- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ April 12 2011,00:05) Dennison-son, You can take medicine for that, ya know
I could but im Too lazy…A little bit of motherly advice for you Dennison-son…the young guy that will get off their back end and get themselves some medicine when they have a headache, will be your boss some day
So, you have to make a decision now, don't you?
Post 1:
Hi Kathi let me pay up my debt to youQuote God was revealed little by little. There is a fuller understanding of who He is when Jesus walked the earth and then after He was resurrected, and more after the Comforter was given, and there will be more given after that. Do you agree with that? So, why explain the fuller knowledge with the lessor knowledge? Doesn't it make more sense to explain the God of the OT with the NT?
Personally I think the OT and the NT are interchangable, they are meant to explain eachother. In other words, they are one. Thats why hebrews and the book of Romans exist, to give a better connection between the two.
In Reality The personality of God never changes in Psychological terms. Truth is, that the bible calrifies that God is unknowable, therefore thats where Christ comes in as the image, the knowable about God.
Such as our minds, and personality (the unseen) is unknowable to others. Yet the body is known, what is seen, what we can touch, and feel and know who i am.Quote The NT tells us that the word was with God and that He was God (that implies two),
the NT tells us that the begotten God saw God who no one else has seen (wouldn't that be impossible for one to see the another if the other is the one doing the seeing),
the NT tells us that the Son will sit on the throne with His Father (with shows more than one),
the NT tells us that no one knows the Son except the Father and no one knows the Father except the Son and who the Son wishes to explain Him to (that is two persons),
the NT tells us that they (plural) will dwell within us.
But the OT Tells us that God created Man in “our” image, yet we know there is only one image.
the OT says there can only be one God
The OT clarifies that there is only one Creator
The OT clarifies that God is unknowable
The OT clarifies that God will not share is Glory with another
THe OT STates there is no other God
The OT states that he will Dwell in us, and be our God
The OT clarifies that he Is the ONLY SaviourSo obviosly there is either a contradiction or its simply that God revealed himself as a Man in flesh.
There were never Two until the NT, so therefore you can only conclude that The Apostles painted Jesus out to be like God.
John 1:1 is almost exactly alike Genesis 1:1.
Again the Apostles were painting a picture for the reader to state that THIS very same man who Died and rose again, is the God you have always known.Quote So, you see there are some things you must overcome in the way you see the Father and Son too. You are using the OT to explain the NT when it should be the other way around. The further we go along, the more that has been revealed.
Unless you can quote in the bible where God intended you to read backwards than i couldnt subject myself to that theory.
Honestly you would start with Revelations to explain Genesis?
That doesnt make sense.
To understand the NEED of Jesus, you would have to see what happen to mankind in the OT.Quote Think of a mystery novel…you explain the mystery by the end of the book, not the beginning. Well, I think I am caught up…sigh
The bible is whats revealed, not technically a surprise.
Its not a book, but actions that actualy taken place.
There was a need for Jesus, and to understand why we need Jesus than we must read the OT.
Paul in Romans and in Hebrews, quotes the Old Testament all the time.
Jesus quotes the OT all the time.
So if Jesus starts talking about the “days of Noah” and you havent read Genesis, than you have no idea what he is talking about.
As Hebrew states that Jesus is the BETTER testament.The only reason that a person would suggest that the OT and the NT are seperate, is the same reason why people believe that Jesus and God are seperate entities, becasue they cant simply understand how the Two are One.
Also, the OT and the NT is a man-made divison.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 02 2011,09:12) Another thought Dennison,
You are a son and one day, you may become a father also, and then much later you may become a grandfather too. When you are a grandfather and you go to live with your grandchildren, one person (you as the grandfather) will be living with them, not three persons of you. You will not show up at their doorstep and say that “we have come to live with you.” You might say that “I have come to live with you.” Do you see this? The Father and Son are not the same person…THEY come to live with us.Jesus said that:
John 14:23
Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.Bigger sigh…
Yes but My Father and I are not the same person, nor do we think the same, nor do i do the Works of my Father, even if he willed me too, i can never perfectly do everything he would wish me to do.And even if I did to my father wishes, I in the other hand would have my own seperate thoughts.
