LU and AdrewAD only discussion

[Lightenup]

This is a closed discussion between Andrew AD and myself. Any other members may not post here. If you do, it will be requested to be removed due to the nature of this discussion to be free from the distractions or contributions of others.

Thanks for understanding and respecting that.

[Lightenup]

Andrew,
If you aren't interested in your views being challenged then by all means know that you do not have to have a discussion with me here or anywhere. However, it is obvious that we see things quite differently. I have had many of the same questions as you have and I have sought them out with the opinion that Christ has always been the Head of the Church from the point of His mentioning of it. I trust that the scriptures that some claim are ambiguous or even seemingly contradictory can be cleared up by asking God what is meant. Let him who lacks wisdom ask of God, right? Anyway, I have done this when I am confused and have often been given understanding. After I sought God on many of these matters, I then found out that many of the early church fathers often have the same or relatively the same understanding.

The understanding that you have that Jesus was only a man conceived by the Holy Spirit is not the church father's understanding, nor the church at large. So, I challenge you to open your mind to be a part of the unity that the majority of Christians are part of. Jesus wants the church to be united. Sometimes that means challenging others that are going the wrong way…away from unity. Do I believe that the church is perfect? No, but that is because we don't have the clarity that we will have in the future. It is also because satan is an enemy of the church and seeks to devour it. Unfortunately, he has had a measure of success…but that is not the end of the story. Jesus will have the final victory!! Hallelujah!!

[Lightenup]

Andrew,
You asked:

Quote

Could you please explain for me begotten before time and begotten not made? I've never quite understood what these words mean.It seems like made but not made? I just don't get it.

There is a belief that follows a form of Arianism that claims that there was a time when the Son was NOT, like the heavens and the earth were not in existence at one time. Then there is the belief that there was never a time when the Son didn't exist, and that is what I believe. The Arian thought says that the Son was MADE/created and not existing at any time prior to this. The other belief which you have asked me to explain is that the Son was begotten from that which always existed within the Father and thus has eternal nature too.

The Bible says that God sent His only 'begotten' Son into the world. It doesn't say that God sent His first created son into the world which would have been 'made.'

If the 'son' was made and not begotten from what already existed, then he would not be the only begotten but the first created. Do you see the difference?

Being begotten does not mean that He had a beginning when the term 'begotten' means to be born/brought forth from within. Even in the natural physical sense, every child that was begotten/born/brought forth existed before that point for 9 months or so. When we have an only begotten Son from an eternal Father, that requires the Son to have been eternally within the Father in order for the designation of 'Father' to have the true sense of the word. If the Father was without an offspring or any created thing, He wouldn't be God the 'eternal' Father, He would be God the future Father, not God the 'eternal' Father.

I have an example of how a son can be within the father and also be exactly like the father which I will show you next time.

God bless!

[Lightenup]

Good morning Andrew,
I said that I would show you how a son can be within the father and also be exactly like the father and I will do that sometime, probably very soon. This morning I feel led to post an excerpt from an article that addresses some of your questions. I think it is well written and agree with it. You can follow the link for the full article. I haven't read any of the other articles on that site but this one is good.

The God Who Became a Human Being
How could someone who is spirit, having lived for all eternity in the past, become human? Was Jesus a human being just like us? And when He was a human being, was He still God?
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14
).
How could someone who is spirit, having lived for all eternity in the past, become human? Was Jesus a human being just like us? And when He was a human being, was He still God?
Jesus was prophesied to be “God with us” (Matthew 1:23
). Jesus was a human being and He was also God. There was never a time when He ceased to be who He always was. His identity did not change. When He was in the womb of Mary, He was God. When He was a baby boy lying in the manger, He was God. When He was a youngster growing up in Nazareth, He was God. And when He was dying, He was God.
As a spirit being, prior to His human birth, He was infinite in knowledge, power and presence. As God He would know everything and have unlimited power to act on any object, anywhere. But if He was human, He could not do everything. He would be limited to the normal abilities any normal human being would have. He could not have been both infinite and finite simultaneously.
A physical body with physical limitations
When Jesus became flesh He was still God in terms of His identity, but He was nevertheless a human being in every sense of the word.
Jesus had a physical body. His closest disciple attests that He was a physical person: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life—the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness” (1 John 1:1
). John is establishing the humanity of Jesus Christ when he says they heard, saw and touched Jesus.
He had a fully human body. He was born. He grew and developed just like any other child.
Jesus was subject to the same physical limitations as other human beings, because He had the same kind of body. He experienced hunger when He fasted (Matthew 4:2
) and thirst (John 19:28
). He experienced fatigue from a long walk (John 4:6
).
Jesus suffered physically and died. Hebrews 2:10
tells us that He was made “perfect through sufferings.” Physiologically, He was a human being just as we are human, subject to death. “Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil” (verse 14, NRSV). He was made flesh “that He …might taste death for everyone” (verse 9).
Jesus suffered terribly when He died, as is evident in the crucifixion accounts. When the spear was thrust in His side, water and blood poured out. His body was the same as ours. There can be no doubt that He felt physical suffering as genuinely as we do when He was beaten and scourged, when the crown of thorns was shoved onto His head and when the nails were driven into His wrists and feet.

