- This topic has 3,676 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
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
Did the singer Wayne Newton pronounce it wrong?KJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 07 2011,21:36) 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
MikeBut that Glory could not be the same as the Glory he “began” to show forth at the wedding or else what was the previous Glory that he had before he came in the flesh if he already was showing that Glory at the wedding?
The Glory that John beheld was not the same as what he returned to is it?
So no need to thank me for a pointer because it doesn't help your cause.
WJ
Kathi said:
Quote It's the Father's being that the Son is of, and each are distinct beings.
Come on Kathi!Being = essence
Being 2 The qualities or constitution of an existent thing (Webster's)
Being 2 Essential nature, substance (Funk and Wagnall's)
I am the same being as my father because I possess the same qualities and constitution (Webster's). I have the same essential nature and substance (F & W).
Jack
Mike said:
Quote 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
Paul was blinded by the light of the exalted Christ's glory. In the days of His flesh He had no such glory. Therefore, He had not yet been begotten.Keith said to Mike:
Quote The Glory that John beheld was not the same as what he returned to is it?
Keith,Exactly! If Christ possessed His glory in the days of His flesh the light of it would have disintegrated people. Mike is in denial. Jesus prayed and asked the Father to glorify Him with that glory. It makes no sense for Jesus to ask to return to that glory if He had been in possession of it in the days of His flesh. Also, He was “lower than the angels” in the days of His flesh.
Mike is desperately trying to nullify the CLEAR biblical assertions that Christ was begotten AT HIS RESURRECTION.
Jack
WJ,
It is certainly true that the glory Jesus had at his return to heaven was greater than the glory he had from before he came in the flesh.Jesus did not glorify himself, he asked only to return to what he had having accomplished his commission.
It was God, his Father, who glorified him with the greater honour and status, as it is written in the second psalm:'Your are my Son, Today I have begotten you'.
There is no greater Honor or glory than to be raised up as a Begotten Son of God, for even those who simply(!) hear the word of God and abide in it, are Sons of God, but not with POWER.
Those who are resurrected at the first rising, will be RAISED up as BEGOTTEN SONS also: Begotten Sons of God, Brothers with Christ Jesus and therefore Heirs to God the Father.
But Jesus Christ is Chief Heir, the 'Firstborn' in rank and status to his Father, the 'First-born' from the dead, firstfruit of the Spirit.
Therefore it says in Scriptures, 'He IS the image of the invisible God'. This does not imPly that he IS God Almighty for even Mankind IS made in the image of God and God was never a human being.God does not change, cannot change, else he could not be God.'what he purposes from the start MUST be accomplished else he is not God Almighty ( The time, means or agent may change but the outcome is always as he set out in the beginning.. Thus Adam, the man, was meant to accomplish what Jesus finished – Man becoming begotten Son of God. Was it not for this purpose he was created?
Or did God purpose that Mankind should sin from the beginning – poor ADAM, the species, had no chance then!! No, but God knew that One person would (Not necessarily Adam, the man).
But it also was fitting that it should be Adam, the man, who sinned, as it is also written: 'Through that first Adam came Sin, through the second Adam came redemption'
So, WJ, it was through the second Adam, a MAN, not a God, that redemption came, indeed through the spilling of the blood of that Man. Does [a True] God have blood in his veins (Does he have veins?)Much to ponder – for everyone…!
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 08 2011,10:13) 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
JackBut it seems to me that your understanding of the term is not what they believed.
The Creeds as well as most of the Fathers specifically claimed Jesus had no beginning and that he is “One God” with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
They also say he is “One Eternal” and not “three Eternals”
So if “eternal generation” means at some point he came forth from the Father then that would be a contradiction of the Creeds but also what they believed.
It seems to me they believe it means that the Son and the Holy Spirit are eternally with the Father and “eternally come forth” (generation) from the Father.
Jack do you agree with the Athanasian Creed?
WJ
Quote (Istari @ April 08 2011,11:44) It is certainly true that the glory Jesus had at his return to heaven was greater than the glory he had from before he came in the flesh.
Really? Where is the scripture for that?My Bible tells me he was the Word that was with God and was God. Is there any greater Glory than that?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 09 2011,03:49) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 08 2011,10:13) 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
JackBut it seems to me that your understanding of the term is not what they believed.
The Creeds as well as most of the Fathers specifically claimed Jesus had no beginning and that he is “One God” with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
They also say he is “One Eternal” and not “three Eternals”
So if “eternal generation” means at some point he came forth from the Father then that would be a contradiction of the Creeds but also what they believed.
It seems to me they believe it means that the Son and the Holy Spirit are eternally with the Father and “eternally come forth” (generation) from the Father.
Jack do you agree with the Athanasian Creed?
WJ
Hi Keith,What the fathers believed about the term “eternal generation” does not make it true. The term is untrue because it is a contradiction within itself and what was meant by it does not change this. The idea needs to be scrapped and hopefully in a thousand years it will be scrapped. It is the trinitarian's “achilles heel.”
The Athanasian Creed says that the Son is God because He is of the essence of the Father; “begotten before the worlds.”
I disagree. The Son is the essence of God because He is the Word and not because He was “begotten before the worlds.” First, the expression “before the worlds” does not imply “eternal generation.” Second, He was not “begotten” until His resurrection.