This is not the case with Jesus, he claims to be ONE with the father, that the father is IN him.
So much so, that he told philip that your lookin at the father.Quote (Lightenup @ April 04 2011,08:01) Quote (Lightenup @ April 01 2011,22:40) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 01 2011,00:47) Quote (Lightenup @ April 01 2011,10:40) Dennison, Quote I also believe that Jesus is refferred to as the outstretched arm thingy. Great!
Quote 1. Species? Define that.
Well, a species is a type of kind. Like a human species…eneryone is human in the human species. A canine species, all animals in the canine species are canine. In the deity species…all are deity in the deity species. Get it?Quote 2. Are you stating that its impossible for the Almighty God to do anything physical? or demonstrate himself physically? I think that God the Father is all powerful and can demonstrate Himself physically.
Quote 3. But he wasnt revealed as the Father until the New Testament through Jesus Christ, so therefore Christ wasnt presented as the Son until the New testament as well, so therefore what “are” they before hand? They were always Father and Son, that was just not revealed till the NT.
Quote 4. If Jesus is the Son of Man, than what Man is his Father?
Adam???
Mary was man as in mankind. She contributed to His flesh nature.Well, I can't keep my eyes open so…g'nite Dennison,son
Nice having a conversation with you!
Kathi
1. So are angels part of the Species? and wasnt adam created in the image of God, so therefore also the same species?2. So would you not consider that could be Jesus?
3. In what sense were they always Father and Son?
4. Of course we know that Mary contributed to his flesh nature, but the question is specfic. If we conclude that just because Jesus is called the son of God, than it means that God is his father, than who is the Father in regards when Jesus calls himself the Son of Man?
In other words, I believe he is referring to his nature and not his exact identity.Lol, Nice. You know in Japan its mandatory for strangers to call me “Dennison-son” out of respect.
lol.
nice haveing a convo with you too Lady,
Thanks for reminding me Dennison-sonQuote 1. So are angels part of the Species? and wasnt adam created in the image of God, so therefore also the same species? No, definitely not, the angels are not part of the species. Adam was created in His image but did not have the exact representation of His nature…that was only the only begotten Son of God.
Quote 2. So would you not consider that could be Jesus? John 1:1 tells us one was with the other in the beginning.
Quote 3. In what sense were they always Father and Son? The Father contained the Son within Him from eternity, the Son was the image of the Father and not the Father, the Son was the exact representation of the nature of the Father, the Son was begotten from the Father before the ages. He who was within was begotten (came out).
Quote 4. Of course we know that Mary contributed to his flesh nature, but the question is specfic. If we conclude that just because Jesus is called the son of God, than it means that God is his father, than who is the Father in regards when Jesus calls himself the Son of Man?
In other words, I believe he is referring to his nature and not his exact identity.God is His Father in both the Son of God before the ages and Son of Man born from Mary. He was fathered by God as the Son before the ages because the Father contained Him within Him as explained above and that which was within Him was like Him. He was fathered by God as the Son of Man because He was supernaturally conceived by the Holy Spirit. His human nature came from Mary, His divine nature always existed within the one that beget Him.
There are your answers to that list
On to the next list…Kathi
Dennison,You said:
Quote Hi Kathi,
1. Than again, the bibles states that sin entered through one man, and that we are all redeemed by one man as well.
Paul makes many comparisons between Adam and Jesus, and also calls Jesus the second Adam. So how was Adam not in the exact representation of Gods nature if he was created in Gods image?
And also, we are also predistend to be in that image through christ. Rom8:29
2. Its basically saying that the word IS GOD. unless you want to apply that verse two refers to the beggining of God existance.
3. Eternity is beyond time, therefore timeless. So than when was Jesus begotten according to you?1. God, the Father and the begotten God are not man nature. They have divine nature. Adam has human nature. The begotten God became human nature also, without, of course,
losing His divine nature. Man is made in the image of God but that doesn't mean that man is also God. Obviously.
The Son always was the exact representation of the Father's nature…that was His eternal nature and His original nature. Anyone who 'will' partake of the nature will not have it as their 'original' nature. No one can become God/a God.2. The ''was' is very important to refer to the beginning and it is also true in the present. I do think that John was stressing that the 'word' WAS divine nature even way back in the beginning.