http://www.ucg.org/booklet….n-being

I hope you have a good day!

[Lightenup]

Andrew,
I am bringing over a post of yours from the other thread because I want to address your comments where it doesn't turn into just a mass of people going round and round about things randomly and points get lost. That is what happens, for the most part, when people come and go in the open discussions around here.

Here is your post with my response to follow. Your post was found here:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;st=140

Quote

Quote For instance, Mike believes in the pre-existent Son of God and you don't believe in a pre-existent Son of God. Yes I knew that from some of his statements and if you'd asked me a month ago or less I would've agreed.I'm still learning or rather re-learning.I'm not dead set on many things.And on some points I don't know that we have to be;I just want to be open to the Word. There's certainly nothing wrong with changing ones mind when you see truth that changes it. Quote BTW, where in the world did you get the idea that I was 'damning' you? It was the way you said I didn't believe in a literal Son of God.As Mike quoted and asked you the same question. I believe Rom10:9-10 and in the foundational confession which Christ said he'd build his church upon.Matt 16:15-18 If you think that this means you have to confess the trinity,Jesus is God and an incarnation to be saved like the majority of trinitarians then I strongly disagree with you.I got the feeling you were damning me and if that's how you feel that in no way surprises me.I was an ignorant and evil judge like that too and I thank Jesus He set me free. I don't want to argue with you and go around and around constantly like I see you do with others. I would like to have some discussions about Gods Word with those who are open to truth.I'm not and I won't try to convert you to my beliefs and I don't appreciate you trying to do that to me.I've just left your beliefs and I won't ever be going back.I promise that!!! If you want to consider me as one attacking the body of Christ and your precious Roman Catholic creeds then so be it.I know I'm attacking the lies of pagan religion and philosophy that have been tyrannically imposed upon the body of Christ.

Andrew,
you said:

Quote

I just want to be open to the Word.

Sure everybody in the 'Believer's' section wants to be 'open to the Word,' so they say…if you can twist it or claim translators error, etc. That seems more in line with the 'openess' I have seen from you.

Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:

That is written in the 'Word' you say you are 'open' to.

Quote

There's certainly nothing wrong with changing ones mind when you see truth that changes it.

It is great to change your mind when you see the truth. From what you say, though, you don't. You agree with only some of the Bible. Even atheists agree with some of the Bible.

You think that a righteous man can die for the sins of all mankind but the truth is that a righteous man cannot even die for one man. What about that truth, Andrew?

Quote

It was the way you said I didn't believe in a literal Son of God.As Mike quoted and asked you the same question. I believe Rom10:9-10 and in the foundational confession which Christ said he'd build his church upon.Matt 16:15-18

Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as 'damning' you. Forgive me.

Let's look at the foundational confession…Jesus is the Son of
God.

What type of being would the Son of God be? Let's do a little test:
The literal son of a man is…a man type of being, right?
The literal son of a dog is…a dog type of being, right?
The literal son of a bird is…a bird type of being, right?

The literal son of a god is…a god type of being, right?

You have inferred 'no, that is not right,' because the literal son of a god is a divine man type of being according to your idea of 'truth.' Is God the Father a divine man type of being? Do you see the problem? Correct me if I am wrong if that would not be your answer.

