Firstborn of/over all creation

Participant

Hi Jack,
You mentioned in your last post here:

Quote

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.
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!

Here is another way to look at it for you:
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Being made so much better than the angels,…. Christ is so much better than the angels, as the Creator, than the creature; as an independent being, than a dependent one; as he that blesses, than he that is blessed; as he that is worshipped, than he that worships: as a king, than his subjects; as a master, than his servants; and as he that sends, than he that is sent: and Christ may be said to be “made so”, when he was manifested and declared to be so; and he was actually preferred to them, and exalted above them in human nature, after he had expiated the sins of his people, and when he was set down at the right hand of God, as in the latter part of the preceding verse, with which these words stand connected; for in his state of humiliation, and through his sufferings and death, he was made lower than they; but when he was risen from the dead, and ascended to heaven, he was placed at the right hand of God, where none of them ever was, or ever will be: besides, the phrase, “being made”, signifies no more than that “he was”; and so the Syriac version renders it, “and he was so much better than the angels”; and so the Ethiopic version, “he is so much better”: and this is observed, to prove him to be more excellent than any creature, since he is preferred to the most excellent of creatures; and to show, that the Gospel dispensation is superior to the legal dispensation, which was introduced by the ministration of angels; and to take off the Jews from the worship of angels, to which they were prone: and this doctrine of his could not be well denied by them, since it was the faith of the Jewish church, that the Messiah should be preferred to the angels: for in their ancient writings they say of him, he shall be exalted above Abraham, he shall be lifted up above Moses, and be higher than the ministering angels (s); and that he is above them, appears from what follows,

as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they; which is that of the Son of God, a name peculiar to him; and which belongs to him in such a sense as it does not to angels, as is evident from the following verse: and though this name is not founded on his office, as Mediator, but arises from his nature and relation to God; yet he was declared to be the Son of God, and it was made manifest, that this name of right belonged to him, upon the discharge of his office, at his resurrection and ascension to heaven; and therefore he is said to obtain it by inheritance; or he appeared to inherit it of right, and that it was his possession for evermore.

Quote

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.
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.

formerly God spoke by many persons, by the prophets, but now by one only, “by his Son”; who is so not by creation, nor by adoption, nor by office, but by nature; being his own Son, his proper Son, begotten of him, of the same nature with him, and equal to him; and so infinitely preferable to the prophets: he is a Son, and not a servant, in whom the Father is, and he in the Father, and in whom the Spirit is without measure; and God is said to speak by him, or in him, because he was now incarnate; and what he says from God should be attended to, both on account of the dignity of his person, as the Son of God, and because of the authority he came with as Mediator: whom he hath appointed heir of all things; which must be understood of him not as God, and Creator; for as such he has a right to all things; all that the Father has are his; the kingdom of nature and providence belongs to him, he being the Former and Maker of all things; but as Mediator, who has all things committed to him, to subserve the ends of his office; and has a kingdom appointed him, and which he will deliver up again the word all may refer either to persons or things; to persons, not angels, good or bad, though both are subject to him, yet neither are called his inheritance; but elect men, who are his portion, and the lot of his inheritance; and to things relating to these persons, and for their use and service, in time, and to all eternity; as all temporal things, and all spiritual ones, the blessings and promises of the covenant of grace, the gifts and graces of the Spirit, and eternal glory and happiness, the saints' inheritance, who are joint heirs with Christ.

By whom also he made the worlds; this is said in agreement with the notions of the Jews, and their way of speaking, who make mention of three worlds, which they call, the upper world (the habitation of God), the middle world (the air), and the lower world (o) (the earth); and sometimes they call them the world of angels (where they dwell), the world of orbs (where the sun, moon, and stars are), and the world below (p) (on which we live); and it is frequent in their writings, and prayer books (q), to call God , “Lord of all worlds”; See Gill on Hebrews 11:3, these God made by his Son, not as an instrument, but as an efficient cause with him; for by him were all things made, whether visible or invisible; and the preposition “by” does not always denote instrumentality, but sometimes efficiency; and is used of God the Father himself, and in this epistle, Hebrews 2:10.

