Jesus: god the son or son of god?

[Jeremy Marsh]

For a while I believed in Trinity. Now I'm starting to doubt it's credibility. After studying Scripture, I've come to believe that Jesus Christ was birthed by God (therefore, he had a beginning) and then created the world. I believe that Jesus is not God, but only the Son.

Anybody disagree? Any scriptural basis?

[Lightenup]

Hi there Jeremy,
Welcome, I am glad you are here! The same thing happened to me about 16 years ago. However, I believe that GOD would give birth to the same kind as Himself, ya know GOD begets God, man begets man kind of thing. GOD the Father could not pass on His “always existence” quality though which would set Him apart as the Most High GOD over any that He Himself begat (gave birth to). What are your thoughts? I would like to hear more about your process of seeing this and what it has done for you.

Blessings,
Kathi/Lightenup/LU

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Jeremy Marsh @ May 22 2009,10:01)

For a while I believed in Trinity. Now I'm starting to doubt it's credibility. After studying Scripture, I've come to believe that Jesus Christ was birthed by God (therefore, he had a beginning) and then created the world. I believe that Jesus is not God, but only the Son. Anybody disagree? Any scriptural basis?

Hi JM

Welcome! There is probably a 100 threads that deal with this subject, but since you ask I will share with you the truth that I see found in scriptures

Quote (Jeremy Marsh @ May 22 2009,10:01)

For a while I believed in Trinity. Now I'm starting to doubt it's credibility.

But why would you trade the Jesus that you first received to accept another Jesus?  

But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, “your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and “preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.” 2 Cor 11:3, 4

Quote (Jeremy Marsh @ May 22 2009,10:01)

After studying Scripture, I've come to believe that Jesus Christ was birthed by God (therefore, he had a beginning) and then created the world.

There is no unambiguous truth that Jesus had a beginning or especially that God gave birth to him before he came in the flesh.

Before all things and from eternity God had no gender. However he chose to reveal himself with the male gender for our sakes. The very fact that he does this and the fact that he is our Father and we are his “adopted sons” should be proof enough that the Father did not bring birth to a being who is considered less to him in nature as many claim that God brought birth to a lesser god. Scriptures teach us that every seed bears after its own kind.

Since the scriptures state….

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and “THE WORD WAS GOD”. He was in the beginning with God. “All things came into being through Him, and “APART FROM HIM NOTHING CAME INTO BEING THAT HAS COME INTO BEING”. John 1-3 NASB

So he did not create himself. If the Father wanted to put the Word forth as a being born from his womb before the beginning, then he could have revealed himself with the female gender which would be in line with the natural process of reproduction. Instead the Father sent the Word which was always with him and always God by preparing a body for him in the Virgin Mary to show forth his Glory in what now is to be declared the Only Unique Son, the Word or God in the flesh.

No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. John 1:18 NIV

This same John also penned these words…

”If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him”. John 14:7

And…

And Thomas answered and said unto him, “MY LORD AND MY GOD”.

And…

And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us insight to know him who is true, and “WE ARE IN HIM WHO IS TRUE, IN HIS SON JESUS CHRIST. THIS ONE IS *THE TRUE GOD AND ETERNAL LIFE (refer to 1 John 1:1-3 which tells us who this eternal life is)”. 1 John 5:20

The NET clears up any confusion that may be read into this verse,,,

The pronoun This one (οὗτος, Joutos) refers to a person, but it is far from clear whether it should be understood as a reference (1) to God the Father or (2) to Jesus Christ. R. E. Brown (Epistles of John [AB], 625) comments, “I John, which began with an example of stunning grammatical obscurity in the prologue, continues to the end to offer us examples of unclear grammar.” The nearest previous antecedent is Jesus Christ, immediately preceding, but on some occasions when this has been true the pronoun still refers to God (see 1 John 2:3). The first predicate which follows This one in 5:20, the true God, is a description of God the Father used by Jesus in John 17:3, and was used in the preceding clause of the present verse to refer to God the Father (him who is true). Yet the second predicate of This one in 5:20, eternal life, appears to refer to Jesus, because although the Father possesses “life” (John 5:26, 6:57) just as Jesus does (John 1:4, 6:57, 1 John 5:11), “life” is never predicated of the Father elsewhere, while it is predicated of Jesus in John 11:25 and 14:6 (a self-predication by Jesus). If This one in 5:20 is understood as referring to Jesus, it forms an inclusion with the prologue, which introduced the reader to “the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us.” Thus it appears best to understand the pronoun This one in 5:20 as a reference to Jesus Christ. The christological affirmation which results is striking, but certainly not beyond the capabilities of the author (see John 1:1 and 20:28): This One [Jesus Christ] is the true God and eternal life.  Click here for source.

Other Apostles like Paul and Peter claim Jesus as God.

Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, “WHO IS GOD OVER ALL, FOREVER PRAISED!* AMEN”. Rom 9:5

“WHO, BEING IN VERY NATURE GOD“, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, Phil 2:6

HE IS THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD, the firstborn (having the preeminence) over all creation. Col 1:15

The Son is the radiance of God's glory and “THE EXACT REPRESENTATION OF HIS BEING“,… Heb 1:3

But unto the Son he saith, “THY THRONE, O GOD, IS FOR EVER AND EVER”: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Heb 1:8

Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,   To those who through the righteousness of “OUR GOD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST” have received a faith as precious as ours: 2 Peter 1

waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of “THE GLORY OF OUR GREAT GOD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST”, Titus 2:13

Concerning those who would refute that the Apostles are not calling Jesus their True God, and in so doing go against hundreds of Greek scholars, the NET says…

The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthr
opist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. In fact, the construction occurs elsewhere in 2 Peter, strongly suggesting that the author’s idiom was the same as the rest of the NT authors’ (cf., e.g., 1:11 [“the Lord and Savior”], 2:20 [“the Lord and Savior”]). The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, qeos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, swthr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on the application of Sharp’s rule to 2 Pet 1:1, see ExSyn 272, 276-77, 290. See also Titus 2:13 and Jude 4. Click here for source.

And as it mentions above…

For certain men have secretly slipped in among you – men who long ago were marked out for the condemnation I am about to describe – ungodly men who have turned the grace of our God into a license for evil and “WHO DENY OUR ONLY MASTER AND LORD, JESUS CHRIST”. Jude 1:4

So to accept Jesus who is the visible image of God as less than God in nature is to create a false image of God.
Jesus said…

“THAT ALL MAY HONOR THE SON *JUST AS* THEY HONOR THE FATHER. He who does not honor the Son “does not honor the Father“, who sent him“. John 5:23

Why trade Jesus who is equal to the Father in nature for a Jesus that is less than the scriptures portray him?

Quote (Jeremy Marsh @ May 22 2009,10:01)

I believe that Jesus is not God, but only the Son. Anybody disagree? Any scriptural basis?

Yes, Jesus is not the Father, but he is God just as the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God, of the very same nature.

Jesus is the “Monogenes” (Only Unique) Son of God. Why is he Unique, because the Word who was God came in the likeness of sinful flesh and was “declared” by the Angel to be the Son of God.

The Prophet Isaiah claims Jesus to be the “Mighty God” and the Angel of the Lord gave him the name “Immanuel” which is interpreted as God with us!

But again welcome and “thanks for listening”. (learned that from t8)  

Blessings WJ

[KangarooJack]

Lightenup said:

Quote

I believe that GOD would give birth to the same kind as Himself, ya know GOD begets God, man begets man kind of thing.  GOD the Father could not pass on His “always existence” quality though which would set Him apart as the Most High GOD over any that He Himself begat (gave birth to).

Hmmmm…I wonder why Jesus did not call God His Mother seeing that only mothers give birth?

Jeremy,
Kathi's view is the most bizarre of all views here. She has repeatedly said that God reproduced Himself by begetting. But now she has gone further. Now she is saying that God reproduces Himself by giving birth too.

So God is not merely Christ's father. God is actually Christ's father-mother.  It just gets crazier all the time

thinker

[Worshipping Jesus]

BTW JM

This is the Debate thread and post should only be posted here where two have agreed to a debate under certain rules.

Thought you would like to know!

Blessings WJ

[Admin]

Welcome Jeremy Marsh.

I have moved this discussion to the Truth and Tradition forum.

[Proclaimer]

Hi Jeremy.

I am not sure if you have read this, but if not, then it should be useful to you.

https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity.htm

[Lightenup]

Quote (thethinker @ May 22 2009,20:06)

Lightenup said: Quote I believe that GOD would give birth to the same kind as Himself, ya know GOD begets God, man begets man kind of thing.  GOD the Father could not pass on His “always existence” quality though which would set Him apart as the Most High GOD over any that He Himself begat (gave birth to). Hmmmm…I wonder why Jesus did not call God His Mother seeing that only mothers give birth?   Jeremy, Kathi's view is the most bizarre of all views here. She has repeatedly said that God reproduced Himself by begetting. But now she has gone further. Now she is saying that God reproduces Himself by giving birth too. So God is not merely Christ's father. God is actually Christ's father-mother.  It just gets crazier all the time thinker

To all,

It is an unfamiliar concept to think that a Father, or someone of a male gender, could do things that we only know of a woman doing, isn't it? I have included a couple of passages that suggest that GOD is not so limited as to withhold any reference of a feminine act just because He is referred to in the male gender or others (the kings) of which He speaks of. See these couple of passages:

Isa 60:16
16 “You will also suck the milk of nations And suck the breast of kings; Then you will know that I, the Lord, am your Savior And your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.
NASU

We see a strange action applied to kings (which are males btw). So, if the idea of GOD giving birth is so wierd isn't the idea of kings nursing kinda wierd, yet GOD gives the analogy.

