- This topic has 3,676 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 03 2011,05:32) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2011,12:26) I don't know if he was begotten before time or not, but I don't really care because I'm quite confident that the abstract notion of “time” was not what John implied when he said “nothing” came into being without him
Really, then what does the “beginning” in verse 1 and 2 of John 1:1 mean if it does not mean before time?The beginning includes the beginning of time. Time starts in Genesis 1 with day (yowm) one, “the evening and the morning were the first day (yowm)”.
“Was there a day “yowm” before day “yowm” One in scripture?”
WJ
Keith,If time is an “abstract notion” then Mike can't prove anything. He can't prove that Jesus was begotten before all ages because the terms 'before' and 'ages' are “abstract notion” time words.
Mike is really getting his little butt kicked from Psalm 2:6-7.
Jack
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 03 2011,05:32) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2011,12:26) I don't know if he was begotten before time or not, but I don't really care because I'm quite confident that the abstract notion of “time” was not what John implied when he said “nothing” came into being without him
Really, then what does the “beginning” in verse 1 and 2 of John 1:1 mean if it does not mean before time?The beginning includes the beginning of time. Time starts in Genesis 1 with day (yowm) one, “the evening and the morning were the first day (yowm)”.
“Was there a day “yowm” before day “yowm” One in scripture?”
WJ
Keith,Note that Mike said, “I DON'T KNOW if he was begotten before time or not.”
Then he says, “I DON'T CARE.” Then why argue?
Jack
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 02 2011,12:28) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2011,12:26) Why have YOU not responded to that? Because that shows Jesus had the glory mentioned in 1:14 way before he was raised from the dead.
What is to address Mike?My point is the Word Monogenes was not applied to Jesus until after he came in the flesh, and you proved that because he first showed forth his Glory at the wedding.
But ask yourself Mike if it was the same Glory that he had before the foundation of the world?
What was the Glory that was returned back to him “After” his exaltation?
WJ
No Keith,That was NOT your point, as I remember. Your point was that Jesus was not “begotten” until he was raised. And my rebuttal was the fact that he had the glory of an only begotten from his first miracle in Cana.
How does your understanding of when he was begotten stack up against what I've pointed out to you?
And thanks for bringing up another point. If Jesus was EXALTED to a higher glory than the glory he left, how can that even be? How can God Almighty be EXALTED higher than God Almighty?
Like Jack said, your helping us out more than you know.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 02 2011,12:32) Really, then what does the “beginning” in verse 1 and 2 of John 1:1 mean if it does not mean before time?
What does “beginning” mean in Gen 1:1? It says the earth was created, as in past tense, in the beginning.mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 02 2011,13:07) Mike is really getting his little butt kicked from Psalm 2:6-7.
Jack,If you want to play with the big dogs, then answer my question about sheol from the last page. If you can't hang, then go sit on the porch with the other puppies, okay?
mike
Romans 1 (New King James Version)
Greeting
1 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God 2 which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.Quote And thanks for bringing up another point. If Jesus was EXALTED to a higher glory than the glory he left, how can that even be? How can God Almighty be EXALTED higher than God Almighty? This is an interesting point…
Can one of you, Mikeboll, WJ or KJ, expand on this? (How, if Jesus is God (even by Trinitarian claim: while in the flesh as Man) is he raised to a HIGHER position than that which he left)
Your premise claims are:
1) Jesus is God… Whether Almighty God or otherwise
2) Jesus is God from God, uncreated, unbegotten before time
3) Was God while on earth in the form of man but retained his nature as God
4) Died as Man but not as God
5) Was raised 'from the dead!' by God(! – himself?)
6) Was accorded a higher position above the Angels ( please note that the risen position was 'Higher than the Angels you may wish to comment on why this quiessent level was used!)
7) Jesus was Begotten to God as his Son (But he IS GOD already so is not according him a lessor position a demotion… Higher than the angels but less than God the Father?)
8) Jesus is seated at the Honor position of God (But he IS GOD!) at God's right handside!
9) His father (God Almighty) 'gives him' God's Kingdom to reign over for a while after which he, the Son, who is God Almighty, hands the kingdom back to God Almighty and becomes the High Preist to God Amighty.Please be advised that you need NOT answer any of these questions if that be your desire.
It would be useful, however, for you to at least consider an answer in yourself.
If you cannot reconcile any one or other of them then you may wish to consider why it cannot be reconciled and examine the doctrine that caused the possibility of unrecocilliation.
