- This topic has 3,676 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 25 2011,09:13) Mike The point is Jesus conception in Mary is not what makes him “The Son of God” is it?
No, it's not. So why then do you pretend like we're claiming an “it” conceived Jesus? Do you have a scripture that says the Holy Spirit begot Jesus before all the ages?mike
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 26 2011,21:52) Hi Jack,
David's natural father was Jesse, Solomon's natural father was David. God wasn't their father by whom they received their nature from. The only way to have a 'firstborn' type of relationship with David or Solomon by God was by appointment, not by nature. The only begotten Son is firstborn by nature before the ages, the firstborn Son of Man is also firstborn by nature when born from Mary. The only begotten Son did not need to be designated as firstborn as others did because He was one by nature and the others weren't.As I understand it,
Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2011,14:52) Hi Jack,
David's natural father was Jesse, Solomon's natural father was David. God wasn't their father by whom they received their nature from. The only way to have a 'firstborn' type of relationship with David or Solomon by God was by appointment, not by nature. The only begotten Son is firstborn by nature before the ages, the firstborn Son of Man is also firstborn by nature when born from Mary. The only begotten Son did not need to be designated as firstborn as others did because He was one by nature and the others weren't.As I understand it,
Kathi
Hi Kathi,David was God's APPOINTED Firstborn Son (Ps. 89) and his son Solomon was the first David in succession to be APPOINTED God's Firstborn Son (2 Sam. 7). Jesus was the last David to be APPOINTED God's Firstborn Son. All three David's were God's Firstborn Son BY APPOINTMENT.
Jesus was the last to hold the office of Firstborn Son. Jesus was the Son of God BECAUSE He was the son of David.
Hebrews 1 says that God's Firstborn was brought into the world “AGAIN” when Christ was exalted. What does it mean when it says that God's Firstborn was brought into the world “AGAIN?” Answer: God's Firstborn had previously been brought into the world in the persons of David and Solomon and then “AGAIN” and FINALLY in the person of Christ.
blessings,
Jack
Hi Jack,
I know that you realize you understand it very differently than most of orthodox christianity and I have to go by what I believe God showed me regarding the light. I know that God brought the firstborn into the world when the firstborn became a man. He was an incarnated earthly son to God then and before that He was God's heavenly Son, both as His offspring. An offspring does not need to be designated as 'firstborn' if He is an only son. All other 'firstborn' titles given were designations. Jesus was the Son of Man because He was the Son of David through the miracle conception of the Holy Spirit of the Most High.I don't think we are going to get anywhere because we just see it differently. I believe that the Son of God being the Son from the get go is one of the main messages of the Gospel. I think that if you do not know that, then you know a different Jesus. I am not saying that mean, ok, I is just obvious that you understand a different Jesus than mainstream orthodox christians. He couldn't be a Son always, and not be a Son till the resurrection.
God bless,
KathiQuote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 27 2011,19:47) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 25 2011,09:13) Mike The point is Jesus conception in Mary is not what makes him “The Son of God” is it?
No, it's not. So why then do you pretend like we're claiming an “it” conceived Jesus? Do you have a scripture that says the Holy Spirit begot Jesus before all the ages?mike
Because you believe the Holy Spirit is an “it” and not a person.Do you have a scripture that says Jesus was “concieved” at all before he came in the flesh?
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 27 2011,19:43) Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 24 2011,22:10) Mike if God can create a full women with a rib ,what would stop him to create a human with a sperm,
beat me how some people think.
Yeah Pierre,To keep Jesus from having a beginning, these guys will go as far as suggesting that we claim the existence a goddess with whom God literally procreated to create Jesus.
It is a diversionary tactic, for they know God could beget a Son for Himself out of a piece of lint if He wanted to. Or out of nothing at all, for that matter.
mike
God doesn't procreate! That is not a scriptural teaching but rather comes straight out of Greek Mythology, God literraly begetting gods!WJ
Quote (Baker @ Mar. 24 2011,17:32) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 25 2011,08:07) Okay. Do those scriptures to you mean he was born or created?
WJ
WJ The scriptures I gave say that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. But He also was born as a Human by Maria, you know right? So why even ask a question like that???…
Peace and love Irene
So he was born again or twice?WJ
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 25 2011,03:30) Quote (Baker @ Mar. 25 2011,12:22) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 25 2011,16:02) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 20 2010,10:56) What did the ante-nicene church fathers say about the Son as the firstborn of/over all creation? Do they indicate that the Son was the first to come forth from God and then through Him all things came into being? Or did they indicate something else by calling him the firstborn of/over all creation (Col 1)? Put ante-nicene church fathers quotes on here and let's see if there was a common understanding. Let this thread just be quotes from the church fathers with online sources sited.
