- This topic has 3,676 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ April 07 2011,13:49) Keith, Consubstantiality is a term used in Latin Christian christology, coined by Tertullian in Against Hermogenes 44, used to translate the Greek term homoousios. “Consubstantiality” describes the relationship among the Divine persons of the Christian Trinity and connotes that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are “of one being” in that the Son is “generated” (“born” or “begotten”) “before all ages” or “eternally” of the Father's own being, from which the Spirit also eternally “proceeds.”
I agree with this. The Son and the Spirit are of one being-the Father.
KathiIt doesn't say only the Son and the Holy Spirit is of the Fathers being.
It says …”Consubstantiality” describes the relationship among “the Divine persons of the Christian Trinity and connotes that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are “of one being…”
He says the The Father also is that “One Being” and that the Holy Spirit is a person equally God with the Father and Jesus.
How can you say you agree with that?
If the Word that was with God and was God did not have a relationship with the Father from everlasting then that means he did not always exist as the Son.
I think you are saying at some point the Son did not exist with a relationship with the Father, is that correct?
WJJ
Keith,
The Father is naturally of His own being, the Son is of the Father's being, and the Spirit is of the Father's being also. That is consubstantiality.Stick with this one thing till we nail this down, ok.
Kathi
Keith said:
Quote Eternal generation does not mean that he had any kind of beginning but that he was always proceeding from within the Father as the Word that was always with the Father yet the Father was always in him for they are one in essence, being and nature, all that makes God God.
Keith,The term “eternal generation” is an oxymoron. It is a contradiction within itself.
The Word as the Word was the “exact representation of His substance.” It was the Word that was called the “true light.”
Now Hebrew 1 says that the human Son is the “exact representation of His substance.” We know that it is the human Son because it says that God spoke to us through Him in the last days. God spoke through a human Son in the last says. The human Son is the “exact representation of His substance” because when the Word became Son nothing was lost.
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 07 2011,14:32) Keith said: Quote Eternal generation does not mean that he had any kind of beginning but that he was always proceeding from within the Father as the Word that was always with the Father yet the Father was always in him for they are one in essence, being and nature, all that makes God God.
Keith,The term “eternal generation” is an oxymoron. It is a contradiction within itself.
The Word as the Word was the “exact representation of His substance.” It was the Word that was called the “true light.”
Now Hebrew 1 says that the human Son is the “exact representation of His substance.” We know that it is the human Son because it says that God spoke to us through Him in the last days. God spoke through a human Son in the last says. The human Son is the “exact representation of His substance” because when the Word became Son nothing was lost.
Jack
JackI agree there is some differences of opinion.
The following is in objection to the term “eternal generation”…
“Eternal generation” safeguards the idea that, the sonship of Christ is his equality with the Father as God, in contrast to any subordination or derivation. However, the language simplistically understood strongly suggests the very error that it is intended to safeguard against. Source
I don't like the term either for the above reasons.
The thing is how did the Forefathers understand the term and it looks like most understood it in relation to the Father as the Son never had a beginning of which I agree.
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ April 07 2011,14:27) Keith,
The Father is naturally of His own being, the Son is of the Father's being, and the Spirit is of the Father's being also. That is consubstantiality.Stick with this one thing till we nail this down, ok.
Kathi
KathiOne Being, One God, not two beings and 2 gods.
That is what the Bible and the creeds teach.
BTW if the Spirit is of the Fathers being like the Son does that mean the Spirit is another being also?
WJ
Keith,
A person is a being.The Spirit is the Spirit of the Father
The Son is the Son.The Father is the being that the Son is from, by begettal, the Spirit is from the being of the Father also, but as an extension of the Father Himself. The Spirit is not begotten but brought forth.
The Spirit is not another being, He is an extension of the Father and naturally controlled by the Father's will. The Spirit has no independent will, like a person would have from what I can tell.
Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ April 07 2011,16:01) Keith,
A person is a being.The Spirit is the Spirit of the Father
The Son is the Son.The Father is the being that the Son is from, by begettal, the Spirit is from the being of the Father also, but as an extension of the Father Himself. The Spirit is not begotten but brought forth.
The Spirit is not another being, He is an extension of the Father and naturally controlled by the Father's will. The Spirit has no independent will, like a person would have from what I can tell.
Kathi
Two Gods like I said.WJ
Two Gods that are consubstantial. One from the other…God from God…one being from the other. That is what consubstantial is.
It is all about context. The two are of one nature. It's the Father's being that the Son is of, and each are distinct beings. One is begotten from the other as is consistent with the church fathers and the term consubstantial. You say persons not beings but they are the same thing.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 07 2011,16:30) Two Gods that are consubstantial. One from the other…God from God…one being from the other. That is what consubstantial is. It is all about context. The two are of one nature. It's the Father's being that the Son is of, and each are distinct beings. One is begotten from the other as is consistent with the church fathers and the term consubstantial. You say persons not beings but they are the same thing.
Have it your way Kathi.That is not the conclusion of the ForeFathers. If the Father is of the same being then they are One being that is what is meant.
WJ
Quote (Baker @ April 07 2011,11:11) Hi Kathi and Mike! I am reading your posts, and smiling. It seems that most here don't understand that Jesus came into existing long before the world was. I also found that no matter what Scriptures one puts in front of them, they usually reason it away, one wau or another….
is it not that way because they can't open their hearts, or refuse to open their hearts? Maybe it's not their time to understand. But I am German and I don't give up easy!!!!!!..keep up the good work………..
Peace and Love Irene
Thanks Irene. Or should I say “Danka shein”? (Is that
how you spell it?)mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 08 2011,09:45) Quote (Baker @ April 07 2011,11:11) Hi Kathi and Mike! I am reading your posts, and smiling. It seems that most here don't understand that Jesus came into existing long before the world was. I also found that no matter what Scriptures one puts in front of them, they usually reason it away, one wau or another….
is it not that way because they can't open their hearts, or refuse to open their hearts? Maybe it's not their time to understand. But I am German and I don't give up easy!!!!!!..keep up the good work………..
Peace and Love Irene Thanks Irene. Or should I say “Danka shein”? (Is that
how you spell it?)mike
good try Mike! It is Danke schon, with little dots on top of the oIrene
Quote (Baker @ April 08 2011,10:06) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 08 2011,09:45) Quote (Baker @ April 07 2011,11:11) Hi Kathi and Mike! I am reading your posts, and smiling. It seems that most here don't understand that Jesus came into existing long before the world was. I also found that no matter what Scriptures one puts in front of them, they usually reason it away, one wau or another….
is it not that way because they can't open their hearts, or refuse to open their hearts? Maybe it's not their time to understand. But I am German and I don't give up easy!!!!!!..keep up the good work………..
Peace and Love Irene Thanks Irene. Or should I say “Danka shein”? (Is that
how you spell it?)mike
good try Mike! It is Danke schon, with little dots on top of the oIrene
Heh, Mike look in the incarnation tread that Paladin started. It is getting very interesting. I hope I explained good enough.Peace and love Irene
Quote (Istari @ April 07 2011,06:42)
Acts 13:33, 'God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that he has RAISED UP (begotten) Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: 'You are my Son, Today I have begotten you'
Hi Istari,Acts 13
23 “From this man’s descendants God has brought to Israel the Savior Jesus, as he promised.26 “Fellow children of Abraham and you God-fearing Gentiles, it is to us that this message of salvation has been sent. 27 The people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus, yet in condemning him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath.
32 “We tell you the good news: What God promised our ancestors 33 he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm:
“‘You are my son;
today I have begotten you.’ “If you read the passage in context, Paul is saying God fulfilled a promise by raising up Jesus. God had never promised anyone that one day He would metaphorically beget a Son. What He DID promise is listed in verse 23 and underlined for you. God promised a savior to Israel. And THAT is the promise that was fulfilled by raising Jesus, as spoken of by Paul in verses 32 and 33.
