Firstborn of/over all creation

[Lightenup]

Keith,
I edited my last post while you posted to help bring some understanding…just wanted to let you know.

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Kathi wrote:

Quote

Are you aware that I do not say “before He was begotten He was not” also?

Kathi,

But do you say the first 'anathema' in the Nicene Creed? It says,

'there was when he was not,'

Quote

If anyone will not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, that which is before all ages from the Father, outside time and without a body, and secondly that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her: let him be anathema.

Trinitarians are still paying the price for the nonsense stated above. The term “eternal generation” is a contradiction within itself. Many Trinitarians reject it.

Quote

In the Scriptures, “Son of God” NEVER unequivocally refers to Jesus in a pre-incarnate state. Some therefore reject the idea of Eternal Sonship, not denying that God is eternally triune but intending only to deny that there is “eternal generation”. Dabney describes this “incarnational sonship” view: “But among Trinitarians themselves there are some, who give to Christ's Sonship a merely TEMPORAL meaning. They believe that the Second and the Third persons are as truly divine as we do; they believe with us, that there is a personal distinction, which has been eternal; but they do not believe that the terms generation and procession were ever intended by Scripture to express that eternal relation. On the contrary, they suppose that they merely denote the temporal functions which the persons assume for man's redemption.” – Robert L. Dabney [20] However, the denial that the Son is always the Son of the Father suggests that God changes his understanding of Himself in order to reveal himself. This is called voluntarism, which is a false teaching that the truth concerning God is only what He wills it to be. Accordingly, the voluntarist tendency denies that what God reveals concerning himself has any necessary relation to what God is as God. In contrast, we are told that God cannot lie, because he is incapable of denying himself – and therefore, when we are baptized into the name of “Father, Son and Spirit” we are placed into reliance upon God revealed truly and fully by Him who is the fullness of the Truth, Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

http://www.theopedia.com/Eternal_generation_of_the_Son

Both Trinitarians and even some Arians argue that Jesus was son before His incarnation because the scripture says that He was “sent into the world.” But Jesus said to His disciples, “As I have been sent into the world so I send you into the world.”

Jesus could not have been Son before His incarnation because because His Sonship according to the seed of David.

Can we discuss the scriptures rather than who is 'anathema?'

Back to my question: Was David also God's Firstborn Son? Yes or no? (Ps. 89)

Jack

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 30 2011,17:09)

And this is not all, but there is another remark to make: that if you say, “Because it is said ‘One God,’ therefore the word God doth not apply to the Son;” observe that the same holds of the Son also. For the Son also is called “One Lord,” yet we do not maintain that therefore the term Lord applies to Him alone. So then, the same force which the expression “One” has, applied to the Son, it has also, applied to the Father. And as the Father is not thrust out from being the Lord, in the same sense as the Son is the Lord, because He, the Son, is spoken of as one Lord; so neither does it cast out the Son from being God, in the same sense as the Father is God, because the Father is styled One God.

Kathi

Once again your highlighted part does not support your conclusion for this is what the quote right after that says..

And this is why, having called the Father, God, he calls the Son, Lord. If now he ventured not to call the Father Lord together with the Son, lest they might suspect him to be speaking of two Lords; nor yet the Son, God, with the Father, “lest he might be supposed to speak of two Gods:

The passage you quoted is explaining not only is there “Only One God” but also “One Lord” and that “One God and One Lord” includes both the Father and Jesus and I am sure if you read on you will see the author also believes the Holy Spirit is God like the Father and Jesus yet “One God”.

WJ

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 31 2011,09:13)

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 30 2011,17:06) Keith, My son didn't become my son at the time he was begotten…he already was my son before he was begotten.  The Son of God was the Son before He was begotten…He always existed as the Son but didn't always exist before the ages as the begotten Son.  He wasn't begotten till “Let there be light.” That is my understanding. Kathi Kathi OK good. Then how are you saying anything different than Jack except “when” he was begotten? The question is when was he begotten? So in other words the Son didn't or did create the waters and the earth before the light of day one? WJ

Keith,

Amen! The gospel of John expressly declares that in the beginning was the WORD and that it was the WORD that created.