If I have to go round and round about the fact that people aren't really acknowledging what a literal 'son of god' would be, so be it. Maybe somebody will open up their eyes. It is the foundational truth as you realize.

The literal 'son of someone' would be the same type of being with the same type of 'xyz' attributes as that 'someone.' This understanding seems elementary and children would easily understand this. Is that not truth to you, Andrew?

Quote

If you think that this means you have to confess the trinity,Jesus is God and an incarnation to be saved like the majority of trinitarians then I strongly disagree with you.

I don't think you have to confess the trinity doctrine. I do believe that you have to confess that Jesus is the Son of God in its true sense and not in a false sense. If you deny that He is the Son of God in the intended sense of it, then one denies who He really is.

The Pharisees believed they were a son of God too. What would be the big deal to confess that a Jew was a son of God and why would a Jewish man be told that he was blaspheming with a confession that he was a son of God? Jesus was crucified for confessing that He was the Son of God.

Why would the Jews claim that with that confession that He was making Himself out to be God? Of course this is my opinion, but as I said, a child would know that the son of someone is the same type of being with the same attributes as that someone. Jesus, by claiming to be the Son of God was making Himself out to be the same type of being with the same attributes as God the Father. That is why He was accused of blasphemy. If He weren't truly the literal Son of God, that would be blasphemy.

Andrew, I would like you to answer these questions:

Is Jesus the Son of God who is the same type of being with the same type of attributes as His Father? Yes or No

Also tell me what type of being Jesus is AND what type of being the Father is.

Quote

I've just left your beliefs and I won't ever be going back.

I don't believe that Jesus was appointed to be the Son in some eternal council. You have left a misrepresentation of a doctrine and you don't understand the meaning of the terms in the creed by your own admission. Claiming something is not truth because you don't understand it doesn't really make it not truth. The words 'I won't ever be going back' show that you are closed minded to the possibility that you just misunderstood it all these many years and that there definitely is a basis for what is said in those creeds if you understand the intention and give grace to the imperfection due to the impossibility to perfectly explain God. The creeds do a pretty good job, they might not be perfect explanations of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit but the main things are there. I really don't think that one should expect a creed to be a perfect explanation of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit when it is impossible to explain the concepts perfectly and fully.

Perhaps you can write your own 'creed' and see how perfect you can be at it since those written are trash to you. How would you like it if you did write a creed to sum up your beliefs of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit and then someone was trashing it and you knew from what they said, they didn't really understand it. Would you think that was cool, no problem, or would you try to help them understand it accurately. It is one thing to bash something that you understand accurately and another thing to bash something that you don't understand accurately. Do you agree, Andrew?
You have admitted to not understand the creeds yet you bash them. Sorry but this seems irrational to me.

People complain that we have all these different denominations and then bash the creeds when actually, the creeds are something that many of them have in common and give a sense of unity.

[AndrewAD]

Lets just agree to disagree.If you don't like what I say you don't have to read it.You stand for the truth as you see it and so do I.
Anything I say you will disagree and accuse me of not understanding so just don't read what I say.Count me a heretic if you wish.
I can tell you how I believe in a literal Son of God but that will never be good enough for you and I don't owe you any answers nor do you me;so lets leave it at that.If you like to be critical of what I believe that's fine as I will be of what you believe but we don't have to make it personal.
All the churches in the World Council of Churches are trinitarian and a church can't be a member unless they are trinitarian so there you have your”unity in trinity”.Maybe it will achieve world peace,who knows? not I,not I.

[Lightenup]

Andrew,
I will agree that we do not agree but I don't agree to disagree with something this important…that wouldn't be loving your neighbor as yourself. I could just stop confronting your misunderstanding but that won't help you. You need to test the spirits, i.e. test what this spirit is telling you…it is possibly a religious spirit. A religious spirit makes one very zealous in a religious manner but feeds you false doctrine. In my opinion, we have several here under that oppression. You need to test it. So far, you have not been able to defend yourself and that is another thing we are called to be able to do. If you don't want to respond here, that's fine, no one is forcing you to do that but I will not give up on you. Again, that would not be loving you as my neighbor. When I see your misunderstanding here or elsewhere, I will address it here. Maybe it can help someone else if not you.

God bless you!