And this following passage applies to GOD doing something motherly:

Isa 66:10-13
Joy in Jerusalem's Future 10 “Be joyful with Jerusalem and rejoice for her, all you who love her; Be exceedingly glad with her, all you who mourn over her,
11 That you may nurse and be satisfied with her comforting breasts, That you may suck and be delighted with her bountiful bosom.”
12 For thus says the Lord, “Behold, I extend peace to her like a river, And the glory of the nations like an overflowing stream; And you will be nursed, you will be carried on the hip and fondled on the knees.
13 “As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you; And you will be comforted in Jerusalem.”
NASU

Quote

Hmmmm…I wonder why Jesus did not call God His Mother seeing that only mothers give birth?

We see in Is 66 that God will “nurse,” “carry on the hip” and “fondle on the knees” His people. He acts like a mother here and a father elsewhere. Just because He is written up using male terms does not limit Him to only male actions. He compares Himself to a mother as we can see .

I see no problem with applying the act of birth to GOD to produce His own offspring and bring forth an actual son from His own womb. He does not just act as a Father. Isn't it great that He has motherly qualities as well.

John 3:16
16 “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.
NASU

Whose only begotten Son was sent…God's.
Was He simply declared to be a Son or was He actually born from the womb of GOD? Which one would be a natural son and which one would be an adopted son? I believe that if the Son of GOD was only declared to be a son that would make Him adopted like He was with Joseph and like born again saints are.

We are adopted, He was not.

Eph 1:5
5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
NASU

We have heard what WJ and Thinker have said, how about some others? What do you think? Is the Son a natural Son, born of GOD before creation, or a Son merely by declaration when born of Mary when she conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, or baptized, or risen from the dead?

Hebrews tells us that it was the Son who laid the foundation of the earth:

Heb 1:8-11
8 But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
9 “YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.”
10 And, “YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
11 THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN;
NASU

Who does it say laid the foundation IN THE BEGINNING…the Lord. And who is the Lord…the Son.

Also, it is interesting that it doesn't refer to the Son as the “Word” in the above passage in Hebrews that laid the foundation of the earth. It actually calls Him the Son. He was the Son and Lord way back even then.

God bless,
Kathi

[Cindy]

To whom it may concern

In Genesis God created everything “after” its kind. Whether you believe the world is a billion years old, or 6000 years, the question is, what is “after” its kind? Would not God at one point have had to create it all, and from what, did he not create from nothing?
If Jesus was born from God's “womb”, and then Jesus gave birth to all the other spirit beings, angels, did they then came from his “womb”? Or how did they come into existence?

Georg

[Lightenup]

Hi Georg,
Interesting thought but I think the angels were created, not begotten and not sharing in the nature of God, they are not the same “kind” as God. I believe they are created heavenly beings and they were created through the Son, not born of the Son. IMO

Kathi

[bodhitharta]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 23 2009,07:26)