Thank you, guys!Quote (Sophia @ April 03 2011,07:33) Romans 1 (New King James Version) Greeting
1 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God 2 which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.
Hi Sophia,And welcome. You didn't comment as to what you think the scripture you quoted means. But I'll list the comments from the NETNotes scholars anyway:
Paul is not saying that Jesus was appointed the “Son of God by the resurrection” but “Son-of-God-in-power by the resurrection,” as indicated by the hyphenation. He was born in weakness in human flesh (with respect to the flesh, v. 3) and he was raised with power. This is similar to Matt 28:18 where Jesus told his disciples after the resurrection, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”
mike
Hello Istari,
And welcome back. I would be happy to expand on this
Quote (Istari @ April 03 2011,08:00)
(How, if Jesus is God (even by Trinitarian claim: while in the flesh as Man) is he raised to a HIGHER position than that which he left)
This is a good point and a good place to start. It seems the Trinitarians flip-flop on this idea. They use some scriptures, such as “I am”, “I and the Father are one”, “the Father is in me”, and “my Lord and my God”, etc., and try to make a claim that Jesus was 100% God even in the flesh.But then when it comes to “the Father is greater than I”, “the Father is greater than all”, “I go to your God and my God”, etc., they claim that these scriptures show how he was some kind of a “lessor God” because of his fleshly constraints.
Out of one side of their mouths, they speak of how he “was made a little lower than the angels for a while”, but out of the other side of their mouths, they claim he has always been 100% God Almighty – even in the flesh – as “proven” by “Immanuel – God with Us”.
I propose that it can't be both of these things, and no matter how many fancy words and explanations they've mastered throughout the years to “explain” this conundrum, the fact remains that God Almighty cannot possibly at any time be “lower than the angels”, nor can God Almighty be “exalted” to a higher position than what He already had.
There is no sense involved in the trinity doctrine, nor has there ever been. To sign up for this belief, one must by necessity throw common sense right out the window and be willing to believe crazy things like somehow the Son OF God can be the God he is the Son OF.
I mean really, if “God” consists of Father, Son and Spirit, then Jesus, as the Son OF God, must be the Son OF Father, Son and Spirit.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 02 2011,10:44) Quote (Lightenup @ April 02 2011,12:14) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 01 2011,16:37) 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!
Jack,
I don't know why you are teaching me about 'bosom.' I don't think that I have ever specified that the Son was in the 'bosom' or 'womb.' I am just saying that the act of begetting is to bring someone that is within…out. I think that happened to the Son who was begotten from the Father, before the ages…He was within the Father, the Father beget Him, then He came out of the Father, a type of birth. Maybe He goes in and out and in and out and in and out according to when He is needed to serve, idk.It is often described as the word within the Father that came out from the Father.
Kathi
Sorry if I misunderstood you to be speaking about the 'bosom' idea Kathi. I thought that's what you were saying.Quote I am just saying that the act of begetting is to bring someone that is within…out.
Thank you Kathi! Jesus was BEGOTTEN when God raised him from the dead. Jesus was WITHIN sheol and God brought Him OUT. Your own defintion!Jonah said, “From (WITHIN) the WOMB of sheol I cried…and the Lord DELIEVERED me (brought me OUT).”
Jack
Jack,
I never said that Jesus wasn't also called the 'firstborn from the dead' as well as 'firstborn of all creation.' Two different times of being begotten…one is in the beginning, the other is after His flesh body died. He was a Son the entire time.Kathi
I am with Jack on this issue.
Scriptures only ever mention Jesus being Begotten after he was raised from the dead as per the quotes in Romans, Hebrews and elsewhere.
It is worthy of note that the New Testament Apostles very rarely spoke of Pre-Jesus and therefore many of the verses referring to Christ must be seen in proper context as AFTER HE WAS RISEN and IN HEAVEN NOW( – as seen by them).
Why suddenly refer to Jesus as 'Firstborn over Creation' when referring to a risen Christ?
The Jews would certainly have understood the term 'Firstborn' as meaning 'First in position next to the Father irrespective of position in line of Birth'It has to be so otherwise conversation could get very confusing.
What if the 'first born' (I use the lowercase and separate words) was female how is it still said that the first male is the 'Firstborn' (One word – leading caps).
Moreover, what if the first born Son died? Another son becomes Firstborn.