[AndrewAD]

I can defend my positions rather well with scripture and I have but all you do is say i don't understand.I believe the words Jesus spoke were true and they don't contradict the OT or the rest of NT.I praise Jesus for setting me free from a religious spirit that you have.And btw to let you know I didn't accept everything T8 said in his article on testing trinity off the bat or do I still,but it was very convicting to me and I've learned from studying since then.As you know i don't agree with the Arian views either.
Several months ago when telling a Catholic of my Catholic upbringing he tried to get me to come back”home to Rome”.We discussed some of the doctrines and history of the church.I told him I didn't agree with much and of course he told me I just didn't understand and was taking things the wrong way,just like you are now doing to me.He was a very nice person,but he wouldn't lay off me and I finally had to tell him that there was no way I could ever go back and he left me alone about it.I would like you to do the same.
I've shown in many ways in my few posts how the trinity doctrine is false,I've seen the truth on this so I can't go back to a lie.
I have peace in my heart about this and I love the Lord and feel closer to Him than I have in many years,and love the word of God again.
Chances are i won't be on here a lot anyway but perhaps at times.I've spent too much time here lately to the avoidance of things I need to do.But it's been a learning experience since this is the only Christian forum I've been on and the fact that it's non-trinitarian is a plus to find others of the same understanding.I did notice after reading a bit on the preexistence thread that Gene Balthrop seems to believe many of the same things I'm coming to see.He believes Christ existed in the bosom or heart of God before He was born as I do.Do you have a big problem with Gene's beliefs?
I believe that Jesus came out from God.He always existed in the heart and mind of God but didn't become a person-the Word became flesh- until he was conceived or born-however you may consider that.He was made like us in every way.Heb2:17 except He was from God's very loins so to speak. If it be said He was begotten before time in the sense of foreordination in the Fathers heart I would certainly agree.Jesus was before all worlds and the very reason God made the world.But what matters most is the fact of his life,vicarious death,resurrection,and His Lordship over heaven and earth,and our lives.Christ being formed in us is the most important.
Should all the non-trins here follow you as you follow Christ? Is that your purpose on this site?
I know in whom I believe,the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent.

[Lightenup]

Hi Andrew,
I am not interested in swaying you back to the trinity doctrine. I am interested in challenging your idea of what/who the literal Son of God is. Also, I am not Catholic like the person you were speaking with or like the people that you went to church with. I have sort of been down the road that you are traveling and have studied hard on these things for 20 years now when I laid down my previous understandings and asked the Lord to show me truth regarding what He meant in Col 1:15 regarding the Son as the Firstborn of all creation. It was then that I started reading the New Testament like it was a new book. I was so excited with all I was learning and mainly I was impressed with the understanding that Jesus really was the Son of God, literally, and not one of three persons always existing who happened to get the label 'Son.' About a month of testing what I was learning with the Bible alone, I was homeschooling my firstborn who was five, and I asked him what happened on day one of creation. He said that God said, “Let there be light.” At that very moment I heard whispered in my left ear these words “You are the light of the world.” I immediately thought of Jesus as the light and think it likely that it was day one of creation when the Son was begotten because of this whole experience. For a long time and even when I newly came on here, I thought that 'begotten' meant a beginning for the Son. I learned during my time on HN that many of the early church fathers spoke of the Son being 'begotten' before the ages and even Tertullian spoke of day one as being the perfect nativity of the Word. They even used words like 'like begets like' which I had been using. Many of the concepts they used, I had been using myself before even reading it from them. I came on here because I wanted to test my knowledge and to find like minded people. Unfortunately, the so-called trinitarians on here at the time did not agree that the Son was begotten before the ages and so they alienated me and called me anti-trinitarian. When I found out that they were the ones that were in disagreement with the early church father's and the creeds of the church on this point, I realized that they really did not represent trinitarianism as it is commonly understood.

So, when you say that He was first begotten in the time of Mary, that goes against what God seemed to show me and I have been testing this for 20 years, like I said. I am 20 years down a similar road that you are on Andrew. I really just needed someone to explain that a begettal wasn't necessarily the beginning of an existence like a birth isn't the beginning of an existence. Born and begotten are synonyms and in the physical realm, an offspring usually exists for about nine months before being born.