Quote (Jeremy Marsh @ May 22 2009,10:01) For a while I believed in Trinity. Now I'm starting to doubt it's credibility. After studying Scripture, I've come to believe that Jesus Christ was birthed by God (therefore, he had a beginning) and then created the world. I believe that Jesus is not God, but only the Son. Anybody disagree? Any scriptural basis? Hi JM Welcome! There is probably a 100 threads that deal with this subject, but since you ask I will share with you the truth that I see found in scriptures Quote (Jeremy Marsh @ May 22 2009,10:01) For a while I believed in Trinity. Now I'm starting to doubt it's credibility. But why would you trade the Jesus that you first received to accept another Jesus?   But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, “your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and “preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.” 2 Cor 11:3, 4 Quote (Jeremy Marsh @ May 22 2009,10:01) After studying Scripture, I've come to believe that Jesus Christ was birthed by God (therefore, he had a beginning) and then created the world. There is no unambiguous truth that Jesus had a beginning or especially that God gave birth to him before he came in the flesh. Before all things and from eternity God had no gender. However he chose to reveal himself with the male gender for our sakes. The very fact that he does this and the fact that he is our Father and we are his “adopted sons” should be proof enough that the Father did not bring birth to a being who is considered less to him in nature as many claim that God brought birth to a lesser god. Scriptures teach us that every seed bears after its own kind. Since the scriptures state…. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and “THE WORD WAS GOD”. He was in the beginning with God. “All things came into being through Him, and “APART FROM HIM NOTHING CAME INTO BEING THAT HAS COME INTO BEING”. John 1-3 NASB So he did not create himself. If the Father wanted to put the Word forth as a being born from his womb before the beginning, then he could have revealed himself with the female gender which would be in line with the natural process of reproduction. Instead the Father sent the Word which was always with him and always God by preparing a body for him in the Virgin Mary to show forth his Glory in what now is to be declared the Only Unique Son, the Word or God in the flesh. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. John 1:18 NIV This same John also penned these words… ”If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him”. John 14:7 And… And Thomas answered and said unto him, “MY LORD AND MY GOD”. And… And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us insight to know him who is true, and “WE ARE IN HIM WHO IS TRUE, IN HIS SON JESUS CHRIST. THIS ONE IS *THE TRUE GOD AND ETERNAL LIFE (refer to 1 John 1:1-3 which tells us who this eternal life is)”. 1 John 5:20 The NET clears up any confusion that may be read into this verse,,, The pronoun This one (οὗτος, Joutos) refers to a person, but it is far from clear whether it should be understood as a reference (1) to God the Father or (2) to Jesus Christ. R. E. Brown (Epistles of John [AB], 625) comments, “I John, which began with an example of stunning grammatical obscurity in the prologue, continues to the end to offer us examples of unclear grammar.” The nearest previous antecedent is Jesus Christ, immediately preceding, but on some occasions when this has been true the pronoun still refers to God (see 1 John 2:3). The first predicate which follows This one in 5:20, the true God, is a description of God the Father used by Jesus in John 17:3, and was used in the preceding clause of the present verse to refer to God the Father (him who is true). Yet the second predicate of This one in 5:20, eternal life, appears to refer to Jesus, because although the Father possesses “life” (John 5:26, 6:57) just as Jesus does (John 1:4, 6:57, 1 John 5:11), “life” is never predicated of the Father elsewhere, while it is predicated of Jesus in John 11:25 and 14:6 (a self-predication by Jesus). If This one in 5:20 is understood as referring to Jesus, it forms an inclusion with the prologue, which introduced the reader to “the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us.” Thus it appears best to understand the pronoun This one in 5:20 as a reference to Jesus Christ. The christological affirmation which results is striking, but certainly not beyond the capabilities of the author (see John 1:1 and 20:28): This One [Jesus Christ] is the true God and eternal life.  Click here for source. Other Apostles like Paul and Peter claim Jesus as God. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, “WHO IS GOD OVER ALL, FOREVER PRAISED!* AMEN”. Rom 9:5 “WHO, BEING IN VERY NATURE GOD“, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, Phil 2:6 HE IS THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD, the firstborn (having the preeminence) over all creation. Col 1:15 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and “THE EXACT REPRESENTATION OF HIS BEING“,… Heb 1:3 But unto the Son he saith, “THY THRONE, O GOD, IS FOR EVER AND EVER”: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Heb 1:8 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,   To those who through the righteousness of “OUR GOD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST” have received a faith as precious as ours: 2 Peter 1 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of “THE GLORY OF OUR GREAT GOD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST”, Titus 2:13 Concerning those who would refute that the Apostles are not calling Jesus their True God, and in so doing go against hundreds of Greek scholars, the NET says… The terms “God a nd Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. In fact, the construction occurs elsewhere in 2 Peter, strongly suggesting that the author’s idiom was the same as the rest of the NT authors’ (cf., e.g., 1:11 [“the Lord and Savior”], 2:20 [“the Lord and Savior”]). The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, qeos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, swthr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on the application of Sharp’s rule to 2 Pet 1:1, see ExSyn 272, 276-77, 290. See also Titus 2:13 and Jude 4. Click here for source. And as it mentions above… For certain men have secretly slipped in among you – men who long ago were marked out for the condemnation I am about to describe – ungodly men who have turned the grace of our God into a license for evil and “WHO DENY OUR ONLY MASTER AND LORD, JESUS CHRIST”. Jude 1:4 So to accept Jesus who is the visible image of God as less than God in nature is to create a false image of God. Jesus said… “THAT ALL MAY HONOR THE SON *JUST AS* THEY HONOR THE FATHER. He who does not honor the Son “does not honor the Father“, who sent him“. John 5:23 Why trade Jesus who is equal to the Father in nature for a Jesus that is less than the scriptures portray him? Quote (Jeremy Marsh @ May 22 2009,10:01) I believe that Jesus is not God, but only the Son. Anybody disagree? Any scriptural basis? Yes, Jesus is not the Father, but he is God just as the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God, of the very same nature. Jesus is the “Monogenes” (Only Unique) Son of God. Why is he Unique, because the Word who was God came in the likeness of sinful flesh and was “declared” by the Angel to be the Son of God. The Prophet Isaiah claims Jesus to be the “Mighty God” and the Angel of the Lord gave him the name “Immanuel” which is interpreted as God with us! But again welcome and “thanks for listening”. (learned that from t8)   Blessings WJ

WJ

where are you getting your scriptures?

Romans 9:5 (King James Version)

5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen

You misquoted this verse and I don't know why.

Also saying my Lord and my God is like saying my president and my country which is not the same as saying my president is my country.

Also it is you that are preaching another Jesus the scriptures always preach that Jesus worships God(not that Jesus is God)

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ May 24 2009,21:55)

Hi Georg, Interesting thought but I think the angels were created, not begotten and not sharing in the nature of God, they are not the same “kind” as God.  I believe they are created heavenly beings and they were created through the Son, not born of the Son. IMO Kathi

Hi Kathi

But you are not talking about the same kind. You are talking about a being of a different kind. One that is less in nature than the Father. A demi-god if you will.

