- This topic has 3,676 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,13:43) God doesn't procreate! That is not a scriptural teaching but rather comes straight out of Greek Mythology, God literraly begetting gods!
Procreate means to bring forth offspring. God most definitely DID procreate, for He brought forth a Son for Himself.It might also be in Greek mythology, I don't know. What I DO know is that it is also in the scriptures. God begot a Son……….plain and simple. And God knew how the humans would understand “I begot a son”, yet that's still the wording He chose to use.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,13:51) Kerwin Yet we don't have any history of any of those Fathers to reject the creeds.
We have the untrustworthy testimony of Eusebius (A follower of Arius) who apparantly sighned off on the Trinity as accepting it yet all along he rejected it.
WJ
Hey Kerwin,The 325 delgates that did show up the the Council of Nicea represented only 18% of the church leaders at that time. It would be interesting to read some letters from the other 82% that didn't show, or weren't invited.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 28 2011,14:17) I know also that MANY trinitarians are leaving the idea that Christ was Son before His incarnation because it doesn't make any sense.
Hopefully, they will continue this trend and leave the trinity doctrine altogether, for not one bit of it makes any sense.mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 28 2011,12:06) Hebrews 1 says that God's Firstborn was brought into the world “AGAIN” when Christ was exalted.
No it doesn't. It says that WHEN God AGAIN brings His firstborn into the world, the angels will do obeisance to him. This refers to when Jesus comes on the clouds and all eyes see him…………and all knees will bow to him.This is another scripture that supports Psalm 2:7 and John 3:16. It is more proof that Jesus was already God's only begotten Son before coming in the flesh, because it says God will AGAIN BRING him into the world.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,15:29)
No we don't believe in different Jesus's. We both believe Jesus is “One God” with the Father who had no beginning.Since his nature has to do with his essence, substance and being then Jesus is all the Father is.
Jack like all those who believe Jesus is God believes that he is “Fully God” yet “Fully Man”.
You guys are sure fast to jump off that horse anytime someone brings up the “Father is greater than I” scripture, aren't you? Then all of a sudden, the excuses about Jesus being “less” than God when he was flesh come out. But any other time, you claim he was fully 100% God even in the flesh.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,15:29)
As far as the relationship as the Son Jack believes Jesus is God the Son and that him being God means that he is “everything” the Father is including being “eternally infinite” in nature as the Father.
Uh………….newsflash! Jesus DIED! Paul said that death once had power over him, but no longer does since his God raised him from the dead. Can you imagine death EVER having power over God Almighty?
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,17:43) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,16:49) You take that true relationship away and you have not a literal son but a figurative son. I believe the true relationship of Father/Son is monumental and a central teaching of the gospels.
Hi KathiSo what you are saying is unless one is “a literal son” then one can not be a true Son? Where are the scriptures for that?
God has to bring birth to a literal Son for him to be a “true Son”?
David was the Fathers firstborn Son not by birth but because God loved him and declared it so.
Isaac was the “Monogenes” Son of Abraham and declared to be the first born Son because he was loved.
What scripture states a Son cannot be “Fully” a Son unless he is “born” or “created”?
WJ
Keith,you said:
Quote So what you are saying is unless one is “a literal son” then one can not be a true Son? Where are the scriptures for that? No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that unless the Son of God wasn't a literal Son, He cannot be God…begotten God with the same nature as His Father.
Quote God has to bring birth to a literal Son for him to be a “true Son”? God has to bring birth to a literal Son for Him to be a true begotten God and the only begotten Son.
You are correct that David was God's firstborn by declaration and not by birth…he was a type of Christ, not an exact representation, just a type. Jesse gave David birth. The God could not call him firstborn by birth because He did not beget him. Whereas God, the Father did beget His Son and He was His only Son. No need to decree Him to be a firstborn.
Isaac was the 'monogenes' son of Abraham that according to the promise, not the firstborn son according to the flesh.
An adopted son can be fully acknowledged as someone's son but cannot be acknowledged as someone's natural son, neither can a decreed son or designated son or created son be acknowledged as someone's natural son. A natural son has the nature and genes of his father.
Why do you need scripture, for this is obvious.
Kathi
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,16:19)
Not at all because once again the end result is what is important. Jack believes in Three persons in One God, not 2 Gods. Yeah, who cares how we come to that conclusion, or which one of our views is even scriptural, as long as we both end up believing in a trinity Godhead! That's the only important thing, not the scriptures that lead us to that conclusion. 
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,16:19)
Jack simply links his manhood to Jesus being the Son, and that is scriptural because accordingly as he has shown you that it was after his resurrection that he was declared a Son.Do you disagree with that?
