Firstborn of/over all creation

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 31 2011,13:27)

He is telling the reader that the person who told the Son that He was His Son, that is the person who also made Him High Priest.

That's also how I understood it, Kathi. Thanks for the quote.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 31 2011,13:45)

Then there is the problem with Hebrews 1 which says that His name as 'begotten' and 'firstborn' is a name that is “SO MUCH BETTER than the angels.” But chapter 2 explicitly says that He was made a little LOWER than the angels. Therefore, if Christ had always been the 'begotten' and 'firstborn' then there never was a time when He was lower than the angels.

I just wonder how God SENT His only begotten Son INTO THE WORLD if he wasn't begotten until after he left it.

Jack, you are imagining “links” that just aren't there, buddy.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 31 2011,15:51)

Yes Kathi But also in the context of Psalms he is set on the Holy Hill mount Zion when the Father declared “this day” he would be his Son.

Hi Keith,

Like Jack, you are imagining “links” that aren't even implied, let alone clearly stated. First of all, there is nothing to imply that the Zion referred to is not the HEAVENLY Zion, from which Jesus might have been ruling for ages and ages. So that thought right there shoots down your insistence that both of these things HAD TO HAVE happened when Jesus was exalted.

Now the way I understand it, God is prophetically talking about Armageddon, when the kings of the earth will rise against God and His King. And Jehovah just laughs at them while saying He's installed His own King, as if you guys could possibly defeat the King who fights in MY Name and Strength.

But who is this “King”, you might ask. 2:7 is Jesus telling everyone that the King God installed on Zion is the same person God brought forth as His very own only begotten Son.

The installing as King could have happened a millions years after the begetting as Son. And there's nothing in that whole Psalm to imply any different. And when you consider the fact that Jesus already was Jehovah's only begotten Son before he was even sent into the world the first time, your “time link” has been solidly refuted.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 31 2011,16:17)

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 31 2011,15:39)    I believe I have the early church father's on my side as far as the translation of monogenes in John 1:18.  It is an adjective WITH a verb…an action. Kathi Yes and it is never used of Jesus until he came in the flesh.

Keith,

How could the Word become flesh and HAVE THE GLORY OF AN ONLY BEGOTTEN SON FROM THE FATHER if he wasn't even begotten until after he left the earth?

mike

[Lightenup]

Mike,
Good point there. Don't you think that it would be a lot easier if Keith and Jack agreed with the creeds say about when He was begotten especially since they both claim to be trinitarians and the creeds are foundational to that doctrine. I wish they were orthodox trinitarians instead of orthodox except for the begotten part. There is plenty to discuss if we could all just agree with the creeds here about when He was begotten.

Oh well,
Kathi

[mikeboll64]

Hi Kathi,

I think it would be alot easier if everyone just believed the scriptures as they are written, instead of letting their biases get in the way.

If God says, “You are my Son; I begot you”, then why try to imagine some unsupported abstract meaning to this?  When scripture says Abraham begot Isaac, I don't see anyone jumping up and down saying “begotten isn't a literal begotten in this case”.  They just accept that Abraham brought forth a son from himself.  And the only reason anyone has to claim a “metaphorical begetting” when it comes to Jesus is because they are starting with a bias and trying desparately to make the scriptures form around their doctrine, instead of forming their doctrine around the scriptures.

I wonder why the early church fathers never had the understanding from Paul's and Peter's words that Jesus was “metaphorically begotten” when he was exalted?  But early church fathers or not, the fact is that there is nothing in scripture that even comes close to implying Jesus was begotten any other way than the literal way of coming forth from a father.  There is also nothing in scripture to imply your theory that Jesus always existed as a being within the father until he was begotten.

mike

[Lightenup]

Mike,
Can you think of anything in scripture that shows someone born as an offspring that didn't exist before they were born? Adam wasn't said to be begotten, nor was Eve. They were created. A true offspring exists before they are born/begotten.
Kathi

[mikeboll64]

Okay Kathi,

What was your own firstborn BEFORE he began to develop inside you? Was he a PERSON since eternity, or was there a time when he was not?