Regarding Acts 13:33
the words cited by the apostle are, “thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee”; in Beza's ancient copy, the verse following these words is added, “ask of me”, &c. The words are to be understood of the eternal filiation of Christ, and are produced, to set forth the greatness and dignity of his person; whom God had raised and sent forth in human nature, to be the Saviour and Redeemer of his people: though should they be applied to the resurrection of Christ from the dead, it will no ways prejudice the doctrine of Christ's proper and natural sonship, as being the only begotten of the Father; since the resurrection of Christ is not the cause of his sonship, or the reason why he is called the Son of God, but a manifestation of it; Christ was the Son of God, before his resurrection from the dead; he was declared to be so by a voice from heaven, was believ
ed on by his disciples as such, and confessed by others, both men and devils: besides, if his resurrection was the cause of his sonship, he must beget himself, which is absurd, for he was himself concerned in his resurrection from the dead; more over, his sonship would not be proper, but figurative and metaphorical, whereas he is God's own, or proper son; besides, on this account he could not be called God's only begotten Son, because there are others that have been, and millions that will be raised from the dead besides him: but the reason why these words are applied to the resurrection of Christ, allowing them to be so, is not because he was then begotten as the Son of God, but because he was then manifested to be the eternally begotten Son of God; things are said to be, when they are only manifested to be; so Christ is said to be that day begotten, because he was “declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead”, Romans 1:4 Hence these words are applicable to any time or thing wherein Christ is manifested to be the only begotten Son of God, and accordingly are applied to different times and things; see Hebrews 1:3.

Quote

Also, you fail to seriously deal with the fact that Christ was the Son of God because He was the Son of David.

There were many who were the son of David read the geneology in Matthew. That would certainly not make the 'second person' the ONLY begotten Son.

Regarding:

Quote

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.'

…this day have I begotten thee;…but it has respect to his person; for, as in human generation, person begets person, and like begets like, so in divine generation; but care must be taken to remove all imperfection from it, such as divisibility and multiplication of essence, priority and posteriority, dependence, and the like: nor can the “modus” or manner of it be conceived or explained by us. The date of it, “today”, designs eternity, as in Isaiah 43:13, which is one continued day, an everlasting now. And this may be applied to any time and case in which Christ is declared to be the Son of God; as at his incarnation, his baptism, and transfiguration upon the mount, and his resurrection from the dead, as it is in Acts 13:33; because then he was declared to be the Son of God with power, Romans 1:4; and to his ascension into heaven, where he was made Lord and Christ, and his divine sonship more manifestly appeared; which seems to be the time and case more especially referred to here, if it be compared with Hebrews 1:3.

Gill's words from: http://gill.biblecommenter.com

Jack, I agree with Gill from what I can comprehend of his writings on these matters.
Kathi

April 1, 2011 at 5:12 pm#265528

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ April 01 2011,11:46)

…but because he was then manifested to be “THE ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD”; things are said to be, when they are only manifested to be; so Christ is said to be that day begotten, because he was “declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead”, Romans 1:4

Kathi

He disagrees with you about Jesus being “eternally begotten”, meaning he never had a beginning.

April 1, 2011 at 5:47 pm#265529

Participant

Keith,

I knew it wouldn't be lomg before I had to repost this to you…

I am not saying that once there was only the Father, I am saying that there was always a Father and a Son and their Holy Spirit. However the Son was within the Father and not alongside Him till He was begotten before the ages. Now, I think that I should just copy this and paste it back to you, since you regularly must need to hear it since you keep acting like I didn't tell you this.

For me there is one God, the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten God, and their Spirit who is given to believer's as the Comforter.

So, until I feel like you get that, I will keep posting this to you to help you see that this is my understanding, not to be mean but to keep me from going in these circles with you. The sooner you show that you are understanding what I am writing to you, the sooner we can move on. I'm not saying that you have to agree with me.

Kthi

April 1, 2011 at 6:49 pm#265530

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ April 01 2011,12:47)

Keith,

I knew it wouldn't be lomg before I had to repost this to you…

For me there is one God, the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten God, and their Spirit who is given to believer's as the Comforter.