Since the Son of God's nature exactly represents the Father's nature which is eternal, then the Son must be eternal also which explains why He was God in the beginning with God. He is also called the only begotten God. I have a picture that I have recently come across that is an example of a created physical design of how an offspring can be within the parent and through a few phases, is begotten from the parent and is identical to the parent.

Here is a picture of that:
http://www.google.com/imgres?….rl=http

The first cell has the DNA of only one cell. The second phase of the cell has the DNA of two cells. The second DNA eventually is 'begotten' from the first as the same type of cell and is exactly like the first with all it's strengths and weaknesses; the second cell is the exact image of the first cell. One is the original cell and the other is the begotten cell exactly like the first one but not the first one. Many verses come to mind like, if you have seen me you have seen the Father…or Jesus saying that He has come out from the Father, or everything that the Father has, He has given the Son and all that the Son has the Father has as well…and more. Anyway, this is all just a metaphor and imperfect at that but it is God who designed this type of reproduction. If the Father always existed as the Father, then the Son would have been always existent within Him (sorta like the second through fourth picture of the cell reproductive phases) or else He would have been just a potential Father at one point (sorta like the first picture with only one set of DNA).

Also, I want to mention that the 'Word of the Lord' was acknowledged as having a presence that appeared to men in the OT. The Jews write of this presence in the Targums. They worshiped this presence which they called 'the Word of the Lord' and would substitute that title in the OT when the original Hebrew said YHVH and that YHVH appeared to them or spoke to them. I have some of that info here which I had just been able to spend a little time with developing:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….SF;f=20

Something else about the 'Word of the Lord,' when John wrote that the Word was in the beginning with God, the Jews had already become very familiar with that expression because the Targums make that clear. That 'Word' was the presence that appeared to their forefathers and spoke to them at times in the OT.

John 1:1 says that the word 'was with' God and that verb 'was' is written in the active voice in Greek which means that the subject actively existed. A plan can't actively exist or do anything. So, I have no reason to think that the Word of the Lord was only a plan until the conception in Mary, sorry. In fact, I have every reason to think that the Word of the Lord (the Son) actively existed eternally. The mystery plan that existed before the ages was the plan that there would be a Messiah sent in the future who would be slain.

If you don't want me to address you here, that's fine. I will just address your views. You do not have to feel like you have to respond, ok?

You asked if I have a problem with Gene's views…like I said, I don't believe that the Son was only a plan before Mary. I also believe that satan is a real being unlike Gene. I don't think that he believes satan is real. I'm not sure how he phrases it anymore though. I have discussed this with him some but I have mainly been discussing things with others that believe at least in the pre-existence of Christ.

I can relate to you because I have been on a similar path and that started 20 years ago. I have learned a lot since then and I am very thankful for the path and I am sharing with you some of the main things that I have learned. The Son is a literal offspring of God who was likely begotten on day one of creation, and has eternal nature and all that goes with divine nature like His Father.

God bless, I don't expect to hear from you in this thread again but I just wanted to tell you this. Feel free to respond or not. Thanks for 'listening.'

[AndrewAD]

Hi Kathy and thanks for your kind response,
I appreciate you relating to where I am at in my theology at this point.As I related to you in one of my responses in the Divider of Christians thread I feel we see some things similarly to the which you responded that we”unfortunately don't”Perhaps I haven't or don't relate my thinking clearly and as I've admitted I don't pretend to understand everything clearly.But I do pray and believe that the Lord is guiding me and has a plan,that is active or actively working by His Spirit in my life.If I'm wrong in whatever area of my belief I pray the Lord to correct me and show me the truth.As Christians I believe that we have an unction or anointing from God that will lead us into all truth and we have no need for anyone to teach us if we abide in Him.1 Jn 2:27  The problem is when we choose to accept teachings of men as or above the Word of God and don't actively search the scriptures to see if what they say is true.By not doing so we can be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine,become confused,discouraged and find ourselves no longer abiding in Him.I for one have been guilty of this and this has been the majority of my”Christian”experience.

Quote

John 1:1 says that the word 'was with' God and that verb 'was' is written in the active voice in Greek which means that the subject actively existed. A plan can't actively exist or do anything. So, I have no reason to think that the Word of the Lord was only a plan until the conception in Mary, sorry. In fact, I have every reason to think that the Word of the Lord (the Son) actively existed eternally. The mystery plan that existed before the ages was the plan that there would be a Messiah sent in the future who would be slain.