Is there any other kind of creature that came from another kind of creature that is not equal in nature? Why an Angel could be “a god” then. But there is no other “True God”.

Scriptures call Angels “sons of God”, were they “born from the Father? Are they the same in being as the Father or Jesus?

What do these scriptures mean to you…

“WHO, BEING IN VERY NATURE GOD“, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, Phil 2:6

The Son is the radiance of God's glory and “THE EXACT REPRESENTATION OF HIS BEING“,… Heb 1:3

If he is not identical to the Father in nature in every way then these scriptures are lies. Not to mention John 1:1.

Also your reference to the Father being as a mother is an allegory of the Fathers capability to be everything to us.

But that is not my point at all. I am not saying that the Father can only be a Father. God revealed himself to man as “He”, “Him”, “us”, and later Father.

My point is Jesus never referred to the Father as Mother did he?

Jesus came to reveal the Father which is the chosen gender that the Father uses to express his nature for the sake of man. Since everything is made by and for Jesus his only Son then why wouldn't the Father say he was his mother.

It’s because mothers give birth, Fathers don't!

I say again if Jesus being the most prized “Only Unique Son” of the Father was born from him he would have clearly told us so and could have said that he is the Mother of his son.

But he didn’t, did he?

As far as the scriptures referring to the Son being called the Son from the beginning is proof of nothing because if my son had preexistence and I was referring to his preexistence then I would still be calling him my son even though he didn’t become my son until the day he was born.

If he created the world I would be saying my Son created the World. This is the reference point the Apostles are speaking from. After being born from the virgin Mary.

Before that John calls him the Word, And Paul says he was in very nature God. If what you say is true then why didn’t John say “in the beginning was the Son and the Son was born of God and the Son was a god”?  

Why didn’t Paul say that Jesus the Son of God took on the likeness of sinful flesh and was found in fashion as a man?

Instead he said…

“WHO, BEING IN VERY NATURE GOD“, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, Phil 2:6

From what I am hearing around here is Jesus has more than “ONE” birth, he was born in the beginning, then born again from Mary, then born again at the Jordan, then born again in the resurrection. This is hoopla and madness in my opinion. There is no scripture that Unambiguously claims Jesus was ever born before he came in the flesh. Those who believe this would be better off being a Unitarian IMO.

Because John didn’t mention Jesus as a Son until he was made flesh agreeing with the scriptures and the Angel that declared him to be the Son of God. So now we can say the Son as well as the Word was with the Father and by him and through him all things were made that were made.

No being less than the Father in nature could be “Omnipotent” “Omnipresent” and “Omniscient”! IMO.

And no other being other than God created all things as it is written.

Blessings WJ

[Lightenup]

Hi all,
Some of my thoughts regarding the nature of GOD as well as the nature of the Son of GOD are as follows:
Possibly the nature of both is simply the fullness of grace and truth. Then the fruit that they both share which comes from that nature is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and self-control.  Maybe it is as simple as that!  In that way, the Son is the exact representation of His Father.  Don't you think it is interesting that grace and truth are not listed as a “fruit of the spirit?”

Possibly all the “omni's” of the Most High GOD are not considered nature at all but qualities apart from nature.

John 1:14
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
NASU

We hope to partake of that nature someday and when that happens we will also be filled with the fruits of the spirit existing within the freedoms of obtaining a spiritual body.

Your thoughts anyone,
Kathi

[Cindy]

Quote (Lightenup @ May 25 2009,13:55)

Hi Georg, Interesting thought but I think the angels were created, not begotten and not sharing in the nature of God, they are not the same “kind” as God.  I believe they are created heavenly beings and they were created through the Son, not born of the Son. IMO Kathi

Kathi

There is no other “kind” of God, there is only one God, his nature is spirit, and so is the son and the angels, there nature is spirit. That is the image of God Jesus was created in, spirit.
Man was created in the image of God also, but man is not spirit, his nature is flesh. God has a mind, and man has a mind, that is the image of God man was created in.
Animals were created but without a mind, that is the difference.
The thought of becoming a spirit being, obviously excites everybody, but is only reserved for the chosen few, those that made a covenant with God by sacrifice, the saints; and I for one don't envy them.

Georg

[Lightenup]

Hi Georg,

Really, when you get down to it, the questions are:
1. Can and did GOD reproduce to gain His Son before all things were created?
or
2. Can and did GOD create His Son before all other things were created?
or
3. Was the Son eternally generated (always existent in eternity past as a Son) as the trinity doctrine states.
or
4. Was the Son a son by declaration when He became flesh and not a son when all things were created?