Jack

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 30 2011,17:20)

Kathi wrote: Quote Are you aware that I do not say “before He was begotten He was not” also? Kathi, But do you say the first 'anathema' in the Nicene Creed? It says, 'there was when he was not,' Quote If anyone will not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, that which is before all ages from the Father, outside time and without a body, and secondly that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her: let him be anathema. Trinitarians are still paying the price for the nonsense stated above. The term “eternal generation” is a contradiction within itself. Many Trinitarians reject it. Quote In the Scriptures, “Son of God” NEVER unequivocally refers to Jesus in a pre-incarnate state. Some therefore reject the idea of Eternal Sonship, not denying that God is eternally triune but intending only to deny that there is “eternal generation”. Dabney describes this “incarnational sonship” view: “But among Trinitarians themselves there are some, who give to Christ's Sonship a merely TEMPORAL meaning. They believe that the Second and the Third persons are as truly divine as we do; they believe with us, that there is a personal distinction, which has been eternal; but they do not believe that the terms generation and procession were ever intended by Scripture to express that eternal relation. On the contrary, they suppose that they merely denote the temporal functions which the persons assume for man's redemption.” – Robert L. Dabney [20] However, the denial that the Son is always the Son of the Father suggests that God changes his understanding of Himself in order to reveal himself. This is called voluntarism, which is a false teaching that the truth concerning God is only what He wills it to be. Accordingly, the voluntarist tendency denies that what God reveals concerning himself has any necessary relation to what God is as God. In contrast, we are told that God cannot lie, because he is incapable of denying himself – and therefore, when we are baptized into the name of “Father, Son and Spirit” we are placed into reliance upon God revealed truly and fully by Him who is the fullness of the Truth, Jesus Christ, the Son of God. http://www.theopedia.com/Eternal_generation_of_the_Son Both Trinitarians and even some Arians argue that Jesus was son before His incarnation because the scripture says that He was “sent into the world.” But Jesus said to His disciples, “As I have been sent into the world so I send you into the world.” Jesus could not have been Son before His incarnation because because His Sonship according to the seed of David. Can we discuss the scriptures rather than who is 'anathema?' Back to my question: Was David also God's Firstborn Son? Yes or no? (Ps. 89) Jack

Jack

In truth the word “begotten” is ambiguous and at best missleading.

Only One translation renders John 1:18 as “a begotten God”.

There is no scripture anywhere that says Jesus was begotten before time.  

WJ

[Lightenup]

Jack,
If eternal generation means that He, as an eternally existing offspring from within the Father was begotten/born to the position of along side the Father during eternity before the ages then I can accept that. If it means that He was eternally begotten meaning there was never a time when He was not begotten, then I agree, that doesn't make sense.

Also, His Sonship according to the flesh was the Sonship according to the seed of David. His Sonship according to the divinity always existed, first within the Father as the eternal offspring, then begotten/born from the Father before the ages.

Yes, David was God's designated firstborn Son but he was not God's begotten Firstborn Son.

I believe that most Christians understand that the Son was begotten before the ages and agree with the creeds on this.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 30 2011,17:32)

Jack, If it means that He was eternally begotten meaning there was never a time when He was not begotten, then I agree, that doesn't make sense.

Kathi

Unless you are looking at it from Gods perspective out side of time.

God sees the beginning and the end and he calls things that are not as though they were. If their relationship was eternally unchangeable then the Father seeing Jesus as the Son and Jesus seeing the Father as Father would have no bearing on when he was “declared” the Son at his birth and resurrection.

Something became the Son of God after the flesh when he was born of a virgin or else like Jack said how could he be a Son according to the seed of David?

Because of this I believe that his “sonship” is also tied to him taking on the likeness of sinful flesh and being found in fashion as a man.

WJ

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 30 2011,17:23)

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 30 2011,17:09) And this is not all, but there is another remark to make: that if you say, “Because it is said ‘One God,’ therefore the word God doth not apply to the Son;” observe that the same holds of the Son also. For the Son also is called “One Lord,” yet we do not maintain that therefore the term Lord applies to Him alone. So then, the same force which the expression “One” has, applied to the Son, it has also, applied to the Father. And as the Father is not thrust out from being the Lord, in the same sense as the Son is the Lord, because He, the Son, is spoken of as one Lord; so neither does it cast out the Son from being God, in the same sense as the Father is God, because the Father is styled One God. Kathi Once again your highlighted part does not support your conclusion for this is what the quote right after that says.. And this is why, having called the Father, God, he calls the Son, Lord. If now he ventured not to call the Father Lord together with the Son, lest they might suspect him to be speaking of two Lords; nor yet the Son, God, with the Father, “lest he might be supposed to speak of two Gods: The passage you quoted is explaining not only is there “Only One God” but also “One Lord” and that “One God and One Lord” includes both the Father and Jesus and I am sure if you read on you will see the author also believes the Holy Spirit is God like the Father and Jesus yet “One God”. WJ

Well, Keith,
I do think it is a matter of context. It is a confusing relationship to describe. Maybe this can help:

I believe in one God, the Father and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the begotten God, and their Holy Spirit called the Comforter.