3. If eternity is beyond time then we are already in heaven
I think there is a sense of time in heaven but it is different. Here we have days/nights/months/years. In heaven, if we aren't there yet, then there is a sense of time in heaven.I think He was begotten when God said “Let there be light” Gen. 1:3…and I think that He existed within the Father before that, even from eternity. The one who was in…came out…begotten…ta da!
Catch ya later…Kathi
1. What can you offer as proof to state that God has not physical correlation with Man if he wished too.
The bible claims that Jesus is the Second Adam. Adam didnt die, yet God said he would. So what died? “his divine nature”2. I dont think that makes a difference. Whether if its in your point of view or mine, it makes it clear that the person in question is the Word of God, and the Word was God.
Its not saying that there are two persons.
I dont believe, that John meant this in a sense to present a “past-tense” to Gods nature.3. Technically Which heaven do you refer too? what heaven?
Jesus stated in John 17, that you will receive Eternal life when you know God and whom he has sent, so therefore if that is accomplish that you received eteranal life at that very moment.
So your stating the almigthy God who is “all knowing” is limited by Time and Space?
If God has a limitation that he himself has not produced, than he is not God.So if Jesus is that light in Genesis 1:3 than how was it possible that he was divided in vs4?
so shouldnt we call Jesus “day” if that were true according to verse 5?
See ya later kathi
Dennison,
Thank you, you must be feeling better. I agree with you that the OT is as important as the NT. We need to read both to get the big picture. I would think that you would agree that the prophecies were better understood after they were fulfilled, right? That is why the further we read in the chronology of the Bible, the more understanding we get and therefore we ought to let the later things said help clarify the older things and not the other way around.Take for instance the covenant of redemption, this excerpt from an online article expresses what I am saying:
Quote God’s covenant of Redemption, The basic covenant expressed perhaps best in Gen
17:7 “And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after
you through out their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your
descendants after you.” is progressively repeated in the history of God's dealings with man:
Adam (Gen 3:15), Noah (Gen 9), Abraham (Gen 17), at Sinai (Exo 19 & 20), with Levi
(Num 25:12,13) and David (II Sam 7) and is in essence the New Covenant (Jere 31:31-34,
cf. Hebr 8, cf. Mt 26:28, Lk 22:20) and the Covenant of Peace (Ezek l6:60, 34:25). The
Scripture comes to its climax in Rev. 21:3 with the fulfillment of that covenant: “Behold
the tabernacle of God is among men and He shall dwell among them, and they shall be his
peoples, and God Himself will be among them.” The relationship man was created to have,
though lost through the fall, is restored in Christ, and will be brought to fulfillment in the
New Heavens and earth. God's revelation of this is, in the successive stages of Biblical
history, expanded and clarified- though it is there from the beginning.Can we agree here?
Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ April 12 2011,09:54) Dennison,
Thank you, you must be feeling better. I agree with you that the OT is as important as the NT. We need to read both to get the big picture. I would think that you would agree that the prophecies were better understood after they were fulfilled, right? That is why the further we read in the chronology of the Bible, the more understanding we get and therefore we ought to let the later things said help clarify the older things and not the other way around.Take for instance the covenant of redemption, this excerpt from an online article expresses what I am saying:
Quote God’s covenant of Redemption, The basic covenant expressed perhaps best in Gen
17:7 “And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after
you through out their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your
descendants after you.” is progressively repeated in the history of God's dealings with man:
Adam (Gen 3:15), Noah (Gen 9), Abraham (Gen 17), at Sinai (Exo 19 & 20), with Levi
(Num 25:12,13) and David (II Sam 7) and is in essence the New Covenant (Jere 31:31-34,
cf. Hebr 8, cf. Mt 26:28, Lk 22:20) and the Covenant of Peace (Ezek l6:60, 34:25). The
Scripture comes to its climax in Rev. 21:3 with the fulfillment of that covenant: “Behold
the tabernacle of God is among men and He shall dwell among them, and they shall be his
peoples, and God Himself will be among them.” The relationship man was created to have,
though lost through the fall, is restored in Christ, and will be brought to fulfillment in the
New Heavens and earth. God's revelation of this is, in the successive stages of Biblical
history, expanded and clarified- though it is there from the beginning.Can we agree here?