Uh, I DO! God spoke out of heaven saying Jesus was His Son twice before Jesus was resurrected. If Jesus hasn't ALWAYS been “God the Son”, then “God the Son” hasn't ALWAYS existed. You better start calling him “God the Word/Son” or something. And how is it that God EXALTED God to the prestiged postion of “Fully Investitured Son OF God”? You guys crack me up.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 28 2011,19:35) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 28 2011,14:17) I know also that MANY trinitarians are leaving the idea that Christ was Son before His incarnation because it doesn't make any sense.
Hopefully, they will continue this trend and leave the trinity doctrine altogether, for not one bit of it makes any sense.mike
Mike,
No, no, that would be a very bad trend. There are other things that need to be changed in the doctrine, but that part is right…the part about the Son being begotten before the ages.Kathi
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,16:28) Who in the world can believe that a being that was born or created could “become” infinitely God?
Yet you believe that God Almighty can DIE at the hands of the humans He created. And that God Almighty can raise God Almighty from the dead. And God Almighty can EXALT God Almighty to a higher position than He previously had as God Almighty. But later, God Almighty will turn the Kingdom back over to God Almighty, so that God Almighty can be all in all. Then God Almighty will rule as Prince to God Almighty. Oh, and God Almighty will be a Priest, Messiah, Son, and Servant of God Almighty. God Almighty will also intercede as a mediator between man and God Almighty.Do you see how YOUR ONE statement, and ALL of my statements make the same amount of sense? Absolutely NONE!
How then is it that you can only see the absolute nonsense of only one of those statements? mike
mike
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,19:05) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 28 2011,19:35) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 28 2011,14:17) I know also that MANY trinitarians are leaving the idea that Christ was Son before His incarnation because it doesn't make any sense.
Hopefully, they will continue this trend and leave the trinity doctrine altogether, for not one bit of it makes any sense.mike
Mike,
No, no, that would be a very bad trend. There are other things that need to be changed in the doctrine, but that part is right…the part about the Son being begotten before the ages.Kathi
I meant the trend of realizing the trinity doctrine couldn't have been inspired of God, because over the years, even the Trinitarians themselves are realizing how parts of it don't coincide with other parts.You already know that I know Jesus was begotten by his God before the ages.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 28 2011,19:18) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,13:39) Do you have a scripture that says Jesus was “concieved” at all before he came in the flesh?
Yeah,Psalm 2:7, as supported by John 3:16. Jesus was already God's only begotten Son when he was originally SENT into the world.
Now, WHO'S only begotten Son is Jesus? GOD'S? Or God's HOLY SPIRIT'S? Jesus doesn't say the HOLY SPIRIT loved the world and sent HIS Son, does he? And WHO does Jesus call his Father?
mike
Wrong.That scripture has already been debunked because it says he was begotten in time and we know Jesus was before time because he was already the Word that was with God and was God in the beginning.
The scriptures say nothing came into being without him and we know he didn't create himself.
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,18:20) Yes Keith, I disagree with that. It was the power that is linked to the resurrection, not the Sonship. Also, I disagree…and so do other church fathers, btw, about those who believe that the Son did not become the Son till after creation, so do the main Christian creeds. I even once showed you a council that said those who believe in such a way, let him be anathema:
Quote Council of Constantinople II “If anyone does not confess that there are two generations of the Word of God, one from the Father before all ages, without time and incorporeally, the other in the last days when the same came down from heaven and was incarnate . . . let such a one be anathema” (Anathemas Concerning the Three Chapters, canon 2 [A.D. 553]).
So you see, you may think it is not important to believe when the Son became the Son, but some do so much that things like this are written. They would see that you and Jack have two different Jesus'.
Kathi
KathiIt is like Jack said, “if you can depart from one point of teaching from the Forefathers then so can he”.
This is what the Nicene Creed also said…
[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]
If his essence “became” a Son then that means something changed.
You just asked me if I believe everything that I read from the Forefathers that clearly disagree with your theory that Jesus had a beginning as a Son.
Don't you see this as being a little hypocritical on your part to make this accusation against Jack?
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 29 2011,13:06) Good Mike
There you are…. I have not heard from you in while…hope all is well with you…Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 29 2011,08:55) Keith,
Also, Jack believes that the Son had a beginning because there was a time when He was not the Son. I think he believes that the Word didn't have a beginning, but as the Son, the Son had a beginning. From what I can tell anyway. You do have different Jesus' because His Jesus wasn't a Son till the resurrection, your Jesus was always eternally begotten…big difference whether you like it or not.Kathi
Kathi,You are misrepresenting me but I forgive you. I have said that Jesus was the ETERNAL Word who BECAME Son.
Jack
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 29 2011,09:19) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,16:55) Keith,
Also, Jack believes that the Son had a beginning because there was a time when He was not the Son. I think he believes that the Word didn't have a beginning, but as the Son, the Son had a beginning. From what I can tell anyway. You do have different Jesus' because His Jesus wasn't a Son till the resurrection, your Jesus was always eternally begotten…big difference whether you like it or not.Kathi
No!Not at all because once again the end result is what is important. Jack believes in Three persons in One God, not 2 Gods.
