- This topic has 25,924 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 1 day, 11 hours ago by
.
- Posts
Mike,
Asexual reproduction is not a creation of something different, it is the reproduction of something the same.
I agree that the relationship was created in a sense, but not the substance. What that means is the father relationship was created just as much as the son relationship was created. Before the process of begetting, there was no father, there was One who decided to give and at the same time, receive of himself to be no longer One but Two. The Two are different in that one gives and the other receives. The one that gives is the dominant one in the new relationship and thus the parent or Father in this case.
You say that it has no scriptural support but the term “begotten” supports it, the eternalness of God supports it, the relationship of Father and Son supports it.
I see the only begotten son of God and think of the son as one who is a divinely biological son of God. That is a true son, not a son of a different type.
Here is my most recent diagram which illustrates this point:
Hopeful, LU
Hi Berean,
You said: But the life of a human being really begins when he comes out of his mother’s womb … and we start counting his days from there, isn’t it;
Can a human be born alive from within that has not already existed alive within? If not, then a human being really begins when it is is conceived. We start counting the days from the point of birth because we can never be sure when the point of conception was.
Good discussion,
LU
Hi again Berean,
You said: And the Son heard these wonderful words from the Father:
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, I will be a Father for you, and you will be to me a Son?That was told to the Son by the Father on the day of the resurrection, when the Son became the firstborn from the dead. Of course we know he was a son before that.
See Psalms 2
6“But as for Me, I have installed My King
Upon Zion, My holy mountain.”7“I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD:
He said to Me, ‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.8‘Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance,
And the very ends of the earth as Your possession.9‘You shall break them with a rod of iron,
You shall shatter them like earthenware.’”10Now therefore, O kings, show discernment;
Take warning, O judges of the earth.11Worship the LORD with reverence
And rejoice with trembling.12Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way,
For His wrath may soon be kindled.
How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!Bless you,
LUMike…..GOOD POST, right on, I like it when you bring out those little points of truth. I completely agree with what you wrote to Berean. I might cause him to begin to think about the actual word as the are said exactly more.
Peace and love to you and yours. ………gene
Hi
Before Christ came “in the likeness of men”, he existed in the “express image of his Father”.
Hebrews 1
[3] Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Christ was “made” so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
[4] Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
[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?In Strong’s concordance, the word translated “being made” is “Ginomai” which means “to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be,” or “to become, be made”.
And THE WORD” became flesh…
Blessings to all
LU: You say that it has no scriptural support but the term “begotten” supports it, the eternalness of God supports it, the relationship of Father and Son supports it.
None of those support your idea that God is a cell that divided into two cells. What about Acts 4? Which one created the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them?
Gene: Mike…..GOOD POST, right on, I like it when you bring out those little points of truth. I completely agree with what you wrote to Berean. I might cause him to begin to think about the actual word as the are said exactly more.
Peace and love to you and yours. ………gene
Thanks Gene. 👍😊
Hi LU
Context of Hebrews 1 is not resurrection but “the divinity od Christ” and his superiority to the angels…
Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
[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 SonO Lord help us …
Hi Gene
you
Mike…..GOOD POST, right on, I like it when you bring out those little points of truth. I completely agree with what you wrote to Berean. I might cause him to begin to think about the actual word as the are said exactly more.
Me
Can you give me the post Mike for , Ido not see it
in addition to that I have problems navigating, the pages do not always open;
Mike,
Suffice it to say that you missed the cell analogy point. It was not to say that God is a cell, it was to show what asexual reproduction looks like and how One is expressed as two and the two are together the fullness of the one regarding their substance.
Now that you “maybe” realize this, build your case as to your claim that the Son didn’t actually go through an asexual begetting process but rather a creation process like the angels where he was the first of anything created, a first of his specific type. Btw,”son” is not a type. “Spirit being” is also not a specific type.
Hopeful,
LU
Berean: Can you give me the post Mike for , Ido not see it
in addition to that I have problems navigating, the pages do not always open;
I think Gene was referring to my post to Carmel, and just got the name wrong. But I did ask YOU a question in that post to Carmel. It’s on the previous page.
Berean,
The first and last part of Hebrews 1 is not in reference to the Son according to the flesh, that is correct. However, there is a part of Hebrews 1 that is according to the flesh as the Son of David when the Son receives his rule on the eternal throne promised to the son of David. The Son receives his kingdom rule when he was begotten from the grave as the firstborn from the dead. Read this part of Hebrews 1:
3…When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they. 5For 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”?and here:
8But 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.”Romans 1
1Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake, 6among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ;
God bless,
LU
LU: …build your case as to your claim that the Son didn’t actually go through an asexual begetting process but rather a creation process…
How many times would you like me to do it? 😉 Okay, here we go again…
Micah 5:2
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”
Who is this verse about? And when did he come into existence?
Mike,
That verse in Micah 5:2 does nothing to challenge the origin in regards to relationship of father/son from eternity but enforces it.
@Jodi, my previous post is a good one for you too. Who is this person that God says WILL (future tense) come for Him? And when DID (past tense) this person originate (come into existence)?
Mike,
The Father’s origin began at the same moment the Son’s origin began. Their substance eternally existed before the One became a father and a son.
LU: Micah 5:2 does nothing to challenge the origin in regards to relationship of father/son from eternity but enforces it.
But you say Jesus didn’t have an origin, don’t you? Micah 5:2 says he did. Please reconcile.