Kathi
Kathi,
Actually i dont know whats wrong with me, but i been sick with alot of headaches and other stuff.
I dont know whats wrong. but i have a day off tommorow, so im gona rest up.Anyways,
It works both ways really. The story makes future prophecies and as they are being fullfiled in the NT, the writers make alot of references back to the orginal.i could agree along those lines.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 11 2011,18:45) Quote (Lightenup @ April 02 2011,09:12) Another thought Dennison,
You are a son and one day, you may become a father also, and then much later you may become a grandfather too. When you are a grandfather and you go to live with your grandchildren, one person (you as the grandfather) will be living with them, not three persons of you. You will not show up at their doorstep and say that “we have come to live with you.” You might say that “I have come to live with you.” Do you see this? The Father and Son are not the same person…THEY come to live with us.Jesus said that:
John 14:23
Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.Bigger sigh…
Yes but My Father and I are not the same person, nor do we think the same, nor do i do the Works of my Father, even if he willed me too, i can never perfectly do everything he would wish me to do.And even if I did to my father wishes, I in the other hand would have my own seperate thoughts.
This is not the case with Jesus, he claims to be ONE with the father, that the father is IN him.
So much so, that he told philip that your lookin at the father.
Dennison,
Regarding seeing the Father when looking at Christ:John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
The reason that we can see the Father when looking at Christ, is because of explanation, not by physical sight…it is more of a seeing in the spiritual sense as opposed to the physical sense.
Matt 11:27
All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.Notice what Gill says regarding John 14:9:
Quote Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Jesus saith unto him, have I been so long time with you,…. Conversing familiarly with you, instructing you by my ministry, and performing so many miraculous works among you, for so long a time; see Hebrews 5:11;and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? Surely you cannot be so ignorant as this comes to; as you have seen me with your bodily eyes, as a man, you must, know that I am God by the doctrines I have taught you, and the miracles I have wrought among you: and
he that hath seen me; not with the eyes of his body, but with the eyes of his understanding; he that has beheld the perfections of the Godhead in me:
hath seen the Father; the perfections which are in him also; for the same that are in me are in him, and the same that are in him are in me: I am the very image of him, and am possessed of the same nature, attributes, and glory, that he is; so that he that sees the one, sees the other:
and how sayest thou then show us the Father? such a request is a needless one, and betrays great weakness and ignorance.
Meditate on what a PERFECT begotten God would do, would a PERFECT Son ever disappoint a PERFECT Father, if He would then He would not be perfect…do you see/percieve?
Kathi
Dennison,
Have you been checked for allergies? I also am having a lot of headaches, just getting over one in fact. I am suspecting the pollen causing the problem. You ought to get a check up. I hope you feel better soon.Sending motherly love,
KathiDennison you are keeping me busy…
You wrote in your post above:
Quote 1. What can you offer as proof to state that God has not physical correlation with Man if he wished too.
The bible claims that Jesus is the Second Adam. Adam didnt die, yet God said he would. So what died? “his divine nature”2. I dont think that makes a difference. Whether if its in your point of view or mine, it makes it clear that the person in question is the Word of God, and the Word was God.
Its not saying that there are two persons.
I dont believe, that John meant this in a sense to present a “past-tense” to Gods nature.3. Technically Which heaven do you refer too? what heaven?
Jesus stated in John 17, that you will receive Eternal life when you know God and whom he has sent, so therefore if that is accomplish that you received eteranal life at that very moment.
So your stating the almigthy God who is “all knowing” is limited by Time and Space?
If God has a limitation that he himself has not produced, than he is not God.So if Jesus is that light in Genesis 1:3 than how was it possible that he was divided in vs4?
so shouldnt we call Jesus “day” if that were true according to verse 5?
1. God can become flesh, that is what happened to the Son of God though and not the Father, but the begotten God, the Son didn't nor could He give up His divine nature. He contained both. He emptied Himself in some way that we aren't specifically told, in order to contain both natures. Adam did not ever have a divine nature but he began with an innocent and sinless human nature which became quilty and sinful human nature causing separation from God. When that happened, his innocence died and his body began the decaying process of getting older. Jesus is the 'second Adam' because He came with an innocent and sinless human nature…the sin nature is passed on through the human father and Jesus did not have a biological human father. Jesus, of course, did not become quilty and sinful in regards to His own disobedience but took on the quilt and sins of everyone else and was an acceptable sacrifice because He Himself was without sin.