Big difference!
Jack simply links his manhood to Jesus being the Son, and that is scriptural because accordingly as he has shown you that it was after his resurrection that he was declared a Son.
Do you disagree with that?
WJ
Keith,Exactly! Though my view of Christ's Sonship is different it is not 'anathema” like Kathi's Arian view that there was a time whn Jesus was not. Never have I been told by fellow trinitarians that my view is 'anathema.'
Kathi ignores that Psalm 2 says, “I have set My King upon my holy hill…this day I have begotten You.”
Christ was NOT set upon God's holy hill as King UNTIL His resurrection. The Psalm says that it was this time that Christ was 'begotten.'
Jack
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,19:59) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,17:43) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,16:49) You take that true relationship away and you have not a literal son but a figurative son. I believe the true relationship of Father/Son is monumental and a central teaching of the gospels.
Hi KathiSo what you are saying is unless one is “a literal son” then one can not be a true Son? Where are the scriptures for that?
God has to bring birth to a literal Son for him to be a “true Son”?
Not so because the Word was always with the Father and
David was the Fathers firstborn Son not by birth but because God loved him and declared it so.
Isaac was the “Monogenes” Son of Abraham and declared to be the first born Son because he was loved.
What scripture states a Son cannot be “Fully” a Son unless he is “born” or “created”?
WJ
Keith,you said:
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,17:43) So what you are saying is unless one is “a literal son” then one can not be a true Son? Where are the scriptures for that? No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that unless the Son of God wasn't a literal Son, He cannot be God…begotten God with the same nature as His Father.
Hi Kathi'The truth is he cannot be God if he had a beginning!
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,19:59) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,17:43) God has to bring birth to a literal Son for him to be a “true Son”?
God has to bring birth to a literal Son for Him to be a true begotten God and the only begotten Son.
God doesn’t literally bring birth to Gods or a God. An infinite God did not bring birth to another infinite God Kathi.If Jesus is the same eternal essence, substance of the Father, then you are saying part of the Fathers essence ceased to be the Father to become the Son.
According to you the essence of the Father broke off into another being called the Son and that part of the eternal infinite essence of God became the Son and the part of the infinite essence of God that became the Son now has also become the infinite essence or God.
So you have two Gods who are infinitely equal, isn’t that what you believe?
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,19:59) A natural son has the nature and genes of his father. Why do you need scripture, for this is obvious.
The Father and Jesus are not natural are they? How can you compare the Father and Jesus with the reproduction of a human man and woman? Did your husband literally bring birth to your Son?WJ
Mike said:
Quote I meant the trend of realizing the trinity doctrine couldn't have been inspired of God, because over the years, even the Trinitarians themselves are realizing how parts of it don't coincide with other parts.
TO ALL,Mr. Mike speaks out of his ignorance for ALL trinitairians speak with ONE voice regarding Christ being FULLY God and FULLY man. It is the anti-trinitarians that have a “Heinz 57” view of Christ's person.
KJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 29 2011,11:18) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,13:39) Do you have a scripture that says Jesus was “concieved” at all before he came in the flesh?
Yeah,Psalm 2:7, as supported by John 3:16. Jesus was already God's only begotten Son when he was originally SENT into the world.
Now, WHO'S only begotten Son is Jesus? GOD'S? Or God's HOLY SPIRIT'S? Jesus doesn't say the HOLY SPIRIT loved the world and sent HIS Son, does he? And WHO does Jesus call his Father?
mike
Nope! Psalm 2 says “I have set My King upon My holy hill…this day I have begotten You” (vs. 6-7).Jesus was NOT installed as King upon God's holy hill UNTIL His resurrection. This is when the Psalm says Jesus was 'begotten.'
WHY DO YOU AND KATHI IGNORE VERSE 6?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 28 2011,19:28) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,13:43) God doesn't procreate! That is not a scriptural teaching but rather comes straight out of Greek Mythology, God literraly begetting gods!
Procreate means to bring forth offspring. God most definitely DID procreate, for He brought forth a Son for Himself.It might also be in Greek mythology, I don't know. What I DO know is that it is also in the scriptures. God begot a Son……….plain and simple. And God knew how the humans would understand “I begot a son”, yet that's still the wording He chose to use.
mike
MikeRight, and every human being knows that a man and a woman begets a human.
Did your earthly Father literally bring birth to you? Its plain and simple!
God did not bring birth to an angel [a god] that became a man and ceased to be an angel for awhile and then ceased to be a man to become an angel again who is “a little god” that we serve and bow down too that we call our god but he is not the “True god” because we only serve “one god”.
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