Kthi

OK Kathi

You are right; I must not understand you.

If Jesus was always with the Father when he was in the Fathers “bosom” (which by the way he still is in the Fathers “bosom”) as the “Only Begotten Son” then what part “changed” when he was born from the Father to make him ‘the Only Begotten Son”?

I am sorry but to me you are all over the place. You say he didn't have a beginning but then say he became the Fathers offspring or was “begotten” or “born”, meaning he had a beginning and meaning something had changed.

Your source says…

but care must be taken to remove all imperfection from it, such as divisibility and multiplication of essence, priority and posteriority, dependence, and the like: nor can the “modus” or manner of it be conceived or explained by us.

That same source says Jesus was “Eternally Begotten”.

Was Jesus “Eternally Begotten” or not?

You also said…

“He was fully God before He became flesh. “

“Was he fully God before he was brought forth or born from the Father or was he part God?”

April 1, 2011 at 7:00 pm#265531

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.ix.html

Participant

Bump this one…

Clement of Alexandria: Fragments Part 1

“There was; then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreate.”

No beginning found there.

April 1, 2011 at 7:04 pm#265532

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.xii.html

Participant

Bump this one…

Tertullian: Against Praxeas

“[God speaks in the plural ‘Let us make man in our image’] because already there was attached to Him his Son, a second person, his own Word, and a third, the Spirit in the Word….one substance in three coherent persons. He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.”

There is the “One being” and not the God beget another equal God” or a firstborn God.

This also shows that the ForeFathers believed the Holy Spirit to be fully God and “One” with the Father and Jesus also.

So if they believed that the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are One God and of the same “eternal essence” then that would mean the Holy Spirit like Jesus is from “Eternity” to “Eternity”.

April 1, 2011 at 7:07 pm#265533

http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-18.htm#P3712_1172813

Participant

Bump

Hippolytus: Dogmatical and Historical Fragments

These things then, brethren, are declared by the Scriptures. And the blessed John, in the testimony of his Gospel, gives us an account of this economy (disposition) and acknowledges this Word as God, when he says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” If, then, the Word was with God, and was also God, what follows? Would one say that he speaks of two Gods? I shall not indeed speak of two Gods, but of one; of two Persons however, and of a third economy (disposition), viz., the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Father indeed is One, but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son; and then there is the third, the Holy Spirit. The Father decrees, the Word executes, and the Son is manifested, through whom the Father is believed on. The economy of harmony is led back to one God; for God is One.

Again no “firstborn” or begotten God who had a beginning as another being.

He is against the “two Gods” theory.

April 1, 2011 at 9:09 pm#265534

Participant

Kathi wrote:

Quote

Here is another way to look at it for you:
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Being made so much better than the angels,…. Christ is so much better than the angels, as the Creator, than the creature; as an independent being, than a dependent one; as he that blesses, than he that is blessed; as he that is worshipped, than he that worships: as a king, than his subjects; as a master, than his servants; and as he that sends, than he that is sent: and Christ may be said to be “made so”, when he was manifested and declared to be so; and he was actually preferred to them, and exalted above them in human nature, after he had expiated the sins of his people, and when he was set down at the right hand of God, as in the latter part of the preceding verse, with which these words stand connected; for in his state of humiliation, and through his sufferings and death, he was made lower than they; but when he was risen from the dead, and ascended to heaven, he was placed at the right hand of God, where none of them ever was, or ever will be: besides, the phrase, “being made”, signifies no more than that “he was”; and so the Syriac version renders it, “and he was so much better than the angels”; and so the Ethiopic version, “he is so much better”: and this is observed, to prove him to be more excellent than any creature, since he is preferred to the most excellent of creatures; and to show, that the Gospel dispensation is superior to the legal dispensation, which was introduced by the ministration of angels; and to take off the Jews from the worship of angels, to which they were prone: and this doctrine of his could not be well denied by them, since it was the faith of the Jewish church, that the Messiah should be preferred to the angels: for in their ancient writings they say of him, he shall be exalted above Abraham, he shall be lifted up above Moses, and be higher than the ministering angels (s); and that he is above them, appears from what follows,

Kathi,

1. The quote above assumes that Hebrews 1 begins by speaking about a supposed pre-incarnate Son. I have already shown that it is a HUMAN Son that is in view. Hebrews begins by declaring that God 'spoke' to men in 'the last days' by a Son. This without a doubt refers to a HUMAN Son and the reference does not mystically and magically change in the verses which follow. That Son was 'Son' because He assumed the seed of David and therefore was ALWAYS lower than the angels until His resurrection and exaltation when He officially assumed the title and office of the Firstborn.