But also, as shown many times in Scriptures, the First born, is not necessarily the Firstborn. Jacob was not Issac's first born but he BECAME the Firstborn over his brother (The creation of his father…)So, we ARE talking Firstborn here: Firstborn over Creation.
So, what what does Creation, mean?
Well, it certainly MUST relate to Humanity as it seems pointless to be claiming that He is the firstborn over 'The World', 'The planets' or 'The Animals'.Therefore the sentence should read 'Firstborn OF Creation'.
The Apostles are not trying to convince anyone that Jesus was created before time as the sentence, if so, would be out of context and sequence.
It therefore MUST apply to the New Creation which is what the Apostles were teaching the converts to reach for. The New MAN.
And by a directed coincidence, being BEGOTTEN also means 'Being raised up to the prominent position', therefore he is the BEGOTTEN Son, the first OF the new creation, the first over all others to partake of the new creation.Other verses are similarly misinterpreted, such as 'He IS the image of the invisible God'.
Note that the context is Present Tense…'He IS…' and why? Because God gave him the power and authority OVER all things
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 20 2010,00:13) Here is one: Quote Theophilus to Autolycus Book II
http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-42.htm#P1669_480398
You will say, then, to me: “You said that God ought not to be contained in a place, and how do you now say that He walked in Paradise? “Hear what I say. The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason.[/b] And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,” showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, “The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence.” The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.
found here: http://www.forananswer.org/Top_Uni/ECF_Jn1_1.htm
Bump for seeing how an early church father understood 'firstborn of all creation.'Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 20 2010,09:21) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 20 2010,00:27) Here is one… Hippolytus: Dogmatical and Historical Fragments
http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-18.htm#P3712_1172813
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.
WJ
Regarding Hippolytus and firstborn:Quote At the end of the four empires according to Dan 7:17-18 the heavenly reign will start
(IV:10). Christ is the firstborn, the Son of God, to whom everything on earth and in
heaven has been subordinated, the firstborn “before the angels” and the first born “from
the dead” (IV,11).18http://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/Oegema_Daniel.pdf
Hippolytus says that He was firstborn before the angels here.
Hippolytus says that He was firstborn before the angels here AND firstborn from the dead.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 28 2010,09:11) Here we have Tatian who writes about the Logos coming into being and is the first-begotten work of the Father. He didn't think that the logos was always a separate person but that it came into being. I have said that I believe the firstborn of all creation was the first fruit of the Father. This affirms that calling the Logos the 'first-begotten work.' Quote CHAPTER V.—THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIANS AS TO THE CREATION OF THE WORLD.
God was in the beginning; but the beginning, we have been taught, is the power of the Logos. For the Lord of the universe, who is Himself the necessary ground (ὑπόστασις) of all being, inasmuch as no creature was yet in existence, was alone; but inasmuch as He was all power, Himself the necessary ground of things visible and invisible, with Him were all things; with Him, by Logos-power (διὰ λογικῆς δυνάμεως), the Logos Himself also, who was in Him, subsists.433433 [See Kaye’s Justin Martyr, p. 161, note; and observe his stricture on Bull and Waterland.] And by His simple will the Logos springs forth; and the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father. Him (the Logos) we know to be the beginning of the world. But He came into being by participation,434434 κατὰ μερισμόν. Some translate, “by division,” but the above is preferable. The sense, according to Otto, is that the Logos, having received a peculiar nature, shares in the rational power of the Father as a lighted torch partakes of the light of the torch from which it is kindled. Comp. Just. Mar., Dial. c. T., chap. lxi. not by abscission; for what is cut off is separated from the original substance, but that which comes by participation, making its choice of function,435435 οἰκονομίας τὴν αἲρεσιν προσλαβόν. The above seems the simplest rendering of this difficult passage, but several others have been proposed. [See note 4, cap. ix., infra, p. 69.] does not render him deficient from whom it is taken. For just as from one torch many fires are lighted, but the light of the first torch is not lessened by the kindling of many torches, so the Logos, coming forth from the Logos-power of the Father, has not divested of the Logos-power Him who begat Him. I myself, for instance, talk, and you hear; yet, certainly, I who converse do not become destitute of speech (λόγος) by the transmission of speech, but by the utterance of my voice I endeavour to reduce to order the unarranged matter in your minds. And as the Logos,436436 [Matter not eternal. He seems to have understood Gen. i. 1, of the creation of matter; and verse 2, as beginning the history of our planet and the visible universe.] begotten in the beginning, begat in turn our world, having first created for Himself the necessary matter, so also I, in imitation of the Logos, being begotten again,437437 [Supposed to be a personal reference to his conversion and baptism. As to “confused matter,” it should be kindred matter, and must be set over “kindred spirit.” See p. 71, cap. xiii., infra.] and having become possessed of the truth, am trying to reduce to order the confused matter which is kindred with myself. For matter is not, like God, without beginning, nor, as having no beginning, is of equal power with God; it is begotten, and not produced by any other being, but brought into existence by the Framer of all things alone.
