- This topic has 3,676 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Mike,
We have been through this before so I find it incredible (Not really knowing you) that you bring this up again… It does you no good nor shows you able to learn and move forward, heck your need to constantly repeat the same theme hoping that at sometime somehow someone somewhere will agree with you… Mike, do you have a doppleganger?BEGOTTEN is a reference to Jesus' risen status.
This type of reference is called 'Back referencing' or 'Forward referencing' where reference is made concerning an aspect of an entity that has not yet occurred but we are assured of it's occurrence…
'The thief was seen entering the house which he then burgled'…
The 'Thief' wasn't the thief until after he burgled the house!!
This is the same as I asked several times but you never answered me… !!!:
Jesus says, (John 17:3, 'And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the Only True God (Trinitarians take note of Jesus' own words!!) and JESUS CHRIST whom you have sent'
Mike, did the One True God send “Jesus Christ”?(Think carefully!)
Jesus sent his son into the world, so all who believe in him may not persish but have eternal life.
The flesh version of this says Jesus loved only the person who is reading it.
The flesh says that – as other parts of scripture says or means otherwise- that those who believe in him will not be burnt in eternal agony and torment.
But God is love, and those who dont know love dont know God because God is love. So how can people see the truth through the apparent error?
Its always best to seek the spiritual meaning to scripture.
And to take that with you. To put the book down, and to go out into the world, not part of the world(s) (ways) but to feed his sheep, to spread the word, to give your life for God, in any way you can, (easier said than done)
Jesus was begotten just as we can be begotten.
Off topic, but to do with the last few posts.Firstborn over creation….firstborn of many.
Quote (Istari @ April 08 2011,18:33)
Mike, did the One True God send “Jesus Christ”?(Think carefully!)
IMO, yes. It is YOU who for some reason doesn't think Jesus was his name from the time he was begotten, before the creation of the world. I have no scriptural reason to think otherwise, do you? Has Michael always had the name “Michael”? Do we have any reason to think Michael's name was ever changed? If not, then why would we just assume that the name Jesus had on earth wasn't the same name he always had?Btw, “Christ” is not part of the NAME of Jesus, but a title. It's like saying, “Jesus, the Anointed One”. His actual name/description was “Jesus of Nazareth”. Much like Balaam of Peor.
And I understand your “Back Referencing” point and will accept that as a plausible answer to 3:16 for now. But what about 3:18?
“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Now before you try to use “Back Referencing” for this one, consider that the bolded word is “believed”, as in past tense. Jesus is clearly talking to Nicodemus in present day tense, and speaking of those who had not believed (past tense) in the name of the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD. Compare that with:
John 1
11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of GodWhat does John mean by “all who DID receive him” and “those who BELIEVED in his name”? Could this be speaking of those who received him and believed in him after he was raised? Well, not according to this one:
John 2:23
Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, many people saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name.This last verse speaks of a time BEFORE Jesus talked to Nicodemus. And so we can see that by the time Jesus did talk to Nicodemus, many people had already believed in his name, and many others had not. These who had not are the ones Jesus refers to in 3:18. And whose name had they not believed (past tense) in? The name of God's ONLY BEGOTTEN SON.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 08 2011,10:19) 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
Jack,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.”
Have you ever understood that the three are of one being, not are one being. That is according to this definition. You just take out the word 'of' and you get a completely different idea…one little word.
http://www.enotes.com/topic/Consubstantiality
Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ April 08 2011,21:33) Have you ever understood that the three are of one being, not are one being. That is according to this definition. You just take out the word 'of' and you get a completely different idea…one little word.
Yeah, I've had many a conversation about that little two letter word.
God is NOT, nor are we to worship, anything that is OF God. For example:
The spirits OF God.
The creations OF God.
The angels OF God.
The priests OF God.
The messiahs OF God.
The servants OF God
The sons OF God…………etc, etc, etc.mike
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 (csaliba @ April 09 2011,11:14) 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.
are you a Trinitarian?good post by the way.
Mike,
Again, we have gone over your question before but it seems that at the time it did not impact on you.
Think back…. Did I not already say that the gospel of John, as in all Scriotures, is written AFTER the events took place and therefore references will be 'Post event'.
Belief in the NAME OF someone implies the POWER AND AUTHORITY of that person which is the same argument that was needlessly extended with WJ concerning 'In the NAME of the FATHER…Son…Holy Spirit'.
Mike, what is the NAME of the Holy Spirit?
Mike, what is the NAME of the LAW?
Mike, what is the NAME of JUSTICE?
I do thank you for acknowledging the aspect of 'Back-referencing'. I will admit that I expected to argue further on this. I am happy that I do not have to do so even as I had stated this reasoning in our previous discussions… Still, everything in it's own time!
The gospel of John, as I have stated before, is a 'troubled' gospel in that it contains many anomalies.
When I first read John with directed effort, I was blown away as it appeared to reveal many gospel truths concerning Christ. I even purchased an expanded extract of John (I think…I certainly read it. !) but it soon became clear that something was not right about it.