I have embraced the theory that GOD did reproduce to gain His Son before He created all things. Now, if in fact, He did reproduce what would the offspring be like? He would definitely be younger than His parent, have the same nature as His parent, have the same body type of His parent. He would not automatically have the same abilities as His parent except that which is inherent to the body type and nature.

I suggest that His body type is a spiritual body type and His nature consists of a fullness of grace and truth.

So, Georg, I think that we define nature differently and you see the Son as created and I see Him as the result of reproduction and not created. We also think about “image” differently.

Also, I believe that our next bodies will be spiritual bodies and thus we become spiritual beings.

Kathi

[bodhitharta]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 25 2009,15:48)

Quote (Lightenup @ May 24 2009,21:55) Hi Georg, Interesting thought but I think the angels were created, not begotten and not sharing in the nature of God, they are not the same “kind” as God.  I believe they are created heavenly beings and they were created through the Son, not born of the Son. IMO Kathi Hi Kathi But you are not talking about the same kind. You are talking about a being of a different kind. One that is less in nature than the Father. A demi-god if you will. Is there any other kind of creature that came from another kind of creature that is not equal in nature? Why an Angel could be “a god” then. But there is no other “True God”. Scriptures call Angels “sons of God”, were they “born from the Father? Are they the same in being as the Father or Jesus? What do these scriptures mean to you… “WHO, BEING IN VERY NATURE GOD“, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, Phil 2:6 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and “THE EXACT REPRESENTATION OF HIS BEING“,… Heb 1:3 If he is not identical to the Father in nature in every way then these scriptures are lies. Not to mention John 1:1. Also your reference to the Father being as a mother is an allegory of the Fathers capability to be everything to us. But that is not my point at all. I am not saying that the Father can only be a Father. God revealed himself to man as “He”, “Him”, “us”, and later Father. My point is Jesus never referred to the Father as Mother did he? Jesus came to reveal the Father which is the chosen gender that the Father uses to express his nature for the sake of man. Since everything is made by and for Jesus his only Son then why wouldn't the Father say he was his mother. It’s because mothers give birth, Fathers don't! I say again if Jesus being the most prized “Only Unique Son” of the Father was born from him he would have clearly told us so and could have said that he is the Mother of his son. But he didn’t, did he? As far as the scriptures referring to the Son being called the Son from the beginning is proof of nothing because if my son had preexistence and I was referring to his preexistence then I would still be calling him my son even though he didn’t become my son until the day he was born. If he created the world I would be saying my Son created the World. This is the reference point the Apostles are speaking from. After being born from the virgin Mary. Before that John calls him the Word, And Paul says he was in very nature God. If what you say is true then why didn’t John say “in the beginning was the Son and the Son was born of God and the Son was a god”?   Why didn’t Paul say that Jesus the Son of God took on the likeness of sinful flesh and was found in fashion as a man? Instead he said… “WHO, BEING IN VERY NATURE GOD“, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, Phil 2:6 From what I am hearing around here is Jesus has more than “ONE” birth, he was born in the beginning, then born again from Mary, then born again at the Jordan, then born again in the resurrection. This is hoopla and madness in my opinion. There is no scripture that Unambiguously claims Jesus was ever born before he came in the flesh. Those who believe this would be better off being a Unitarian IMO. Because John didn’t mention Jesus as a Son until he was made flesh agreeing with the scriptures and the Angel that declared him to be the Son of God. So now we can say the Son as well as the Word was with the Father and by him and through him all things were made that were made. No being less than the Father in nature could be “Omnipotent” “Omnipresent” and “Omniscient”! IMO. And no other being other than God created all things as it is written. Blessings WJ

Jesus was not omniscient

He declared that he did not know when the hour of his return would be he declared that no one knew except the Father.

This is clear proof that he was not omniscent nor was he God.

[Lightenup]