LU: The Father’s origin began at the same moment the Son’s origin began. Their substance eternally existed before the One became a father and a son.
Micah 5:2 is the continuation of a segment of a speech from Jehovah that begins in 4:6. So basically…
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah”, declares Jehovah, “though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”
It is Jehovah who is saying all of these words. Is it your contention that Jehovah had his origins in the ancient past?
Mike,
I appreciate the discussion. I am intending on sticking with you till you see what I am trying to say because I believe it is really important and worthy the focus.
Mike, you said: But you say Jesus didn’t have an origin, don’t you? Micah 5:2 says he did. Please reconcile.
The One who became a giver and a receiver of the eternal substance, was eternal in the past and then at the onset of the process of begetting, the origin of a relationship of father and son began. So, in a sense, the Father has a beginning (an origin) as well as the Son has a beginning (an origin). In another sense, according to their substance, they didn’t have a beginning or “origin”. Since the name “Jehovah” is for a person who always existed, it can be applied to the Son just as much as it can be applied to the Father. There are two persons that are rightfully called Jehovah and those two persons are together as a divine and eternal unity, the One according to their substance.
The speaker in Micah 5:2 could be the Son as he represents both he and the Father, a divine and eternal unity or it could be the Father.
Hi LU
God the Father has no beginning, no origin, He always existed … HE IS INCREATED(non created)
Psalm 90: [2] Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
Habakuk 1: [12] Art thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die. O LORD, thou hast ordained them for judgment; and, O mighty God, thou hast established them for correction.
Only the Son has an origin (Micah 5: 2)blessings
2. In verses 27 and 30, they identify Jesus – not as the one to whom they prayed or the one who created everything – but instead as the holy servant OF the one to whom they prayed… the holy servant OF the one who created everything.
How do you reconcile this with your doctrine? Same question for Kathi and Berean.
Hi Mike,
me: VERY SIMPLE!
The Father and the Son ETERNALLY EXISTED TOGETHER.
Jesus offered to participate IN HIS OWN KINGDOM created by the Father from the very beginning through His Son:
THE ONLY SPIRIT/MEDIATOR
between God the Father and ALL CREATURES.
As without the SON, IN
THE KINGDOM OF THE SON,
IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR ANY CREATURE TO BE CREATED UNLESS
THROUGH THE SON.
OR ELSE ANY CREATURE WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE DESTROYED IN THE LEAST INTENTION OF EVIL WITHIN
THEIR HEART,
BUT once the Son
ETERNAL LIFE is between THE FATHER and THE CREATURES,
PRECISELY IN THEIR HEART, AS “THE WORD”
both the CREATURES’ FREE WILL and THE FATHER’S IMMUNITY ARE SECURED and
PROTECTED
TO THE EXTENT THAT EVEN WHEN TWO-THIRDS OF THE CREATURES BECAME GOD’S ENEMY, SIMPLY
AS ALL RESTORED AND BACK TO THE FATHER
THE SOURCE, BUT IN
THE KINGDOM OF THE SON
Read again Mike what I posted Just in case you didn’t read it ALL!
Luke 11:17…. Every kingdom
divided against itself shall be brought to desolation; and house upon house shall fall. 18And if Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand?…..OK Mike, EVERY KINGDOM, as clear as crystal
EVEN GOD’S KINGDOM WOULD EVENTUALLY END
IF IT IS DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF.
NOW IN ORDER FOR GOD’S KINGDOM NOT TO BE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF AND EVENTUALLY FALLS
GOD ENGRAFTED “THE WORD” JESUS, AS AN INFINITESIMAL SPIRIT
ETERNALLY INEVERY SPIRIT CREATURES’ HEART
AS ETERNAL LIFE.SIMPLY NOT TO DESTROY TOTALLY HIS OWN, GOD’S SPIRIT SUBSTANCE.
HIS SON.
THE FACT THAT LUCIFER
FINISHED AS AN ANGEL OF LIGHT,
BUT GOD ESTABLISHED HIM, THANKS TO HIS SON ETERNAL LIFE, and SPIRIT/MEDIATOR BETWEEN THEM
AN ANGEL OF DARKNESS. PATIENTLY, MEEKLY, AND HUMBLY slain like a lamb….till
THIS ANGEL OF DARKNESS RETURNS BACK IN HIS FREE WILL TO THE FATHER.
THUS LIGHT SHINES IN DARKNESS, and
DARKNESS COMPREHENDED NOT
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light,(GOD IN “THE WORD” Jesus, as a spirit, THE PRIMORDIAL LIGHT, HIDDEN IN LUCIFER, THE LIGHT BEARER) and create darkness, ( “THE WORD” Jesus as a spirit in Satan) I make peace,( “THE WORD”JESUS’ FLESH CRUCIFIED
THE FATHER COULD NOT EVEN SMELL DEATH, NEVER MIND GIVE HIS LIFE AS A RANSOM) and create evil:(ALLOW SIN, SHIELDED BY “THE WORD” NOT TO BE TOTALLY DESTROYED BY GOD) I the Lord ( GOD “THE WORD” JESUS)
that do all these things.
IN ORDER FOR SATAN A SPIRIT CREATURE TO RETURN TO THE FATHER. GOD KNOWS WHEN!
Job20: 18He (SATAN) shall be punished for all that he did, and yet
shall not be consumed:
according to the multitude of his devices so also shall he suffer.
NO MORE NO LESS!
Peace and love in Jesus Christ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