It appeared very TRINITARIAN biased and I started to wonder if words and phrases had been added or manipulated to achieve that aim…
John is still inspirational to me but I treat it with caution – and I advise you to do the same.
– In two places John appears to Honor himself in his own as Jesus' favourite.
– John speaks of the risen Christ in the 'present' even though it is obviously written in the past (Hence He refers to Jesus as Begotten Son even though Jesus had not yet been Begotten.
– He has Jesus using his own name as being 'Sent by God' despite the fact he did not receive that name until he was born of Mary. At no other point is this repeated (Remember FRACTALS!!)
– John emphasises the Human Jewish tradition of claiming that a Son is Equal to his Father. Jesus corrects the fallacy (John 5:19) by stating similar to:(Read between the lines)
'How do you say so? The son can do NOTHING by himself so how is he EQUAL?'
'And even so, He can ONLY DO what he sees the father doing – and the father only allows him to do as much as the son can manage – So how is the Son Equal?'
'and the Father will show the Son GREATER THINGS than he already does – so how is the Son Equal'
'The father does not Judge but ['rules'] over He who does the judging – how is he who judges equal to he who rules over he who judges?'
– The 'I Am' expellation is another point of Trinitarian bend which, as much as Jesus refutes being called GOD just for claiming to be SON of God, this is still held as proof of Jesus' deity
– Thomas 'My Lord and My God' again, repeats the fallacy.
– AND, of course, the most controversial: 'In the beginning…Word Was God'As I said, the gospel of John needs to be treated with extreme caution although it is also inspirational!
And, Mike, I see no issue over 'Believed' (Past tense).
I fail to see why this is an issue at all – straight up!!
Quote It appeared very TRINITARIAN biased and I started to wonder if words and phrases had been added or manipulated to achieve that aim… i can agree to that, however i do not only find john to hold such, reflecting on the start of triad worship and how certian sects adopted the idea.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 08 2011,23:04) Quote (Lightenup @ April 08 2011,21:33) Have you ever understood that the three are of one being, not are one being. That is according to this definition. You just take out the word 'of' and you get a completely different idea…one little word.
Yeah, I've had many a conversation about that little two letter word. God is NOT, nor are we to worship, anything that is OF God. For example:
The spirits OF God.
The creations OF God.
The angels OF God.
The priests OF God.
The messiahs OF God.
The servants OF God
The sons OF God…………etc, etc, etc.mike
Mike,
What about the:
Will 'of' God
Wisdom 'of' God
Word 'of' God
Power 'of' GodAre we supposed to worship the God without wisdom
or
the God without a will
or
the God without words
or
the God without power?As you know, God has many things that He must contain to be God or else, what would He be without wisdom, power and a will. Would that not make Him impotent. Of course, He is not impotent. So we must recognize that the God that we worship has to include that which is 'of' Him as in that which has been eternally 'of' Him like His Son and His Spirit.
The fullness of God includes all that is eternally 'of' Him.
Love to you,
KathiQuote (Istari @ April 09 2011,05:51) And, Mike, I see no issue over 'Believed' (Past tense).
Hi Istari,Don't go getting too excited about 3:16. I said “for now”, which means I'm putting that one to the back burner in order to move on to others.
Don't you think for one minute that I actually agree that Jesus was telling Nicodemus in the present that God had already given His only begotten Son who hadn't even really been begotten yet. Because I don't think that. I find the assertion of “time traveling tenses” to be assinine and far reaching on your part, but I wanted to move forward with the discussion. So don't read too much into what I said, okay?
Now, about the past tense “believed” issue: It shows that at the time Jesus spoke to Nicodemus, he was speaking about those who ALREADY had either believed in his name or had not believed in his name. And the name that these had ALREADY either believed in or not was the name of “the only begotten Son of God”.
These people couldn't possibly have already been judged for not believing in the name of the only begotten Son of God if he wasn't yet the only begotten Son of God in order for them to even have the chance to have believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God……..and failed to do so. Surely you can see this?
mike
Quote (Lightenup @ April 09 2011,08:38) Mike,
What about the:
Will 'of' God
Wisdom 'of' God
Word 'of' God
Power 'of' GodAre we supposed to worship the God without wisdom
or
the God without a will
or
the God without words
or
the God without power?
Hi Kathi,Did you miss my point on purpose, or accidentally?
God is NOT, nor are we to worship:
The power OF God.
The will OF God.
The words or Word OF God.
The wisdom OF God.This is really off topic for this thread, and I shouldn't have taken this pot-shot at you here. Forgive me, and let's save this discussion for the “who to worship” thread, okay?
mike
Princess,
Thanks for your support on this issue.To me, John's writing style has intentionally or unintentionally contributed to many aspects of Trinitarian belief. I would like to believe the latter because I think it was meant to be well intentioned in as much as it exposed the misbeliefs of the Jews and led onto Jesus explaining things that we might never have heard in such a succinct manner.