I agree with Gill again, here:
Quote for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die; or “in dying, die” (z); which denotes the certainty of it, as our version expresses it; and may have regard to more deaths than one; not only a corporeal one, which in some sense immediately took place, man became at once a mortal creature, who otherwise continuing in a state of innocence, and by eating of the tree of life, he was allowed to do, would have lived an immortal life; of the eating of which tree, by sinning he was debarred, his natural life not now to be continued long, at least not for ever; he was immediately arraigned, tried, and condemned to death, was found guilty of it, and became obnoxious to it, and death at once began to work in him; sin sowed the seeds of it in his body, and a train of miseries, afflictions, and diseases, began to appear, which at length issued in death. Moreover, a spiritual or moral death immediately ensued; he lost his original righteousness, in which he was created; the image of God in him was deformed; the powers and faculties of his soul were corrupted, and he became dead in sins and trespasses; the consequence of which, had it not been for the interposition of a surety and Saviour, who engaged to make satisfaction to law and justice, must have been eternal death, or an everlasting separation from God, to him and all his posterity; for the wages of sin is death, even death eternal, Romans 6:23. So the Jews (a) interpret this of death, both in this world and in the world to come. http://bible.cc/genesis/2-17.htm
2.It also makes it clear that the word was with God. So if the 'word' represents a person, then a person is with God, another person.
3. The heaven where we will be after we die. We do receive eternal life at that moment of salvation, in a sense. We realize this eternal life when our spirit leaves our body at death of the flesh…the spirit continues living and is not destroyed ever.
Quote So your stating the almigthy God who is “all knowing” is limited by Time and Space?
If God has a limitation that he himself has not produced, than he is not God.Time in eternity is beyond comprehension, mine anyway. I do believe that there is an order of events that take place in eternity and therefore there is a before and after…one event comes before another. For instance, when Jesus left, he said that He goes to prepare a place for us. Well, that tells us that something that was unprepared will be prepared. That suggests a before and an after…in other words, time of an eternal sort.
Quote So if Jesus is that light in Genesis 1:3 than how was it possible that he was divided in vs4? so shouldnt we call Jesus “day” if that were true according to verse 5?
The Son was not divided, Genesis does not say that the light was separated from itself but from darkness. Where good is, there also, by default is the potential for evil. Possibly a kingdom of Light was established and a kingdom of darkness when God separated light from darkness on day one. It is just a theory. Also, the kingdom of darkness would have been empty because all was good still by the end of the week of creation.1 Thess 5:5
for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of darkness;Dennison, take your time with this…sorry I have been teasing you about getting back with me…just feel better, ok?
Kathi
Hi Keith,
I prefer “a god” in John 1:1, because I know that Jesus is a god who was with the God in the beginning, but who was not that God he was with. Kathi agrees with this, but for some reason feels the capitalized “God” in part c says this just the same as using “a god” would.
You, Keith, seem to prefer “the God”, which goes against even the Trinitarian scholars, due to part b. From NETNotes:
Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.
1. Keith, do you see that there are THREE possibilities, not TWO?
2. Do you see that one of those possibilities is “a god”?
3. Do you further notice that of the three discussed, the Trinitarian NETNotes scholars only rule out one of them?
4. Did you notice it was YOUR possibility that is ruled out by these Trinitarian scholars?
It was NOT my possibility nor t8's possibility that was ruled out…………but YOURS!
Keith, please answer the above four simple “YES or NO” questions promptly, directly, and honestly. If you want, you can answer them one at a time…………..but just answer them, okay?
mike
Quote (Lightenup @ April 12 2011,10:11) Dennison,
Regarding seeing the Father when looking at Christ:John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
The reason that we can see the Father when looking at Christ, is because of explanation, not by physical sight…it is more of a seeing in the spiritual sense as opposed to the physical sense.