Okay, but why would Paul quote Psalm 2:7 here? Very few people had a clue that Jesus was actually the only begotten Son of God Himself. The Pharisees wanted to stone him for making this claim. So it's clear that they didn't believe his claim, otherwise I doubt they would have wanted to stone to death the one they believed to be the Son of their God, Jehovah. Don't you remember Jesus making a big deal about Peter getting the revelation that Jesus was in fact the actual Son of the Living God? It wasn't just “common knowledge” then like it is now. Many people believed he was the promised Messiah, but they had no clue the Messiah was going to be the only begotten Son of God. And many other people blew him off as if he was possessed by a demon.
In fact, after being blinded, Paul set out on a mission with only one thing in mind:
Acts 9:19-20
Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. 20 At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.You see? Paul took it upon himself to immediately educate everyone about the fact that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God Himself. Like I said, it wasn't common knowledge at the time, and many of the speeches of the disciples that are recorded in the scriptures are occasions where they are trying to teach the people who Jesus really was………….because the people were not aware of who Jesus really was.
This is why Paul uses Psalm 2:7 so often, Istari. What other OT scriptures could he have used to prove what he set out to prove? So every chance he got, he used this scripture to explain to people that the begotten Son God spoke of in that Psalm is the very same one that they had crucified. He is basically saying to them, “Hey, remember Psalm 2:7, where God spoke about having a begotten Son? Did you ever wonder what or who God was talking about? Well, I'm here to tell you that this old scripture was actually speaking about this same Jesus that you killed. Not only is he the promised Messiah and the promised shepherd who will rule forever with righteousness in the strength and name of his God, but he also happens to be the only begotten Son of God spoken of in Psalm 2:7!”
Quote (Istari @ April 07 2011,06:42)
And Romans 1:3-4:
'concerning Jesus Christ, our Lord, who was born the Son of God… in the flesh …through the seed of David and DECLARED (Begotten) to be Son of God with Power (The True Son) according to the Holy Spirit BY THE RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD…
First of all, don't go pulling a Gene, Istari. You can't add your own words into the scriptures just because you WANT the scripture to say what you've come to understand on your own. “Declared” and “raised up” wouldn't mean “begotten” even in the most liberal sense of the word. But I'll let the NETNotes scholars answer this one for me, since I agree with them on this point:
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.”
At least consider what I've written in this post, Istari. Because if all you have is the three times Paul quoted Psalm 2:7, then you have very little to override the fact that Jesus WAS ALREADY the only begotten Son of God while he was on the earth. Especially considering I've shown you ample scriptural evidence to explain another possibility of why Paul would keep mentioning Psalm 2:7.
Add to this the very strange reality that not one of the early church fathers ever came to the conclusion from Paul's words that you and Jack and Keith have come to. Don't get me wrong, I realize that some of these fathers are the same knuckleheads who think Jesus is the same God he is the Son of, so they don't hold that much weight with me. But nevertheless, it is a little telling that not even one of them considered Paul's quoting of Psalm 2:7 to be implying Jesus was metaphorically begotten when he was raised from the dead.
I agree with the rest of your post, about who to worship and the Father being the God OF Jesus, but it is off topic here. I'll check out your new thread soon.
mike
Quote (Baker @ April 07 2011,17:08) Quote (Baker @ April 08 2011,10:06) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 08 2011,09:45) Quote (Baker @ April 07 2011,11:11) Hi Kathi and Mike! I am reading your posts, and smiling. It seems that most here don't understand that Jesus came into existing long before the world was. I also found that no matter what Scriptures one puts in front of them, they usually reason it away, one wau or another….
is it not that way because they can't open their hearts, or refuse to open their hearts? Maybe it's not their time to understand. But I am German and I don't give up easy!!!!!!..keep up the good work………..