In other words, I agree that the “stuff” Jesus was made of was inside God from eternity. But why would you assume he was already a “fetus”, or an individual since eternity?

mike

[Lightenup]

Good Mike that means you are understanding. My son does not have the nature of deity and therefore, he would not be eternal. Only that which is deity nature is eternal. I don't know if the Son was in the form of an incorruptible seed or a mature God like the Father or some stage in between before He was begotten…He was perfect whatever that must be as the offspring within the Father, that is what He was.

I assume that He was already an individual since eternity because He has the nature of deity. Deity nature must be eternal or it is not deity nature. Maybe you just need to contemplate what deity nature must be in order to be 'deity' nature. While you are ad it, contemplate what perfect looks like in a son with deity nature.

Mike

[kerwin]

Quote (Lightenup @ April 01 2011,00:13)

Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 31 2011,04:41) 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. Kerwin, I appreciate that you want to stay on topic but you are wrong about the topic, it is about the ante-Nicene church father's writings, not the anti-Nicene church father's writings. Ante-means before Anti-means against Anyway, the first part of this thread holds a good deal of the ANTE-Nicene church father's writings as a reference that I was hoping for.  No new ones were being added so the thread turned into a debate and that is ok with me.  Anyone can still add more of the ante-Nicene church father's writings if they find some. Kathi

Thank you for the correction.

Such writings are rare.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 31 2011,22:19)

Deity nature must be eternal or it is not deity nature.

Scripture, please? Because that statement seems to disagree with your whole “Begotten God” versus “Unbegotten God” theory. The Unbegotten would have no beginning, and therefore be eternal. The Begotten would have a beginning, and therefore NOT be eternal.

And I'm not “understanding” anything you're imagining.  Let me rephrase for clarity:

Kathi, was there ever a time when your son was not?  If so, do you know of a scripture that says there was NEVER a time when God's Son was not?

And I won't discuss “perfect” with you anymore, for you refuse to accept the clearly worded scriptures that say Jesus WAS PERFECTED through his sufferings.

mike

[kerwin]

To all,

Here are some claims made about an early, First Century, split in the Christian religion.  I have not had a chance to investigate them yet.  

I find it interesting that no Jew was a bishop of the Jerusalem church after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

[terraricca]

Kathy

Quote

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 31 2011,22:19) Deity nature must be eternal or it is not deity nature.

then there is only one God because everything else as been created even the son.

Pierre

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Lightenup,April wrote:

[/quote]
Kathi said:

Quote

Jack, The resurrection proved that God beget Him as His Son before creation.  He was fully God before He became flesh.  Look at the order of events here: 1God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.

Kathi,

It CLEARLY says that Christ's “having become so much better than the angels” is the CONSEQUENCE of His now being seated at the right hand of God.

Quote

When the Son, who the world was created through, took on flesh, that is when He became lower than the angels (for a little while) after He made purification of sins, He was exalted above the angels.

First, it is the name 'firstborn' and 'begotten' itself that makes Him above the angels. The very name itself testifies that He is above the angels. Soif He had that name in the days of His flesh as you say, then He was NOT lower than the angels in the days of His flesh. It's that simple!

Second, it does NOT say that the world was created through the Son. It literally reads, “Because of whom He ordained the ages. In other words, God from the beginning ordained the ages which were to come because of the human Son which was to come. The apostle had just said that God spoke in the last days through 'a Son.'

So it is not a so called pre-incarnate Son that is in view. It is a HUMAN Son that is in view! God did not speak in the last days through a so called pre-incarnate Son.

Quote

He is both Christ and Lord, both Messiah and God…as Messiah, He is the High Priest, as God, He is Lord.  He is both.  As Messiah, He is our brother, as the begotten God, He is our everlasting Father of our salvation who Has a Father that beget Him.

Hebrews 5 EXPLICITLY says Jesus became High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek the VERY DAY He was 'begotten' as Son. Melchizedek's priesthood was perpetual because it was not interrupted by death. Therefore, Christ could not have become High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek UNTIL He was resurrected.

Consequently He could not have been 'begotten' UNTIL the day He was resurrected (Acts 13:30-32).