Matt 11:27
All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.Notice what Gill says regarding John 14:9:
Quote Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Jesus saith unto him, have I been so long time with you,…. Conversing familiarly with you, instructing you by my ministry, and performing so many miraculous works among you, for so long a time; see Hebrews 5:11;and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? Surely you cannot be so ignorant as this comes to; as you have seen me with your bodily eyes, as a man, you must, know that I am God by the doctrines I have taught you, and the miracles I have wrought among you: and
he that hath seen me; not with the eyes of his body, but with the eyes of his understanding; he that has beheld the perfections of the Godhead in me:
hath seen the Father; the perfections which are in him also; for the same that are in me are in him, and the same that are in him are in me: I am the very image of him, and am possessed of the same nature, attributes, and glory, that he is; so that he that sees the one, sees the other:
and how sayest thou then show us the Father? such a request is a needless one, and betrays great weakness and ignorance.
Meditate on what a PERFECT begotten God would do, would a PERFECT Son ever disappoint a PERFECT Father, if He would then He would not be perfect…do you see/percieve?
Kathi
I wrote a Thesis about the Perfection of God.
The Thesis was a psychological paper on the behavior and Ethics, Character ,and works of God.In other words, I made a paper about what would a Perfect God do.
and what is NOT a Perfect God, and i also explained how Greek gods, and other men are not gods simply because they are not perfect.Perfection basically is the key to understanding, as Jesus said: “be perfect as your Father and heaven is perfect”
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 18 2011,22:35) Quote (Lightenup @ April 12 2011,10:11) Dennison,
Regarding seeing the Father when looking at Christ:John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
The reason that we can see the Father when looking at Christ, is because of explanation, not by physical sight…it is more of a seeing in the spiritual sense as opposed to the physical sense.
Matt 11:27
All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.Notice what Gill says regarding John 14:9:
Quote Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Jesus saith unto him, have I been so long time with you,…. Conversing familiarly with you, instructing you by my ministry, and performing so many miraculous works among you, for so long a time; see Hebrews 5:11;and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? Surely you cannot be so ignorant as this comes to; as you have seen me with your bodily eyes, as a man, you must, know that I am God by the doctrines I have taught you, and the miracles I have wrought among you: and
he that hath seen me; not with the eyes of his body, but with the eyes of his understanding; he that has beheld the perfections of the Godhead in me:
hath seen the Father; the perfections which are in him also; for the same that are in me are in him, and the same that are in him are in me: I am the very image of him, and am possessed of the same nature, attributes, and glory, that he is; so that he that sees the one, sees the other:
and how sayest thou then show us the Father? such a request is a needless one, and betrays great weakness and ignorance.
Meditate on what a PERFECT begotten God would do, would a PERFECT Son ever disappoint a PERFECT Father, if He would then He would not be perfect…do you see/percieve?
Kathi
I wrote a Thesis about the Perfection of God.
The Thesis was a psychological paper on the behavior and Ethics, Character ,and works of God.In other words, I made a paper about what would a Perfect God do.
and what is NOT a Perfect God, and i also explained how Greek gods, and other men are not gods simply because they are not perfect.Perfection basically is the key to understanding, as Jesus said: “be perfect as your Father and heaven is perfect”
SFwhat is God perfection??
Pierre
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 17 2011,23:35) Quote (Lightenup @ April 12 2011,10:11) Dennison,
Regarding seeing the Father when looking at Christ:John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
The reason that we can see the Father when looking at Christ, is because of explanation, not by physical sight…it is more of a seeing in the spiritual sense as opposed to the physical sense.
Matt 11:27
All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.Notice what Gill says regarding John 14:9:
Quote Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Jesus saith unto him, have I been so long time with you,…. Conversing familiarly with you, instructing you by my ministry, and performing so many miraculous works among you, for so long a time; see Hebrews 5:11;and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? Surely you cannot be so ignorant as this comes to; as you have seen me with your bodily eyes, as a man, you must, know that I am God by the doctrines I have taught you, and the miracles I have wrought among you: and
he that hath seen me; not with the eyes of his body, but with the eyes of his understanding; he that has beheld the perfections of the Godhead in me:
hath seen the Father; the perfections which are in him also; for the same that are in me are in him, and the same that are in him are in me: I am the very image of him, and am possessed of the same nature, attributes, and glory, that he is; so that he that sees the one, sees the other:
and how sayest thou then show us the Father? such a request is a needless one, and betrays great weakness and ignorance.