Let's just look at their words.
I believe in a different gospel than either the nicene or anti-nicene fathers. I do not believe that those who share my doctrine were even invited to the council where that disagreement stems from.
Kerwin, would you please explain what you mean by that?
What other Gospel is there? The Fore Fathers either believed in the trinity or not. And what do
YOU consider the Gospel?
Peace and Love Irene
I was referring to the council of Nicea. Those in the council who disagreed with the conclusion of the whole are called anti-Nicene fathers. There were many who did not attend or were not even invited to that council. They are not called either nicene or anti-nicene fathers.
KerwinYet we don't have any history of any of those Fathers to reject the creeds.
We have the untrustworthy testimony of Eusebius (A follower of Arius) who apparantly sighned off on the Trinity as accepting it yet all along he rejected it.
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 29 2011,05:29) Hi Jack,
I know that you realize you understand it very differently than most of orthodox christianity and I have to go by what I believe God showed me regarding the light. I know that God brought the firstborn into the world when the firstborn became a man. He was an incarnated earthly son to God then and before that He was God's heavenly Son, both as His offspring. An offspring does not need to be designated as 'firstborn' if He is an only son. All other 'firstborn' titles given were designations. Jesus was the Son of Man because He was the Son of David through the miracle conception of the Holy Spirit of the Most High.I don't think we are going to get anywhere because we just see it differently. I believe that the Son of God being the Son from the get go is one of the main messages of the Gospel. I think that if you do not know that, then you know a different Jesus. I am not saying that mean, ok, I is just obvious that you understand a different Jesus than mainstream orthodox christians. He couldn't be a Son always, and not be a Son till the resurrection.
God bless,
Kathi
Kathi,Please don't partronize me. I have a degree in bible college and several credit hours in seminary. So I know exactly that what I believe is not historic 'orthodoxy' and I don't care. I know also that MANY trinitarians are leaving the idea that Christ was Son before His incarnation because it doesn't make any sense. Jesus could not have been the Son of God in a way that was different from His fathers except that He was the Son of God in the most eminent sense.
Paul said that He was DECREED to be the Son of God with power ACCORDING TO THE SEED OF DAVID (Rom. 1:4).
He is the Son of God BECAUSE He is the seed of David for it was the Davidic line that was chosen to that office.
QUESTION: WAS David himself God's Firstborn Son BY APPOINTMENT?
Quote 20 I have found David my servant;
with my sacred oil I have ANOINTED him.
21 My hand will sustain him;
surely my arm will strengthen him.
22 The enemy will not get the better of him;
the wicked will not oppress him.
23 I will crush his foes before him
and strike down his adversaries.
24 My faithful love will be with him,
and through my name his horn[a] will be exalted.
25 I will set his hand over the sea,
his right hand over the rivers.
26 He will call out to me, ‘You are my Father,
my God, the Rock my Savior.’
27 And I will APPOINT him to be my FIRSTBORN,
the most exalted of the kings of the earth.
This Psalm spoke of Christ just as surely as it spoke of His father David. Jesus was decreed to be the Son of God with power according to the seed of David.He was the eternal Word made Son as His human fathers were made Son.
Jack
Jack,
Do you think that Jesus was as powerful before the resurrection as He was after the decree?
Sorry, didn't mean to sound patronizing. I do think that it is strange how you and Keith come off as one trinitarian voice when you understand a different Jesus than he does.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,16:12) Jack, Do you think that Jesus was as powerful before the resurrection as He was after the decree?
Sorry, didn't mean to sound patronizing. I do think that it is strange how you and Keith come off as one trinitarian voice when you understand a different Jesus than he does.
KathiNo we don't believe in different Jesus's. We both believe Jesus is “One God” with the Father who had no beginning.
As far as the relationship as the Son Jack believes Jesus is God the Son and that him being God means that he is “everything” the Father is including being “eternally infinite” in nature as the Father.
Since his nature has to do with his essence, substance and being then Jesus is all the Father is.
Jack like all those who believe Jesus is God believes that he is “Fully God” yet “Fully Man”.
That is the bottom line and is what most all the Forefathers taught and believed. Even if you don't like it you have fallen into the “Arian” camp with those who believe Jesus is not God and that he had a “beginning”.
You believe that the “essence” or “nature” of Jesus was “begotten” or had a beginning to make Jesus the Son and that is the same thing as saying Jesus was litterally born or created from the Father.
The essence of God did not change to being a Son and the essence or nature of God was not “begotten” or had a beginning for he was already the Word who was with the Father before the creation and that includes day one for as it has been shown to you the waters and the earth already existed and all those things came by and through Jesus.