However, the same, taken from the Jewish point of view, re-enforced their own views – not taking into account Jesus' response to the contrary. Hence Trinitarians only see the first part (e.g. Jesus said he was the Son of God… Making himself EQUAL to God. They refuse to read Jesus saying 'The Son can do nothing by himself, etc)
The John 1:1 conundrum continues to rage because John uses the same word and terms for 'God' as for 'Mighty One' and thereby, despite the incorrect syntax (With the God and Was God!) has convinced many that 'He that was With God – Was God' yet the same sentence does not mention the Holy Spirit at all – an extremely weird and unCo-Godly omission would you not say?Mike,
I still do not understand what your issue is.
I made the point concerning NAME meaning Power and Authority and gave you exampled of similar NAMES meaning Power and Authority but you appear to have just ignored them in order to pursue …what?
Also, 'The Begotten Son of God' is not a name (although it amounted to nothing, You also failed to pick up on this in your debate with WJ and KJ where they said that 'God' was a name… It is not a name, it is a title)
Mikeboll64, Mikeboll64, Mikeboll64,
I just read John 1:11-13…this is amazing… What are you asking me about it?
It is a very concise 'Summary' of events…
11: The Son of God came unto the Jews (The children of God) but the did not know him nor received him. Jesus was sent to the Jews but they rejected him.
12: But, as many as DID receive him (The Disciples, Gentiles, converts, etc) he gave them the right to BECOME children of God (To Become, is to be BEGOTTEN, Adopted, Raised Up – to God)
13: These are the Chosen whose names were written in the book ofife from the beginning, chosen by God himself – and not by their own deeds of the flesh nor will of their own…Mike, is this not clear to you that these are SUMMARY verses and only serve to give weight to what I have and am still pointing out to you!
Mike, what happened to the disciples, the 70 sent out into the world, and the many gathered together at Pentecost… Were not these those saved out of the world – the world that rejected Jesus.
When were they given the right to become children of God but when they were baptised with the Holy Spirit?And read 14 to see that John is talking about Risen Christ, for they did not 'know him' until after he died and rose again else how were they still disputing while gathered together and asking, 'Show us the Father'.
How can John say they beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten father, if they only knew he was 'as of the Father' when he told them: if you see me then you see the father also!Mike, verse 18 states that 'No one has seen God at any time. The Only Begotten Son, WHO IS (Present Tense) in the bosom (care) of the Father, he has declared him.
Mike, which part of the 'present' is declaring that which took place in the 'past'?
Can you discern such?Verse 29 has John the Baptist declaring Jesus as 'The Lamb of God', also in verse 36.
Notice also that no one is quoted as saying that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God, read again and see what is quoted… Gospel John does not quote his reference – and Jesus never calls himself 'Only Begotten' but only 'Son of God' and 'Son of Man'.
Mike,
I think you really need to take a rest… Seriously!
Those who do not believe in his name are already condemned … Mike, please…
'Those who do not believe that that they stand a chance to win the race – are already condemned to lose it' Even before they run the race they have lost it…Quote (Istari @ April 09 2011,14:38) Mike, I think you really need to take a rest… Seriously!
Those who do not believe in his name are already condemned … Mike, please…
'Those who do not believe that that they stand a chance to win the race – are already condemned to lose it' Even before they run the race they have lost it…
Istari,Do you understand “past tense”? Your race analogy speaks of the present tense word “believe”. Jesus spoke to Nicodemus using the past tense words “believed” and “condemned”.
At the time Jesus met with Nicodemus, some people already had believed in the name of Jesus (John 2:23), and others had already not believed in his name and so had already been condemned. So it really doesn't matter whether “name” means “power” or his literal name in this case, because with either meaning, it is still the name of THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD that they had not believed in. Not believed, as in past tense, and so they had already at that time been condemned, as in past tense.
Istari, does it make sense in your world for someone to have already been condemned for having not believed in the name of someone who didn't yet even exist? YES or NO?
mike
Mike
Your point is mute. Do you not see your climbing down step by step on every issue.
Each step you step back on you create another frivolous point to discuss.You are misreading whatever you THINK you are reading because there is no issue with the wording that substantiates your claim.
Straining at a gnat doesn't help your already dwindled reputation in this forum.
All it does is show how desperate desires lead to desperate measures.
Tell you what, before you post again on this issue, find an unbiased, unmanipulatable friend or colleague, or stranger, to review your idea and be honest with their response.
I genuinely cannot see what your issue is – because there IS NO ISSUE.
What i do see is that you do not comment on any of the other more important matters in my post. Can I take it then that you therefore agree with them?
Mike, it would be nice to hear you actually say,'Yes' for once rather than do as the Trinitarians do and just ignore good parts of members posts!
At the end of the day, positiveness re-enforces and builds relationship!
Mike, do not deliberately stand far off from me!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