Quote (bodhitharta @ May 25 2009,17:33)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 25 2009,15:48) Quote (Lightenup @ May 24 2009,21:55) Hi Georg, Interesting thought but I think the angels were created, not begotten and not sharing in the nature of God, they are not the same “kind” as God.  I believe they are created heavenly beings and they were created through the Son, not born of the Son. IMO Kathi Hi Kathi But you are not talking about the same kind. You are talking about a being of a different kind. One that is less in nature than the Father. A demi-god if you will. Is there any other kind of creature that came from another kind of creature that is not equal in nature? Why an Angel could be “a god” then. But there is no other “True God”. Scriptures call Angels “sons of God”, were they “born from the Father? Are they the same in being as the Father or Jesus? What do these scriptures mean to you… “WHO, BEING IN VERY NATURE GOD“, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, Phil 2:6 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and “THE EXACT REPRESENTATION OF HIS BEING“,… Heb 1:3 If he is not identical to the Father in nature in every way then these scriptures are lies. Not to mention John 1:1. Also your reference to the Father being as a mother is an allegory of the Fathers capability to be everything to us. But that is not my point at all. I am not saying that the Father can only be a Father. God revealed himself to man as “He”, “Him”, “us”, and later Father. My point is Jesus never referred to the Father as Mother did he? Jesus came to reveal the Father which is the chosen gender that the Father uses to express his nature for the sake of man. Since everything is made by and for Jesus his only Son then why wouldn't the Father say he was his mother. It’s because mothers give birth, Fathers don't! I say again if Jesus being the most prized “Only Unique Son” of the Father was born from him he would have clearly told us so and could have said that he is the Mother of his son. But he didn’t, did he? As far as the scriptures referring to the Son being called the Son from the beginning is proof of nothing because if my son had preexistence and I was referring to his preexistence then I would still be calling him my son even though he didn’t become my son until the day he was born. If he created the world I would be saying my Son created the World. This is the reference point the Apostles are speaking from. After being born from the virgin Mary. Before that John calls him the Word, And Paul says he was in very nature God. If what you say is true then why didn’t John say “in the beginning was the Son and the Son was born of God and the Son was a god”?   Why didn’t Paul say that Jesus the Son of God took on the likeness of sinful flesh and was found in fashion as a man? Instead he said… “WHO, BEING IN VERY NATURE GOD“, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, Phil 2:6 From what I am hearing around here is Jesus has more than “ONE” birth, he was born in the beginning, then born again from Mary, then born again at the Jordan, then born again in the resurrection. This is hoopla and madness in my opinion. There is no scripture that Unambiguously claims Jesus was ever born before he came in the flesh. Those who believe this would be better off being a Unitarian IMO. Because John didn’t mention Jesus as a Son until he was made flesh agreeing with the scriptures and the Angel that declared him to be the Son of God. So now we can say the Son as well as the Word was with the Father and by him and through him all things were made that were made. No being less than the Father in nature could be “Omnipotent” “Omnipresent” and “Omniscient”! IMO. And no other being other than God created all things as it is written. Blessings WJ Jesus was not omniscient He declared that he did not know when the hour of his return would be he declared that no one knew except the Father. This is clear proof that he was not omniscent nor was he God.

Hi Bo,
I agree that the Son is not omniscient. I also believe that He is not omnipresent. I don't think that shows that He is not God, I think that shows that He is not the Most High GOD. I believe there is only one “Most High God” and only one God that is a Son of the Most High God.

God's love,
Kathi

[Lightenup]

Quote (Lightenup @ May 25 2009,01:53)

Hi all, Some of my thoughts regarding the nature of GOD as well as the nature of the Son of GOD are as follows: Possibly the nature of both is simply the fullness of grace and truth. Then the fruit that they both share which comes from that nature is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and self-control.  Maybe it is as simple as that!  In that way, the Son is the exact representation of His Father.  Don't you think it is interesting that grace and truth are not listed as a “fruit of the spirit?” Possibly all the “omni's” of the Most High GOD are not considered nature at all but qualities apart from nature. John 1:14 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. NASU We hope to partake of that nature someday and when that happens we will also be filled with the fruits of the spirit existing within the freedoms of obtaining a spiritual body. Your thoughts anyone, Kathi

Does anyone know of a thread strictly about the “nature of GOD?” I do not want to make a new one if one already exists.
Thanks,
LU

[Cindy]

Quote (Lightenup @ May 26 2009,04:08)

Hi Georg, Really, when you get down to it, the questions are: 1. Can and did GOD reproduce to gain His Son before all things were created? or 2. Can and did GOD create His Son before all other things were created? or 3. Was the Son eternally generated (always existent in eternity past as a Son) as the trinity doctrine states. or 4. Was the Son a son by declaration when He became flesh and not a son when all things were created? I have embraced the theory that GOD did reproduce to gain His Son before He created all things.  Now, if in fact, He did reproduce what would the offspring be like?  He would definitely be younger than His parent, have the same nature as His parent, have the same body type of His parent. He would not automatically have the same abilities as His parent except that which is inherent to the body type and nature. I suggest that His body type is a spiritual body type and His nature consists of a fullness of grace and truth. So, Georg, I think that we define nature differently and you see the Son as created and I see Him as the result of reproduction and not created.  We also think about “image” differently. Also, I believe that our next bodies will be spiritual bodies and thus we become spiritual beings. Kathi

Kathi

It is not a matter of “can God”, the question you have is; did he? My believe is this, Jesus became God's son by adoption, after he was created first; and here is why.

Hbr 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

If God had reproduced himself in any shape or form, as we humans do, he would not have said, “I will be a Father to him, and he shall be a son to me”. It would have said, I am his Father, and he is my son, don't you think?
God had a plan to create a universe full of life, including us humans, but he also knew we would rebel at first, sin. The penalty for sin is death, that is not what God wanted for us, he wanted us to live for ever; the solution? have some one die in our stead, someone that would not be affected by Adam's sin, Jesus.
To have some one die for some one else is not something you can force on just any body. God created the first angel, spirit being, he laid out his plan for creation to him, including our sinfulness, and to save his creation, he would need a sacrifice to take away our sins.
Jesus volunteered to become the sacrificial lamb; that is when God adopted him as his son, that is when God “became” a Father to him.
Then God honored him by allowing him to do all the rest of creation.

