is that what you believe the creeds teach?
WJ
Keith,
I believe the message of the creeds is that there is one true God, the Father and one begotten God OF/from the unbegotten God, and one Spirit of God. All of ONE essence.Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 08 2010,13:08) Keith,
I believe the message of the creeds is that there is one true God, the Father and one begotten God OF/from the unbegotten God, and one Spirit of God. All of ONE essence.
KathiStill not a direct answer of yes or no, but anyway…
First of all the creeds did not stop until the final creed, the Athanasian Creed. You insist that the church must have contradicted themselves, yet they have no ammendments nor any explanation in the history of the church or the creeds that states the previous is wrong or they contradict.
Secondly, no where does the creeds or even any of the Fathers that I know of worship more than “One True God”. Some included Jesus in that “One True God”, while the Arians didn't.
So you worship “2 Gods”, one unbegotten God and one begotten God? Is that right?
WJ
Keith,
I don't think that I said that the church contradicted themselves, I think they added ideas that are ambiguous and cannot be proven with scripture and then put upon those a heavy burden by judging those who don't understand the added ideas as eternally damned. They say it is a mystery…just believe. I think that is not of God, to just believe when you don't see it in scriptures. Cult leaders talk like that.Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 08 2010,15:10) Keith,
I don't think that I said that the church contradicted themselves, I think they added ideas that are ambiguous and cannot be proven with scripture and then put upon those a heavy burden by judging those who don't understand the added ideas as eternally damned. They say it is a mystery…just believe. I think that is not of God, to just believe when you don't see it in scriptures. Cult leaders talk like that.
KathiYou talk as if it is possible to totally comprehend an infinite God and his nature.
The creeds are clear and they do not mention the word Mystery. However the scriptures do mention the Mystery, “Great is the Mystery of Godliness, he (some manuscripts God) was manifest in the flesh…”.
What is ambiguous is your claim that you worship “One True God” and include Jesus who you believe is “another God” born from that “One True God” through procreation in the “One True God” that you worship. That IMO is a bastardation of what the Fathers who wrote the creeds meant.
You claim that Jesus is part of the “One True God” that you worship yet say Jesus is “another God” born from the “One True God”. You talk about contradictions.
WJ
Keith,
Well I have proven that your idea of the Son becoming a Son of God in time and not before the ages is certainly a 'bastardation' of what the fathers who wrote the creeds meant. So, as a person who defines the term 'eternally begotten' as if you were defining the term 'unbegotten' and trying to claim that a Father and a Son as two beings would be dividing the essence as if the Father to have a Son would make Him less divine nature than He was before He beget the Son who was also divine nature, your opinion holds little weight, sorry. I don't put much weight on what you understand or don't understand.You say the creeds are clear but you do not even know what dividing of the essence means or begotten before the ages means. You talk about the Son of God but you don't believe He is a literal Son of God. You claim that monogenes mean an 'only of its kind' even though the word monogenes is made up of a verb and not a noun, then claim that the creeds don't have monogenes as 'only begotten.' And you tell me that the creeds are clear to you and that I have contradictions. You define 'eternally begotten' as having no beginning and no end…do you want to buy some swampland in Florida?
What is clear is that the creeds are not clear to you.
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 08 2010,19:51) You say the creeds are clear but you do not even know what dividing of the essence means or begotten before the ages means.
KathiNo it is you that does not understand what the dividing of the essence means. Do you think you know more than those who wrote the creeds?
That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, “IS ALL ONE; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. “And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal“.
They worshipped “One God in Trinity”, you worship 2 Gods! You divide the essence!
WJ
Keith,
When you had your first daughter did your essence divide and leave you with less essence than you had before you had her? Essence is nature and in your case it is human nature. Yes or No, did you have less 'essence' after your daughter was conceived than before she was conceived?Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 08 2010,23:18) Keith,
When you had your first daughter did your essence divide and leave you with less essence than you had before you had her? Essence is nature and in your case it is human nature. Yes or No, did you have less 'essence' after your daughter was conceived than before she was conceived?