2. You cited Gill who said, “the phrase, 'being made', signifies no more than that “he was”; and so the Syriac version renders it.”

Exactly! As Son Jesus was not 'made' lower than the angels. As Son He ALWAYS WAS lower than the angels UNTIL He was resurrected and exalted. Thank you!!

Jesus was indeed superior to the angels as the Creator. But never as a Son was He superior to the angels UNTIL His resurrection and exaltation.

3. There is no reference to the material creation in verse 2. It may be translated, “Because of whom He (God) ordained the ages.” It simply means that God ordained the ages to come because of the [HUMAN] Son which was to come.

You have proven nothing! Peter said that Psalm 2:6-7 was fulfilled “when God raised Him from the dead” (Acts 13:30-32). You fail to see the Psalm 2:6-7 was a PROPHECY.

Jack

April 1, 2011 at 9:18 pm#265535

Participant

CORRECTED POST

Kathi wrote:

Quote

Here is another way to look at it for you:
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Kathi,

2. You cited Gill who said that 'made' signifies nothing more than He 'was.' This was true of Him as the Creator but not as a Son. As the Creator Jesus was indeed superior to the angels. But never as a Son was He superior to the angels UNTIL His resurrection and exaltation. As Son He ALWAYS WAS lower than the angels UNTIL He was resurrected and exalted.

You have proven nothing! Peter said that Psalm 2:6-7 was fulfilled “when God raised Him from the dead” (Acts 13:30-32). You fail to see the Psalm 2:6-7 was a PROPHECY.

Jack

April 1, 2011 at 9:37 pm#265536

Participant

Kathi said:

Quote

I am not saying that once there was only the Father, I am saying that there was always a Father and a Son and their Holy Spirit. However the Son was within the Father and not alongside Him till He was begotten before the ages.

This is weird man! This is the kind of nonsense that is the result of failing to interpret words and phrases according to their cultural context. Jesus said that after Lazarus died he was “carried TO Abraham's bosom” and that the rich man saw Lazarus “IN Abraham's bosom.” Did Abraham “beget” Lazarus? The Greek word 'ev' (in) may also be translated “at.”

The rich man saw Lazarus carried TO Abraham's bosom and consequently IN, that is, AT Abraham's bosom meaning AT his side.

The expression “IN the bosom of the Father” was a Hebrew colloquial expression meaning “AT God's side.” The Word (not the Son) was ALWAYS AT God's side!

April 1, 2011 at 9:48 pm#265537

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 01 2011,16:37)

Kathi said:

Quote

The rich man saw Lazarus carried TO Abraham's bosom and consequently IN, that is, AT Abraham's bosom meaning AT his side.

The expression “IN the bosom of the Father” was a Hebrew colloquial expression meaning “AT God's side.” The Word (not the Son) was ALWAYS AT God's side!

Jack

I think that Jesus was always with the Father and always was in the Father. The Father was always in him and with him and still is, for they are One God.

“At his right hand” is a metophor for us to understand that he is equal with the Father in authority and power. God doesn't literraly have a hand like we do. God is a Spirit.

April 1, 2011 at 10:04 pm#265538

http://www.theopedia.com/Eternal_generation_of_the_Son

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 02 2011,08:48)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 01 2011,16:37)

Kathi said:

Quote

The rich man saw Lazarus carried TO Abraham's bosom and consequently IN, that is, AT Abraham's bosom meaning AT his side.

The expression “IN the bosom of the Father” was a Hebrew colloquial expression meaning “AT God's side.” The Word (not the Son) was ALWAYS AT God's side!