Georg

[Lightenup]

Quote (Cindy @ May 27 2009,15:02)

Quote (Lightenup @ May 26 2009,04:08) Hi Georg, Really, when you get down to it, the questions are: 1. Can and did GOD reproduce to gain His Son before all things were created? or 2. Can and did GOD create His Son before all other things were created? or 3. Was the Son eternally generated (always existent in eternity past as a Son) as the trinity doctrine states. or 4. Was the Son a son by declaration when He became flesh and not a son when all things were created? I have embraced the theory that GOD did reproduce to gain His Son before He created all things.  Now, if in fact, He did reproduce what would the offspring be like?  He would definitely be younger than His parent, have the same nature as His parent, have the same body type of His parent. He would not automatically have the same abilities as His parent except that which is inherent to the body type and nature. I suggest that His body type is a spiritual body type and His nature consists of a fullness of grace and truth. So, Georg, I think that we define nature differently and you see the Son as created and I see Him as the result of reproduction and not created.  We also think about “image” differently. Also, I believe that our next bodies will be spiritual bodies and thus we become spiritual beings. Kathi Kathi It is not a matter of “can God”, the question you have is; did he? My believe is this, Jesus became God's son by adoption, after he was created first; and here is why. Hbr 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? If God had reproduced himself in any shape or form, as we humans do, he would not have said, “I will be a Father to him, and he shall be a son to me”. It would have said, I am his Father, and he is my son, don't you think? God had a plan to create a universe full of life, including us humans, but he also knew we would rebel at first, sin. The penalty for sin is death, that is not what God wanted for us, he wanted us to live for ever; the solution? have some one die in our stead, someone that would not be affected by Adam's sin, Jesus. To have some one die for some one else is not something you can force on just any body. God created the first angel, spirit being, he laid out his plan for creation to him, including our sinfulness, and to save his creation, he would need a sacrifice to take away our sins. Jesus volunteered to become the sacrificial lamb; that is when God adopted him as his son, that is when God “became” a Father to him. Then God honored him by allowing him to do all the rest of creation. Georg

Hi Georg,
So, as you understand the Son of God, he is an angel-the first created angel and set apart to be AS an only begotten Son, one not begotten by birth but by declaration as in adoption. Hmmm…no wonder you can't say that you worship him.

And your scripture is:
Hbr 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Here is the same verse in several translations:

NET
For to which of the angels did God 1 ever say, “You are my son! Today I have fathered you”? 2 And in another place 3 he says, 4 “I will be his father and he will be my son.” 5

NIV
Heb 1:5
For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”?

NASB
Heb 1:5
For to which of the angels did He ever say, “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”? And again, “I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”?

NLT
Heb 1:5
For God never said to any angel what he said to Jesus: “You are my Son. Today I have become your Father.” And again God said, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son.”

MSG
Heb 1:5
Did God ever say to an angel, “You're my Son; today I celebrate you”? Or, “I'm his Father, he's my Son”?

BBE
Heb 1:5
To which of the angels did God say at any time, You are my Son, this day I have given you being? or, I will be his Father, and he will be my Son?

NRSV
Heb 1:5
For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”?

NKJV
Heb 1:5
For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son”?

Here is another similar question:

Hebrews 1:13

NET
But to which of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?

NIV
To which of the angels did God ever say, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?

NASB
But to which of the angels has He ever said, “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET”?

NLT
And God never said to an angel, as he did to his Son, “Sit in honor at my right hand until I humble your enemies, making them a footstool under your feet.”

MSG
And did he ever say anything like this to an angel? Sit alongside me here on my throne Until I make your enemies a stool for your feet.

BBE
But of which of the angels has he said at any time, Take your seat at my right hand till I put all those who are against you under your feet?

NRSV
But to which of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?

NKJV
But to which of the angels has He ever said: “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”?

KJV
But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

Georg, I see it the way the NLT says it. I believe that these two questions are there to show us a difference between the Son and the angels. They are there to show us that the Son is superior to the angels and not one of them.

Quote

If God had reproduced himself in any shape or form, as we humans do, he would not have said, “I will be a Father to him, and he shall be a son to me”. It would have said, I am his Father, and he is my son, don't you think?

It DOES say that He (GOD) is His Father and that He (Jesus) is His Son
NLT
Heb 1:5
For God never said to any angel what he said to Jesus: “You are my Son. Today I have become your Father.” And again God said, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son.”

So, another thing that we see differently. It just goes to show you there is a difference to see the Son as a created being-begotten by declaration or a begotten by birth being.

Remember the Son is called the “FirstBORN” of all creation, not the “FirstCREATED” of all creation.

I think that you might enjoy this website written by a scientist:

http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/

Kathi

[Author]

Posts