Yes, what ever part of me and my wife became part of my child and left her body as a new human being.Do I have to go into details? Did part of God leave God and become another God?
So if God reproduced himself and brought forth another with all his attributes exacly like him in nature then that means that God brought forth another who is all powerful like himself.
Your idea says that an infinite God can become more infinite by multiplication, you do get that don't you?
In reality you are saying that God is not infinite because he can reproduce himself and become greater.
You have rejected what those who wrote the creeds meant and have applied your own interpretation.
WJ
Keith,
I don't agree that you or your wife became less human after the birth of your children than before. My husband and I certainly didn't. More tired certainly, but not less human. I don't have much time now…later.Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 09 2010,09:50) Keith,
I don't agree that you or your wife became less human after the birth of your children than before. My husband and I certainly didn't. More tired certainly, but not less human. I don't have much time now…later.
KathiHow did you read into my statement that my wife and I became less human?
Why would you twist what I said.
Did part of your essence leave you and your husband and become your child or not Kathi? Does your children have your DNA?
If so that is a dividing of your essence.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 09 2010,09:26) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 08 2010,23:18) Keith,
When you had your first daughter did your essence divide and leave you with less essence than you had before you had her? Essence is nature and in your case it is human nature. Yes or No, did you have less 'essence' after your daughter was conceived than before she was conceived?
Yes, what ever part of me and my wife became part of my child and left her body as a new human being.Do I have to go into details? Did part of God leave God and become another God?
So if God reproduced himself and brought forth another with all his attributes exacly like him in nature then that means that God brought forth another who is all powerful like himself.
Your idea says that an infinite God can become more infinite by multiplication, you do get that don't you?
In reality you are saying that God is not infinite because he can reproduce himself and become greater.
You have rejected what those who wrote the creeds meant and have applied your own interpretation.
WJ
Keith,
You are the one that said you had less essence. Maybe we have to get a better definition of what essence means in the Athanasian Creed. I don't think that sperm is included in essence but more like the ability to make sperm. Idk, never really thought about it like now.As for the Father, He has always been self-sufficient, in need of nothing. So, I believe that He always had the essence of deity within Him that was meant to be begotten at the appropriate time when needed for God to be relational with His creation. That Son's essence was the same as who the Father was except He was begotten and the Father was not. The Father didn't become a Father, but always was a Father because of the essence of His Son always present either within Him or begotten from Him.
Did the Father become more almighty? I think the question should be if the Father became more self-sufficient. I would answer that as a no. Does the Father become a stronger God with the Son begotten, yes I would think so. I became stronger when I had 5 kids because they are my strength in many ways. Do those of us who have become His children increase His strength? I think so. If I looked for it I could probably find something about that. I certainly don't think that the Father became weaker by begetting a Son.
Quote Did part of God leave God and become another God? The Father has always been with the Son and they have always been united. The Son isn't 'another' God but He is the same God but in person of the Son, not in the person of the Father.
If I took a picture of my father and made a copy of it on my copier, the copy would be the same father as the one in the original picture but it wouldn't be the original picture.
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 09 2010,15:11) Does the Father become a stronger God with the Son begotten, yes I would think so.
KathiHow can that which is infinite become more infinite? It seems to me that your explanation above means the Father could not be fully God unless he brought birth to a Son through procreation.
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 09 2010,15:11) Maybe we have to get a better definition of what essence means in the Athanasian Creed.
KathiWhat more definition do you need than the creed itself…
And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of “the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. “And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also “there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite“. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. “And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty“. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And “yet they are not three Gods; but one God.” So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And “yet not three Lords; but one Lord.” For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords.
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 08 2010,19:51) You claim that monogenes mean an 'only of its kind' even though the word monogenes is made up of a verb and not a noun, then claim that the creeds don't have monogenes as 'only begotten.'
KathiWhy do you bear false witness against me? You know full well I have admitted that the word “monogenes' is in the creeds.
Also you speak a half truth.