The Constantinoplian Creed says that you must confess “two nativities.” This shows how screwed up the term “eternal generation” is. An eternal begetting cannot be a “nativity.” The word “nativity” means “the process or circumstances of being born.”
The AC also says that Christ is equal to the Father as touching His Godhood and “IS” inferior to the Father as touching His manhood. But Jesus is not presently inferior to the Father. He was inferior only in the days of His flesh.
It is as the Word that Christ is of the same substance with God. He is this also while “Son” because nothing of His substance was lost in the incarnation.
I am soooo glad that as an adherent to the Incarnational Sonship doctrine I don't have to explain the mess.
Jack
ISSY said:
Quote It is certainly true that the glory Jesus had at his return to heaven was greater than the glory he had from before he came in the flesh.
So where did you get this one? Is it from Istari 3:16 or JA 17:3?This is a total fabrication without any substantiation from scripture. He returned to the glory He HAD WITH THE FATHER before the world began.
“The term [only begotten Son] as Calvin suggests, and as maintained by Prof. Alexander, refers here only to His being constituted King – to the act of coronation” (Barnes Notes on Psalms, vol1. p. 20)
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 09 2011,02:15) 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
Did the singer Wayne Newton pronounce it wrong?KJ
how did He spell it. I was born in Germany, and I do know how to spell it,…. I was 15 going on 16 when we came here,,,,,Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 08 2011,09:13) 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.
Hi Jack,Isn't that like the third “Achille's heel” of the Trinitarians you've mentioned in this thread?
No wonder, the whole doctrine was based on unscriptural nonsense. I'm glad you're beginning to see some of it for yourself. Maybe God is slowly removing the blinders that Satan put on you all those years ago?mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 08 2011,09:23) Mike said: Quote 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
Paul was blinded by the light of the exalted Christ's glory. In the days of His flesh He had no such glory. Therefore, He had not yet been begotten.
Okay Jack and Keith. Then WHAT “glory of an only begotten Son from the Father” DID Jesus have on earth?
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 08 2011,11:46) ISSY said: Quote It is certainly true that the glory Jesus had at his return to heaven was greater than the glory he had from before he came in the flesh.
So where did you get this one? Is it from Istari 3:16 or JA 17:3?This is a total fabrication without any substantiation from scripture. He returned to the glory He HAD WITH THE FATHER before the world began.
Maybe he's speaking of Hebrews 1:4.4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.
As God Almighty, wasn't Jesus already as much superior to the angels as he could have possibly been? Does God “improve” and “get better” with age or something?
mike
Quote (Istari @ April 08 2011,04:57) Mike, seriously, consider arguing with someone else who you feel you may be able to indoctrinate…
I would suggest the same to you. I've shown you what I can show you from the scriptures on this subject. And I surely don't have the time or patience for your rambling, unorganized, and lengthy posts.Now if you would like to discuss this one point at a time, I'll be happy to. If not, then it's better left alone between us.
But in the off chance you're not too scared to take on a Q and A debate (after what happened to you last time), I'll pose one simple question for you:For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
To Istari and Jack and Keith: In what WAY did God give His only begotten Son so that we might have eternal life?
mike
KJ,WJ,
1) Did angels bow down to Jesus before he came as man, died and was raised again?
2) Was Jesus 'Begotten' before he came as man, died and was raised again?
3) Was Jesus a High Preist to his Father and God before he came as man, died and was raised again?
4) Was Jesus given power and authority over his fathers kingdom before he came as man, died and was raised again?
5) Was Jesus made firstfruit of the resurrection from the dead before he came as man, died and was raised again?
6) Was Jesus Lord and Christ before he came as man, died and was raised again?
7) Was Jesus the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him before he came as man, died and was raised again?
8) but we see Jesus who was a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death… But … Having become so much better than the angels…did Jesus have the name above all names before he came as man, died and was raised again? (Note: being a little lower than the angels does NOT automatically imply that he was higher… But the second part shows that he became 'So much higher' and this was uniquely ABOVE the position he left otherwise why mention it)
So, according to you both then, there was nothing of advantage that Jesus gained over his previous position by the selfless act of pure sacrifice of his very soul as man for the redemption of all mankind. A redemption born by sacrifice by an utterly Sinless man who took on himself all the sins of mankind… Of course, why should there be due reward of Honor and glory other than to return to where he previously was!! Really?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 09 2011,14:01) Quote (Istari @ April 08 2011,04:57) Mike, seriously, consider arguing with someone else who you feel you may be able to indoctrinate…
I would suggest the same to you. I've shown you what I can show you from the scriptures on this subject. And I surely don't have the time or patience for your rambling, unorganized, and lengthy posts.Now if you would like to discuss this one point at a time, I'll be happy to. If not, then it's better left alone between us.
But in the off chance you're not too scared to take on a Q and A debate (after what happened to you last time), I'll pose one simple question for you:For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
To Istari and Jack and Keith: In what WAY did God give His only begotten Son so that we might have eternal life?
mike
Mike, sorry, but you listen more to the fleshly side of scripture, there are two parts, spiritual and flesh, just like we have. Two layers Mike, peel away one.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