Meditate on what a PERFECT begotten God would do, would a PERFECT Son ever disappoint a PERFECT Father, if He would then He would not be perfect…do you see/percieve?
Kathi
I wrote a Thesis about the Perfection of God.
The Thesis was a psychological paper on the behavior and Ethics, Character ,and works of God.In other words, I made a paper about what would a Perfect God do.
and what is NOT a Perfect God, and i also explained how Greek gods, and other men are not gods simply because they are not perfect.Perfection basically is the key to understanding, as Jesus said: “be perfect as your Father and heaven is perfect”
Great Dennison,
Then you HAVE meditated on what perfect looks like. I assume that you would agree that the Father is perfect and the Son is perfect too, right?Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ April 12 2011,11:08) Dennison you are keeping me busy… You wrote in your post above:
Quote 1. What can you offer as proof to state that God has not physical correlation with Man if he wished too.
The bible claims that Jesus is the Second Adam. Adam didnt die, yet God said he would. So what died? “his divine nature”2. I dont think that makes a difference. Whether if its in your point of view or mine, it makes it clear that the person in question is the Word of God, and the Word was God.
Its not saying that there are two persons.
I dont believe, that John meant this in a sense to present a “past-tense” to Gods nature.3. Technically Which heaven do you refer too? what heaven?
Jesus stated in John 17, that you will receive Eternal life when you know God and whom he has sent, so therefore if that is accomplish that you received eteranal life at that very moment.
So your stating the almigthy God who is “all knowing” is limited by Time and Space?
If God has a limitation that he himself has not produced, than he is not God.So if Jesus is that light in Genesis 1:3 than how was it possible that he was divided in vs4?
so shouldnt we call Jesus “day” if that were true according to verse 5?
1. God can become flesh, that is what happened to the Son of God though and not the Father, but the begotten God, the Son didn't nor could He give up His divine nature. He contained both. He emptied Himself in some way that we aren't specifically told, in order to contain both natures. Adam did not ever have a divine nature but he began with an innocent and sinless human nature which became quilty and sinful human nature causing separation from God. When that happened, his innocence died and his body began the decaying process of getting older. Jesus is the 'second Adam' because He came with an innocent and sinless human nature…the sin nature is passed on through the human father and Jesus did not have a biological human father. Jesus, of course, did not become quilty and sinful in regards to His own disobedience but took on the quilt and sins of everyone else and was an acceptable sacrifice because He Himself was without sin.
I agree with Gill again, here:
Quote for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die; or “in dying, die” (z); which denotes the certainty of it, as our version expresses it; and may have regard to more deaths than one; not only a corporeal one, which in some sense immediately took place, man became at once a mortal creature, who otherwise continuing in a state of innocence, and by eating of the tree of life, he was allowed to do, would have lived an immortal life; of the eating of which tree, by sinning he was debarred, his natural life not now to be continued long, at least not for ever; he was immediately arraigned, tried, and condemned to death, was found guilty of it, and became obnoxious to it, and death at once began to work in him; sin sowed the seeds of it in his body, and a train of miseries, afflictions, and diseases, began to appear, which at length issued in death. Moreover, a spiritual or moral death immediately ensued; he lost his original righteousness, in which he was created; the image of God in him was deformed; the powers and faculties of his soul were corrupted, and he became dead in sins and trespasses; the consequence of which, had it not been for the interposition of a surety and Saviour, who engaged to make satisfaction to law and justice, must have been eternal death, or an everlasting separation from God, to him and all his posterity; for the wages of sin is death, even death eternal, Romans 6:23. So the Jews (a) interpret this of death, both in this world and in the world to come. http://bible.cc/genesis/2-17.htm
2.It also makes it clear that the word was with God. So if the 'word' represents a person, then a person is with God, another person.
3. The heaven where we will be after we die. We do receive eternal life at that moment of salvation, in a sense. We realize this eternal life when our spirit leaves our body at death of the flesh…the spirit continues living and is not destroyed ever.