There ya go, now pick that apart

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 30 2011,17:39)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 30 2011,17:23) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 30 2011,17:09) And this is not all, but there is another remark to make: that if you say, “Because it is said ‘One God,’ therefore the word God doth not apply to the Son;” observe that the same holds of the Son also. For the Son also is called “One Lord,” yet we do not maintain that therefore the term Lord applies to Him alone. So then, the same force which the expression “One” has, applied to the Son, it has also, applied to the Father. And as the Father is not thrust out from being the Lord, in the same sense as the Son is the Lord, because He, the Son, is spoken of as one Lord; so neither does it cast out the Son from being God, in the same sense as the Father is God, because the Father is styled One God. Kathi Once again your highlighted part does not support your conclusion for this is what the quote right after that says.. And this is why, having called the Father, God, he calls the Son, Lord. If now he ventured not to call the Father Lord together with the Son, lest they might suspect him to be speaking of two Lords; nor yet the Son, God, with the Father, “lest he might be supposed to speak of two Gods: The passage you quoted is explaining not only is there “Only One God” but also “One Lord” and that “One God and One Lord” includes both the Father and Jesus and I am sure if you read on you will see the author also believes the Holy Spirit is God like the Father and Jesus yet “One God”. WJ Well, Keith, I do think it is a matter of context.  It is a confusing relationship to describe.  Maybe this can help: I believe in one God, the Father and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the begotten God, and their Holy Spirit called the Comforter. There ya go, now pick that apart

Kathi

Your statement doesn't tell the whole truth. I could touch on the “begotten God” part which is misleading but instead how about you pick this apart…

“There is “Only One True God”, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”.  

Matt 28:19 – John 1:1-3 – John 1:18 – etc.

WJ

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Keith said

Quote

Jack In truth the word “begotten” is ambiguous and at best missleading. Only One translation renders John 1:18 as “a begotten God”. There is no scripture anywhere that says Jesus was begotten before time.   WJ

Keith,

Yes and the Septuagint uses 'monogenes' to translate the Hebrew 'yachid' which simply means 'only.' I think the seventy Hellenist Jewish scholars knew their Greek and Hebrew tongues better than Kathi.

Monogenes simply means 'only' or 'unique' and the actual begetting (gennao) occurred at Christ's resurrection and exaltation when He became our High priest.

Quote

5 So also Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest, but it was He who said to Him:      “ You are My Son,      Today I have begotten You.” 6 As He also says in another place:      “ You are a priest forever      According to the order of Melchizedek”;

Was Christ begotten as High Priest “before all ages?”

 
Jack

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

TO ALL:

Please note the phrases I bolded in the quote below. It makes a lot more sense.

Quote

In the Scriptures, “Son of God” NEVER unequivocally refers to Jesus in a pre-incarnate state. Some therefore reject the idea of Eternal Sonship, not denying that God is eternally triune but intending only to deny that there is “eternal generation”. Dabney describes this “incarnational sonship” view: “But among Trinitarians themselves there are some, who give to Christ's Sonship a merely TEMPORAL meaning. They believe that the Second and the Third persons are as truly divine as we do; they believe with us, that there is a personal distinction, which has been eternal; but they do not believe that the terms generation and procession were ever intended by Scripture to express that eternal relation. On the contrary, they suppose that they merely denote the TEMPORAL functions which the persons ASSUME for man's REDEMPTION.” – Robert L. Dabney [20] However, the denial that the Son is always the Son of the Father suggests that God changes his understanding of Himself in order to reveal himself. This is called voluntarism, which is a false teaching that the truth concerning God is only what He wills it to be. Accordingly, the voluntarist tendency denies that what God reveals concerning himself has any necessary relation to what God is as God. In contrast, we are told that God cannot lie, because he is incapable of denying himself – and therefore, when we are baptized into the name of “Father, Son and Spirit” we are placed into reliance upon God revealed truly and fully by Him who is the fullness of the Truth, Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

http://www.theopedia.com/Eternal_generation_of_the_Son

KJ

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Keith said to kathi:

Quote

Something became the Son of God after the flesh when he was born of a virgin or else like Jack said how could he be a Son according to the seed of David?

Yes Keith. Jesus was the Son of God BECAUSE He was the Son of David.

It's so simple that Kathi cannot accept it. She is tripped up by her own 'wisdom.'

Jack

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 29 2011,21:03)

Well, I know why you are confused if that is the only way you can see Jesus as almighty.  Let me clear that up for you Mike… It makes MUCH more sense that God Almighty begot the Begotten God Almighty, who He called His “Son”, and who then became a man who was still the Begotten God Almighty but for some reason was able to be killed (it was according to the flesh…that is why He could be killed) by these puny humans He created.  Then the flesh of the Begotten God Almighty died, but was raised back to life by God Almighty, who told the Begotten God Almighty who died that the death He Himself created, that USED TO have power over Him, according to the flesh, no longer does, so He won't ever have to die again.  Thankfully, God Almighty the Father raised the Begotten God Almighty, the Son to the right hand of God Almighty the Father, where the Begotten God Almighty, the Son will rule for a time, but then will hand the Kingdom back over to God Almighty, the Father.  But don't feel bad for the Begotten God Almighty,the Son because he will continue to rule as a Prince to God Almighty, the Father for the Begotten God Almighty, the Son will be their Prince, and God Almighty will be their God. There I added what I have italicized to make it clearer…I hope you don't mind. Kathi

Keith actually hit the nail right on the nose when he said:

Quote

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”.