You have left many things unanswered such as the fact that Psalm 2:6-7 says that Christ was established on God's holy hill [Zion] as King the very day He was begotten. Zion was a metaphor for the people of God. Therefore, you imply that Christ was King over the people of God 'before all ages' which in turn infers that they too existed 'before all ages.' Also, you fail to seriously deal with the fact that Christ was the Son of God because He was the Son of David.

Jack

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 31 2011,20:04)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 31 2011,10:51) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 30 2011,19:38) 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”. Mike But I didn't say that did I? So why would you do that to my post? WJ Because you are “spot on” except for the words I struck. mike

mike

So he was an “Angel” in the flesh who was also human?

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 31 2011,20:13)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 31 2011,11:03) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 30 2011,19:38) 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 Mike Read it in its context… Yet have “I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; “THIS DAY“ have I begotten thee. Pss 2:6, 7 If God brougth forth Jesus on that day who created the the Holy hill of zion he sat on that day? If God brought forth Jesus on that day then who created the day that he was brougth forth on?   WJ Keith, We've been through this and through this.  The Hebrew word “yowm” can mean “any general time period”.

Mike

That is right, “any general time period. Meaning he was begotten in time.

“yowm“

1) day, time, year a) day (as opposed to night) b) day (24 hour period)
1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1 2) as a division of time a) a working day, a day's journey
c) days, lifetime (pl.)  d) time, period (general)  e) year
f) temporal references 1) today 2) yesterday 3) tomorrow

Nothing including time days and years came into being without Jesus.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. “He was in the beginning with God“. All things came into being through Him, and “apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being“. John 1:1-3

Time began in the “Beginning” and Jesus was already there. You and kathi are sticking your head in the sand on Ps 2:6,7 which has Jesus in context sitting on Zion and begotten in time.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 31 2011,20:35)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 31 2011,15:51) Yes Kathi But also in the context of Psalms he is set on the Holy Hill mount Zion when the Father declared “this day” he would be his Son. Hi Keith, Like Jack, you are imagining “links” that aren't even implied, let alone clearly stated.  First of all, there is nothing to imply that the Zion referred to is not the HEAVENLY Zion, from which Jesus might have been ruling for ages and ages.  So that thought right there shoots down your insistence that both of these things HAD TO HAVE happened when Jesus was exalted.

Mike  

The problem you have with that assumption is you are saying Zion existed before he was begotten and that would make John a liar in John 1:3 when he states nothing came into being without Jesus.  Burn that straw man down.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 31 2011,20:38)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 31 2011,16:17) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 31 2011,15:39)    I believe I have the early church father's on my side as far as the translation of monogenes in John 1:18.  It is an adjective WITH a verb…an action. Kathi Yes and it is never used of Jesus until he came in the flesh. Keith, How could the Word become flesh and HAVE THE GLORY OF AN ONLY BEGOTTEN SON FROM THE FATHER if he wasn't even begotten until after he left the earth? mike

It says “we beheld” his Glory the Glory of the Only Begotten of the Father.

When did they behold his Glory Mike? That was after he came in the flesh.  

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 31 2011,21:36)

Mike, Good point there.  Don't you think that it would be a lot easier if Keith and Jack agreed with the creeds say about when He was begotten especially since they both claim to be trinitarians and the creeds are foundational to that doctrine.  I wish they were orthodox trinitarians instead of orthodox except for the begotten part.  There is plenty to discuss if we could all just agree with the creeds here about when He was begotten. Oh well, Kathi

Kathi

It would be nice if you believed what the Forefathers understood “begotten” means. And it does not mean he had a beginning of any kind.

I believe the creeds “all of it” and you don't.

They believe Jesus was “eternally begotten” and you don't.

They believed that the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit is “One God” and you don't.

There is more than “one begetting” of Jesus in the Bible and you guys know it but choose to deny it.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 31 2011,20:04)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 31 2011,10:51) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 30 2011,19:38) 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”. Mike But I didn't say that did I? So why would you do that to my post? WJ Because you are “spot on” except for the words I struck. mike

BTW Mike

If Jesus was an “angel” when he was in the flesh then how do you explain this…

”THOU MADEST HIM A LITTLE LOWER THAN THE ANGELS”; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:.. Heb 2:7

WJ

[Author]

Posts