Peace and Love Irene Thanks Irene. Or should I say “Danka shein”? (Is that
how you spell it?)mike
good try Mike! It is Danke schon, with little dots on top of the oIrene
Heh, Mike look in the incarnation tread that Paladin started. It is getting very interesting. I hope I explained good enough.Peace and love Irene
Hi Irene,Thanks for the German lesson!
I've been meaning to respond to Paladin for a couple of days. Maybe I'll have time tonight. mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 07 2011,16:59) Quote (Lightenup @ April 07 2011,16:30) Two Gods that are consubstantial. One from the other…God from God…one being from the other. That is what consubstantial is. It is all about context. The two are of one nature. It's the Father's being that the Son is of, and each are distinct beings. One is begotten from the other as is consistent with the church fathers and the term consubstantial. You say persons not beings but they are the same thing.
Have it your way Kathi.That is not the conclusion of the ForeFathers. If the Father is of the same being then they are One being that is what is meant.
WJ
Hi Keith,There are three entities of God.
The Father
The Son
The Holy SpiritThe Father is the one being that the being of the Son is of/from and one Spirit also from the one being-the Father who is not a being but the Spirit of the Father extending forth from Him. That fits as three being consubstantial. That I do agree with.
You seem to think that there are three as one being and that one being is not the Father. I really don't think the early church was saying that.
Bump for Keith, Jack, Istari…………whoever:
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 06 2011,11:10) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 05 2011,22:09) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 05 2011,08:42) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2011,20:03) I would like to know how Jesus already had the glory of an ONLY BEGOTTEN Son from the Father when he was flesh if he wasn't “begotten” until after he died.
Sure MikeAs soon as you can show us a scripture that says his Glory as the Only begotten Son was before he came in the flesh.
WJ
I showed you one that says he had that glory WHILE he was flesh. Isn't that enough to make you see he wasn't begotten when he was raised from the dead?mike
NO!Because John 17:5 says he returned to the previous Glory he shared with the Father before the world began.
WJ
Hi Keith,Are you making my point for me? If John and the believers were able to behold Jesus' glory as an only begotten Son from the Father while he was on the earth, then he was an only begotten Son from the Father while he was on the earth.
Now you have added a brilliant point that since Jesus was raised to his previous glory, and is now the only begotten Son of God, then he must have also been that previously, right?
The thing we all agree about is that Jesus NOW has the glory of the only begotten Son of God, right? But John 1:14 says he also had it on earth, so you'll have to adjust your thinking to align with the scriptures, right? And the point you made in this post demonstrates that since he was raised to the glory he had, and that glory now is as the only begotten Son of God, then that must also have been the same glory he had before the creation of the world.
Thanks for the pointer.
mike
Mike,
Have you read Isaiah 49?1:… The servant of God, Jesus, was 'Called from the womb' (Flesh)
2:… He was formally 'Hidden' in the palm of God's hand, meaning his exploits were not explicitly known to the fathers (Passing references only to 'Angel of God').Mike, although we have been over all this before, I see you are misinterpreting what is clear Scriptures. Just as you misinterpreted Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 due to desperation, you, here, likewise misinterpret Paul in your tired old way.
Even if you believe in 'Begotten before time' (ha ha … I see what you are thinking… Sad really and it's just like 'Spirits have bodies') it is not an excuse to turn every reference to Begotten into references to preExistence.
The Scripture verses clearly allude, in sequence, to the death, rising and Glorification of Jesus Christ through the DECLARATION by God his Father in THREE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURES…
To wit:
God the father did not say to any of the Angels, 'You are my Son, today I have begotten you'.
But… When the Jesus had fulfilled his commission in the form of a man in the flesh (P.s. Which words did I add… I noticed you didn't say… Maybe because I didn't …) God declared him to be his Son in Power.
So, Jesus was not a SPIRIT/ANGEL when God made the declaration – moreover, what greater glory and Honor could be bestowed on one who had done what Jesus did… Even to being made High Priest to God…
Mike, are you really seriously saying that Jesus was declared Son of God and made high priest to his God on the day he came into being as Spirit in heaven…Mike, to whom was the declaration made? There was no one else in existence – and no 'Day' existed!!