Quote So your stating the almigthy God who is “all knowing” is limited by Time and Space?
If God has a limitation that he himself has not produced, than he is not God.Time in eternity is beyond comprehension, mine anyway. I do believe that there is an order of events that take place in eternity and therefore there is a before and after…one event comes before another. For instance, when Jesus left, he said that He goes to prepare a place for us. Well, that tells us that something that was unprepared will be prepared. That suggests a before and an after…in other words, time of an eternal sort.
Quote So if Jesus is that light in Genesis 1:3 than how was it possible that he was divided in vs4? so shouldnt we call Jesus “day” if that were true according to verse 5?
The Son was not divided, Genesis does not say that the light was separated from itself but from darkness. Where good is, there also, by default is the potential for evil. Possibly a kingdom of Light was established and a kingdom of darkness when God separated light from darkness on day one. It is just a theory. Also, the kingdom of darkness would have been empty because all was good still by the end of the week of creation.1 Thess 5:5
for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of darkness;Dennison, take your time with this…sorry I have been teasing you about getting back with me…just feel better, ok?
Kathi
Your keeping me busy too Kathi
1. You see than i dont get in what we differ….
2. And than this is where im confused again about you. you just stated that God can become a flesh, and thats what Jesus IS. but than you say they are seperate individuals.And what im saying is simply that Jesus is the only the image of God, the knowable, the understanding of him. The only thing we can know about him.
Just like Kathi you are a human being, and you have thoughts, memories, and secrets, and things that would be impossible to know every single thing about you because such knowledge would kill me.
But I do know you, about what you have revealed to me, in body, and in conversation.
Thats what Jesus is, the Word.3.
Quote The heaven where we will be after we die. We do receive eternal life at that moment of salvation, in a sense. We realize this eternal life when our spirit leaves our body at death of the flesh…the spirit continues living and is not destroyed ever.
Well where is that in Scripture? because in Revelations it talks about a new heaven and earth and a bunch of things…Quote Time in eternity is beyond comprehension, mine anyway. I do believe that there is an order of events that take place in eternity and therefore there is a before and after…one event comes before another. For instance, when Jesus left, he said that He goes to prepare a place for us. Well, that tells us that something that was unprepared will be prepared. That suggests a before and an after…in other words, time of an eternal sort.
That depends on how you define heaven as temporal or Eternal. Revelations states that there is a new heaven and earth so maybe its temporal.Eternity is beyond time, and we cant speculate that its where nobody moves, but in a sense that things are forever, timeless.
where as time does not govern.
Its beyond our senses.
where our senses are ten-fold.Quote The Son was not divided, Genesis does not say that the light was separated from itself but from darkness. Where good is, there also, by default is the potential for evil. Possibly a kingdom of Light was established and a kingdom of darkness when God separated light from darkness on day one. It is just a theory. Also, the kingdom of darkness would have been empty because all was good still by the end of the week of creation. 1 Thess 5:5
for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of darkness;Dennison, take your time with this…sorry I have been teasing you about getting back with me…just feel better, ok?
lol its all good kathi,but I dont believe that Genesis was referring to christ when the context talks about physical creation.
I would assume that John tried to make that connection in his writings but not Moses.Quote (terraricca @ April 18 2011,09:39) SF what is God perfection??
Pierre
Perfection, in greek is “teleious”
which means to be mature, or full of age, without flaw.Thats the definition.
Now a Perfect God has perfect Character, Ethics and Choices.
I would have to re-write my thesis because when I wrote it, i at that time believed in the Trinity.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 18 2011,09:45) Great Dennison,
Then you HAVE meditated on what perfect looks like. I assume that you would agree that the Father is perfect and the Son is perfect too, right?Kathi
Exactly,
I do believe that the Father, Son, and Holyspirit are Perfect.I should revisit my Paper and continue finishing it.
Its a unfinished, rushed paper that I got a scholarship for.Im surprised, that they liked a paper that I didnt really work very hard on.
Dennison,
To have perfect divine nature, would you agree that would mean that the nature was eternal?Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ April 18 2011,10:05) Dennison,
To have perfect divine nature, would you agree that would mean that the nature was eternal?Kathi
The Tabernacle would be a perfect example of that. so yes.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