This is EXACTLY what the scriptures teach.  Would you like me to show you?  I'll bet you a million dollars that I can scripturally PROVE my assertions while you CANNOT.  Or we can do it for free.  Are you willing?  You show me the scriptures that prove what YOU claim, and I'll show you the scriptures that prove what I claim.  We'll do it one scripture at a time, okay?  Here, I'll start.

Claim:  God brought Jesus forth.

First scripture:  Psalm 2:7
“I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 29 2011,23:23)

From what I have heard the tenet of trinitarianism was not seddled until a later council and Eusebius' disagreement was more about word choice and its possible consequences than anything concrete.  Perhaps you have heard different.

Actually, the first creed left out any mention of the third member of the “Godhead” as being God at all.  The Holy Spirit was mentioned only in passing, “And we believe in the Holy Spirit”.  How could they forget one third of their God in a creed that was designed to show the different ranks of the supposedly “co-EQUAL” Godhead and to explain those ranks and positions to everyone?  

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 30 2011,16:20)

Quote If anyone will not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, that which is before all ages from the Father, outside time and without a body, and secondly that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her: let him be anathema. Trinitarians are still paying the price for the nonsense stated above. The term “eternal generation” is a contradiction within itself. Many Trinitarians reject it.

Jack,

I'm truly glad that you can see at least some of the nonsense spoken in support of this imaginary triune Godhead.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 30 2011,16:29)

Only One translation renders John 1:18 as “a begotten God”.

And one that renders it as “only begotten god”.  (NWT)

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 30 2011,16:51)

“There is “Only One True God”, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”.   Matt 28:19 – John 1:1-3 – John 1:18 – etc. WJ

  You must be reading some special Trinitarian Bible or something.    Only one of those scriptures even mentions the Holy Spirit, and none of them could possibly contradict these scriptures:

3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

mike

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 31 2011,11:52)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 30 2011,16:20) Quote If anyone will not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, that which is before all ages from the Father, outside time and without a body, and secondly that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her: let him be anathema. Trinitarians are still paying the price for the nonsense stated above. The term “eternal generation” is a contradiction within itself. Many Trinitarians reject it. Jack, I'm truly glad that you can see at least some of the nonsense spoken in support of this imaginary triune Godhead. mike

Mike,

How about you and Kathi answering my point from Hebrews 5? Jesus was 'begotten' as High Priest the day He was begotten as Son.

Quote

5 So also Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest, but it was He who said to Him:      “ You are My Son,      Today I have begotten You.” 6 As He also says in another place:      “ You are a priest forever      According to the order of Melchizedek”;

You and Kathi say that Jesus was begotten as Son before all ages. Yet He was 'begotten' as High priest when He was begotten as Son. Was Jesus begotten as High Priest before all ages?

Jack

[karmarie]

JA would like to say;

“John 1:1 says,'In the beginning was the Word and the word was with God and the Word was God'.
Since we know that Jesus 'was' the Word AND John mentions neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit, please can you show how it came about that the Father is claimed to be God and the Holy Spirit claimed to be God?

Jesus was CERTAINLY 'In the beginning' with God… Who is arguing that?
But WHO is this person, GOD, who he is with?
Was it The Father?
Was the Father – a father before HE, the Father, 'procreated' a Son?
Conventional belief is that God was ALONE before the world was, so how is God 'Alone' if there are three of them?
Which one of the three Gods (In one) is ALMIGHTY GOD?

Please be honest in your response as ungodly responses only serve to show a discreditable personage”

[kerwin]

Quote (karmarie @ Mar. 31 2011,15:12)

JA would like to say; “John 1:1 says,'In the beginning was the Word and the word was with God and the Word was God'. Since we know that Jesus 'was' the Word AND John mentions neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit, please can you show how it came about that the Father is claimed to be God and the Holy Spirit claimed to be God? Jesus was CERTAINLY 'In the beginning' with God… Who is arguing that? But WHO is this person, GOD, who he is with? Was it The Father? Was the Father – a father before HE, the Father, 'procreated' a Son? Conventional belief is that God was ALONE before the world was, so how is God 'Alone' if there are three of them? Which one of the three Gods (In one) is ALMIGHTY GOD? Please be honest in your response as ungodly responses only serve to show a discreditable personage”

You should probably start a new thread in Truth and Traditions and ask those questions as this is about writtings of the anti-Nicene fathers.

[Author]

Posts