Jack

I think that Jesus was always with the Father and always was in the Father. The Father was always in him and with him and still is, for they are One God.

“At his right hand” is a metophor for us to understand that he is equal with the Father in authority and power. God doesn't literraly have a hand like we do. God is a Spirit.

Keith,

It would be more accurate to say that the Word was always with God. There was never a time when God existed in isolation.

I don't think it is accurate to say that Jesus was always with the “Father” because God was not always a father. The scriptures expressly declare “I will BECOME a father to Him.”

The terms “Father” and “Son” denote temporal relationships and functions assumed by the Theotokos for the sake of our salvation.

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.

Jack

April 2, 2011 at 12:45 am#265539

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 01 2011,13:49)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 01 2011,12:47)

Keith,

I knew it wouldn't be lomg before I had to repost this to you…

For me there is one God, the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten God, and their Spirit who is given to believer's as the Comforter.

Kthi

OK Kathi

You are right; I must not understand you.

Your source says…

That same source says Jesus was “Eternally Begotten”.

Was Jesus “Eternally Begotten” or not?

You also said…

“He was fully God before He became flesh. “

“Was he fully God before he was brought forth or born from the Father or was he part God?”

Keith,
The answer is in my post as to what the difference was. It has to do with a position.

Do you even know what this means:

I think that means that the Father doesn't divide Himself (divisibility) in half or duplicate Himself (multiplication) in order to beget a Son.

When you had a child, did you divide in half or duplicate yourself?

April 2, 2011 at 1:03 am#265540

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 01 2011,09:24)

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.

Keith,

Your post makes no sense. God could have installed Jesus on the heavenly Zion, which was created through Jesus, in 1984. And once installed, Jesus declared himself to be the begotten Son of God, whose actual begetting happened a billion years prior.

Do you understand?

mike

April 2, 2011 at 1:05 am#265541

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 01 2011,09:12)

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

I have misspoken. Look at the definitions you yourself posted. We are both reading it wrong. It doesn't say “time period”, but refers to any general time, or any general PERIOD.

Burn that straw man down.

mike

April 2, 2011 at 1:05 am#265542

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 21 2010,03:50)

Quote

“There was; then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as
also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality
of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreate.”

These early church fathers often speak of the logos as an attribute of
God and also as the Word himself, Christ.

So it could just be a lack of understanding on your part WJ, as to
what that sentence is saying.

e.g.,

God begat before all creatures a Beginning, a certain
Reasonable Power from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now
the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then
God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls himself
Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave. For
he can be called by all those names, since he ministers to the will of
the Father, and since he was begotten out of the Father by an act of
will, just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out
some word, we beget the word, yet not by abscission, so as to lessen
the word in us, when we give it out, and just as we see also happening
in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled, but
remains the same, and that which has been kindled by it likewise
appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was
kindled. The Word of Wisdom, who is himself this God begotten of the
Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory
of the Begetter.
Second Apology – Justin Martyr (ca. 150 A.D)

Here, I bumped this from t8.

God begat before all creatures a Beginning, a certain
Reasonable Power from Himself,

See that and realize that the reasonable power was in God according to what was said. It uses the word 'from Himself.' Read this next part and see that begetting brings what was in…out.

and since he was begotten out of the Father by an act of
will, just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out
some word, we beget the word,

Note that the idea of 'begetting' here is to take something within and bring it out.

That is my point about the meaning of begetting. Something is within the Father and then when begotten, it comes out.

Get it? The Son was always within the Father and begetting Him, brought Him out. It really is not so difficult to understand.

Kathi

April 2, 2011 at 1:08 am#265543

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 01 2011,09:29)

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.

That's a fair question, Keith. Here's the answer:

John 2:11
What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.

Burn that straw man down. Oh……….and answer my question about how Jesus had the glory of an only begotten from the Father before, according to your nonsense, he was begotten.

mike

April 2, 2011 at 1:09 am#265544

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 01 2011,09:35)

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.

The what exactly does “God FROM God” mean?

mike

April 2, 2011 at 1:10 am#265545

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 01 2011,09:51)

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

See the “god/angel” thread that D started.

mike

April 2, 2011 at 1:14 am#265546