The word Monogenes is not just made up of a verb but an adjective and a verb.
The word “Monogenes” is an adjective itself.
You do know what an adjective is right Kathi? An adjective describes a noun. In this case it would be “Theos” (God) or “Son” depending on the manuscript.
I accept the definition of the term like every other scholar who translated the word in most translations including the NET. You accept the definition of the NWT and the NASB as “Begotten God”.
Here is the strongs definition of the word Monogenes…
1) single of its kind, only
a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God
So “Single of its kind, only” is Strongs first definition of the word.
Here is the root words that make Monogenes…
“Monos”
alone (without a companion), forsaken, destitute of help, alone, only, merely
“ginomai”
1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
a) of events
3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
a) of men appearing in public
4) to be made, finished
a) of miracles, to be performed, wrought
5) to become, be made
Do you see the word “Begotten” in the root words?
WJ
Keith,
I see 'come into existence,' begin to be, and receive existence. Those identify with the term 'begotten.' What I do not see in 'ginomai' is 'of its kind.' Do you see 'of its kind?'Quote Here is the root words that make Monogenes… “Monos”
alone (without a companion), forsaken, destitute of help, alone, only, merely
“ginomai”
1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
a) of events
3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
a) of men appearing in public
4) to be made, finished
a) of miracles, to be performed, wrought
5) to become, be made
Do you see the word “Begotten” in the root words?
You keep saying that you accept the term like many scholars but you don't seem to realize that I am in agreement with many scholars also and also the creeds and the early church fathers. The creeds and the early church father's disagree with your scholars. Do you acknowledge that? In fact they consider the Father as 'unbegotten.' Do you think that the Father isn't 'single, of its kind?' There is no getting around it, your scholars that you agree with have removed the action part of the adjective that the early church confessed.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 09 2010,15:49) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 09 2010,15:11) Does the Father become a stronger God with the Son begotten, yes I would think so.
KathiHow can that which is infinite become more infinite? It seems to me that your explanation above means the Father could not be fully God unless he brought birth to a Son through procreation.
WJ
Keith,
I didn't use the term infinite in my explanation.Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 14 2010,14:15) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 09 2010,15:49) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 09 2010,15:11) Does the Father become a stronger God with the Son begotten, yes I would think so.
KathiHow can that which is infinite become more infinite? It seems to me that your explanation above means the Father could not be fully God unless he brought birth to a Son through procreation.
WJ
Keith,
I didn't use the term infinite in my explanation.
Greetings Kathi….My feeling is that the nicene creed is not a credable point of reference simply because it is not scriptual nor biblical ….The creed is the creation of the universal church which convened in Nicea for the purpose of redefining the christian faith and in effect de judized it….This was accomplished by the institution of holidays such as christmas and easter as well as the creation of the sunday sabbath instead of the so called jewish sabbath of saturday(a whole topic in itself)….With reference to the begetal of Jesus we must pay attention to the fact that there is no mention of the personage of Jesus theoughout the OT,with one exception and that would be ISA:53 and even there the description fits the personage of Jesus but does not name him…To really start a thought provoking question…Who was Melchezadek…..This is the only scriptual phenomonon that would declare the personage of Jesus before bethlehem…Hi there Ted,
This is as fine a place as any to discuss when the Son was begotten…there are plenty of threads to choose from, LOL. I've just about been to all of them and it is of great interest to me and also key in many ways.As far as Melchizedek, that is somewhat of a mystery, I don't see Him as a theophany of the Son. I don't believe that Mel literally had no parents just as the Son did have a parent, Mel did too, he must have but his lineage was just not recorded. He might be considered a type of Christ as David was a type of Christ.
Have you considered Gen 18 when the three 'men' came to Abraham and one was called Jehovah? I think that has merit to be the Son as a theophany. Also, the scriptures in Hebrews 1 says that the Son laid the foundation of the earth and the heavens are the works of His hands and the verb voice in Greek is written in the active voice to indicate that the Son actively laid the foundation. He of course, had to be there to do that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