Here is what Tatian says…another early church father. Note that he says:
” the Logos Himself also, who was in Him, subsists”also:
“And by His simple will the Logos springs forth; and the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father. Him (the Logos) we know to be the beginning of the world. But He came into being by participation”
Basically he is saying what was in the Father…came out…thus a begotten person.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 03 2011,01:04) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 02 2011,12:32) Really, then what does the “beginning” in verse 1 and 2 of John 1:1 mean if it does not mean before time?
What does “beginning” mean in Gen 1:1? It says the earth was created, as in past tense, in the beginning.mike
Yes and Jesus was already there in the beginning for nothing had come into being yet including the day Jesus was begotten on.You didn't answer the question MR.
“Was there a day “yowm” before day “yowm” One in scripture?”
WJ
Oh, to be in someone's Bosom, is to be in their COMFORT, to be in their CARE.
it does not mean a physical place in someone's body – contextually.The whole Lazarus and the rich man is allegorical.
I fail to see why people want to believe that dead persons talk to each other across a void between heaven and hell when they then next believe that the 'Dead know nothing'!!
So, being dead is then just being 'alive' in another place, eh?
Further, if all was such, then how was it that the rich man cared only for the one poor man! Surely there would have been many others who he did wrong to? Was the poor man the complete reason for the rich man's demise? I think not!
Moreover, people do not go to heaven or hell directly when they die but await the resurrection. Does Scriptures not say that the first resurrection will be for those who will partake of the heirship, will become brothers with Christ, BEGOTTEN Sons of God?
These then will judge those of the second resurrection.
See the verse where Jesus tells the thief on the cross:
'I tell you this day you will be with me in paradise'I have written it without a comma to show ambiguity.
Which is it?
'I tell you this day, you will be with me in paradise'
Or
'I tell you, this day you will be with me in paradise'Did Jesus go to Heaven or on earth in Paradise or to Sheol – that day – for three days…?
We are told he went to Sheol… So where did the thief go – if not also to Sheol. So, rhetorically, is Sheol then Paradise? No, of course not!!
So Jesus was saying 'I tell you this day' meaning, 'Dont worry son, you are already judged and deemed worthy for life in Paradise after the second resurrection'
The thief will not be in the first resurrection but is assured of life in Paradise earth which will be the abode of those saved from the second resurrection – what a wonderful piece of knowledge to acquire just before going to temporary sleep as death in Sheol.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 03 2011,03:30) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 02 2011,10:23) Men don't 'die' today because sheol is no more. New Testament saints go directly to God.
Where do those who AREN'T saints go? Where are they awaiting the resurrection? And where were those who died before Jesus “moved to” if Sheol is no more?mike
Mike,After Christ returned in ad70 sheol was cast into the lake of fire. Saints go directly to God now in their bodies from heaven (2 Cor. 4:16-5:5). Jesus said, “He who believes in Me shall NEVER die.”
The wicked go straight to the lake of fire.
There is no more waiting place.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 05 2011,06:30) Or 'today' could be according to eternity where there is only today, just an eternal one.
Gobbledygook
JA said:
Quote The whole Lazarus and the rich man is allegorical.
It is not said that it was allegorical. There was a place called 'sheol' (Greek 'hades'). It means, “The unseen world of the dead.”Kathi has said that the word 'to beget' means “to come out from something you are within.” Therefore, Jesus was 'begotten' when God raised Him up from sheol. Jonah said, “From the WOMB of sheol I cried and the Lord heard my cry and delivered me.” So by Kathi's definition of 'begotten' Jonah was begotten when he came out of sheol (the fish).
The belly of the fish which was likened to sheol was the sign of Jesus' death and resurrection. Just as Jonah was in sheol alive so Jesus was in sheol alive. Therefore, Jesus was 'begotten' when God brought Him out of sheol.
KJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