And, what does, 'I have BECOME your Father' mean…
Mike, do you say to that which you created, 'I have BECOME your creator'?
Do you say to your newborn Son, 'I have BECOME your Father'To 'Become' to another is to as to one that is already existence… In other words, to be ADOPTED! to be RAISED UP (and yes, 'Raised up' also means 'to bring into being' but here is a call for WISDOM and truthfulness of desire for TRUTH – clearly lacking in some…!)
Mike, you need to revisit your idea of what SONSHIP means to BEGIN to understand the correct context.
Is it not written in the Scriptures: 'He who does the work of God, that same is a Son of God'?
Mike, do not even Angel Spirits do the work of God. Are they then not SONS OF GOD and as such then also 'Begotten' to God by your reckoning?Mike, how many are there who were Sons of God and in what context.
So when Jesus faithfully fulfilled all that God commissioned him to do, greater than all other 'Sons of God', is it not fitting that he should declare such a one as TRUE SON (First over all flesh : John 17:2) and be given POWER AND AUTHORITY which no other Son of God has.
Mike, seriously, consider arguing with someone else who you feel you may be able to indoctrinate…
If your logic is followed then at what point is Jesus given power and authority differently from when he was created (born/begotten) before time.
Just out of interest: what then was the point of the verse stating that no Angel had ever been declared Begotten to God by God?
With reference to: by calling him the firstborn of/over all creation (Col 1)?
To me it is quite clear that Jesus is the creator of all creatures whatever they are through the power of the Holy Spirit within the Father and the Son. John 4: 35“Do you not say, ‘There are yet four months, and then comes the harvest’? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes and look on the fields, that they are white for harvest. 36“Already he who reaps is receiving wages and is gathering fruit for life eternal; so that he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together. 37“For in this case the saying is true, ‘One sows and another reaps.’ 38“I sent you to reap that for which you have not labored; others have labored and you have entered into their labour
Above Jesus in John gives proof that He is reaping through His mission,while the Holy Spirit sowed through Jesus both during creation and through all the old testament when all the prophets did their mission.Jesus through the Holy Spirit was practically buried through creating our world and the only way to go to the Father was to become man through the biggest mystery when He himself was practically immersed to create and give birth to Mary without a stained flesh in order to be able to be born also Himself with a sinless flesh.Matthew 13: 44“The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. 45“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking fine pearls, 46and upon finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it. In Matthew above Jesus is referring both to Himself as the treasure and to Mary as the Pearl of Great Value.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 08 2011,07:05) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 07 2011,14:32) Keith said: Quote Eternal generation does not mean that he had any kind of beginning but that he was always proceeding from within the Father as the Word that was always with the Father yet the Father was always in him for they are one in essence, being and nature, all that makes God God.
Keith,The term “eternal generation” is an oxymoron. It is a contradiction within itself.
The Word as the Word was the “exact representation of His substance.” It was the Word that was called the “true light.”
Now Hebrew 1 says that the human Son is the “exact representation of His substance.” We know that it is the human Son because it says that God spoke to us through Him in the last days. God spoke through a human Son in the last says. The human Son is the “exact representation of His substance” because when the Word became Son nothing was lost.
Jack
JackI agree there is some differences of opinion.
The following is in objection to the term “eternal generation”…
“Eternal generation” safeguards the idea that, the sonship of Christ is his equality with the Father as God, in contrast to any subordination or derivation. However, the language simplistically understood strongly suggests the very error that it is intended to safeguard against. Source
I don't like the term either for the above reasons.
The thing is how did the Forefathers understand the term and it looks like most understood it in relation to the Father as the Son never had a beginning of which I agree.
WJ
Keith,From the same source which I have posted here already.
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.
The term “eternal generation” is the trinitarian's “achilles heel” not because it is misunderstood but because it is a contradiction within itself and therefore cannot be true.Jack
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