WJ
Keith,
I believe that Jesus is fully God because He is the son and fully man. I do think that is what many of the forefathers believe also, the part about Jesus being God because He is the Son of God. His relation to the Father as a true Son is what makes Him what the Father is. You take that true relationship away and you have not a literal son but a figurative son. I believe the true relationship of Father/Son is monumental and a central teaching of the gospels.Also, I don't believe the essence of God changed into being a Son as you think. I believe that there always was God essence as a Son, that Son just hadn't been begotten till just before creation.
Also, I have stated that Jesus is just like the Father because like begets like, remember? They are different in that one is the Father and one is the Son, you agree with that…don't you?
BTW, remember that there was water but not waters, plural. And the earth was not visible or formed until after day one. Check out the LXX on the first few verses of Genesis.
Kathi
Keith,
Also, Jack believes that the Son had a beginning because there was a time when He was not the Son. I think he believes that the Word didn't have a beginning, but as the Son, the Son had a beginning. From what I can tell anyway. You do have different Jesus' because His Jesus wasn't a Son till the resurrection, your Jesus was always eternally begotten…big difference whether you like it or not.Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,16:55) Keith,
Also, Jack believes that the Son had a beginning because there was a time when He was not the Son. I think he believes that the Word didn't have a beginning, but as the Son, the Son had a beginning. From what I can tell anyway. You do have different Jesus' because His Jesus wasn't a Son till the resurrection, your Jesus was always eternally begotten…big difference whether you like it or not.Kathi
No!Not at all because once again the end result is what is important. Jack believes in Three persons in One God, not 2 Gods.
Big difference!
Jack simply links his manhood to Jesus being the Son, and that is scriptural because accordingly as he has shown you that it was after his resurrection that he was declared a Son.
Do you disagree with that?
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,16:49) I believe that Jesus is fully God because He is the son and fully man.
KathiThis is where I have a problem with your theology. You are implying that Jesus “became” fully God when he came into existence as the Son.
Who in the world can believe that a being that was born or created could “become” infinitely God?
Like I said before “your theology “ implies God can become greater by producing sons.
The “infinite” God now has another “infinite” God which means he is doubly infinite?
Sorry I don’t buy it and never will.
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 28 2011,16:49) You take that true relationship away and you have not a literal son but a figurative son. I believe the true relationship of Father/Son is monumental and a central teaching of the gospels.
Hi KathiSo what you are saying is unless one is “a literal son” then one can not be a true Son? Where are the scriptures for that?
God has to bring birth to a literal Son for him to be a “true Son”?
David was the Fathers firstborn Son not by birth but because God loved him and declared it so.
Isaac was the “Monogenes” Son of Abraham and declared to be the first born Son because he was loved.
What scripture states a Son cannot be “Fully” a Son unless he is “born” or “created”?
WJ
Yes Keith, I disagree with that. It was the power that is linked to the resurrection, not the Sonship.
Also, I disagree…and so do other church fathers, btw, about those who believe that the Son did not become the Son till after creation, so do the main Christian creeds. I even once showed you a council that said those who believe in such a way, let him be anathema:
Quote Council of Constantinople II “If anyone does not confess that there are two generations of the Word of God, one from the Father before all ages, without time and incorporeally, the other in the last days when the same came down from heaven and was incarnate . . . let such a one be anathema” (Anathemas Concerning the Three Chapters, canon 2 [A.D. 553]).
So you see, you may think it is not important to believe when the Son became the Son, but some do so much that things like this are written. They would see that you and Jack have two different Jesus'.
Kathi
Keith,
My last post to you was being written in response to your third to last post. I was in the midst of writing it when you added your last two posts which I did not see, fyi.
KathiKeith,
You said:Quote This is where I have a problem with your theology. You are implying that Jesus “became” fully God when he came into existence as the Son. I am not saying that He came into existence as a Son, the Father always, always, always contained the essence of the Son, at one point before creation, that essence of the Son was born. He didn't go from non-existent to existent by being born/begotten, much like my son didn't go from non-existing to existing just by being born. Believe me, he existed before he was born…he was a kicker
KathiQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 28 2011,13:39) Do you have a scripture that says Jesus was “concieved” at all before he came in the flesh?
Yeah,Psalm 2:7, as supported by John 3:16. Jesus was already God's only begotten Son when he was originally SENT into the world.
Now, WHO'S only begotten Son is Jesus? GOD'S? Or God's HOLY SPIRIT'S? Jesus doesn't say the HOLY SPIRIT loved the world and sent HIS Son, does he? And WHO does Jesus call his Father?
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