I agree with you here except,the Word of the LORD,the logos,the plan of salvation was always active and being revealed in the OT in the various types and shadows of Christ from Genesis to Malachi.All the histories,covenants,and prophecies relate to Christ and man's redemption.The mystery of Christ and His sacrifice was always unfolding and became flesh when Christ was begotten Jn1:14,or was manifest for us 1 Pet1:10-12,20-25.
John 5:37
And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
I copied this verse from your thread on the targums and as it says the Father testified of the Son in the OT and the OT scriptures actually testify about Christ-this I see as the active plan of redemption unfolding.I take notice that Jesus doesn't say I testified of myself in the OT,but the Father testified concerning me.
Or Heb 4:12,13 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.
The author of Hebrews writes in this context of the OT story of Joshua leading Israel to the promised land and David speaking of a yet future day of rest.The Word of Gods salvation was living and active by His spirit in the OT looking forward to Christ's coming as it is now living and active since Christs redemptive work,except we have a better covenant enacted on better promises.
By saying you believe Christ was begotten on day one as Tertullian then I would agree with the trins that you're taking an Arian view as-there was a time when he was not.Even the term only begotten God was a verse the Arians used at Nicea to present Christ as a lesser God,which the Athanasians opposed in favor of only begotten Son.It's true that many of the early church fathers aren't in agreement with Nicea or the later creeds but some were made saints anyway like Justin and Irenaeus.It was some of the thought of the early fathers that led to the later trinity doctrine though.I find the writings of the early fathers interesting but they were men influenced by modern thought as we and what they say must be weighed against God's word as well.
As per your DNA topic,as far as I can tell without much thought or study I agree with it in the sense Christ came out or forth from God Jn16:27-30,or Jn17:8.As in Heb7:5-10 Levi existed in the loins of his father so Christ did in Father Gods but in a much more personal way.
As far as Gene goes I don't know what he or anyone here believes on everything but I do believe in a literal satan based on scripture and experience.
My firm belief is that there always was and still is only one God in heaven,not two or three.Jesus Christ always existed in God even before day one of creation but wasn't “begotten” until he became flesh.
Isa 44:24 Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
God bless you too Kathi!

[Lightenup]

Thanks Andrew, I will address this but now I have a hot date with my hot boyfriend (husband of 31 years)

[AndrewAD]

That's awesome-congratulations!-on thirty one years. Hope you had a great date!
I was married for five years and have a thirteen year old daughter who lives with me.My ex-wife calls herself an atheist now and is basically anti-Christianity.But I still care for her and am praying for her.

[Lightenup]

Thanks Andrew, 31 years and 5 kids is sort of rare these days I guess. We made a covenant before God and don't want to break it for anything. Funny, while at the movie on our date, we saw a preview of a movie that we are in with Harrison Ford…that was a first. Here is the preview:

Enjoy your daughter…13 is an interesting age, isn't it

[Lightenup]

Quote (AndrewAD @ Oct. 13 2012,17:21)

Hi Kathy and thanks for your kind response, I appreciate you relating to where I am at in my theology at this point.As I related to you in one of my responses in the Divider of Christians thread I feel we see some things similarly to the which you responded that we”unfortunately don't”Perhaps I haven't or don't relate my thinking clearly and as I've admitted I don't pretend to understand everything clearly.But I do pray and believe that the Lord is guiding me and has a plan,that is active or actively working by His Spirit in my life.If I'm wrong in whatever area of my belief I pray the Lord to correct me and show me the truth.As Christians I believe that we have an unction or anointing from God that will lead us into all truth and we have no need for anyone to teach us if we abide in Him.1 Jn 2:27  The problem is when we choose to accept teachings of men as or above the Word of God and don't actively search the scriptures to see if what they say is true.By not doing so we can be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine,become confused,discouraged and find ourselves no longer abiding in Him.I for one have been guilty of this and this has been the majority of my”Christian”experience. Quote John 1:1 says that the word 'was with' God and that verb 'was' is written in the active voice in Greek which means that the subject actively existed. A plan can't actively exist or do anything. So, I have no reason to think that the Word of the Lord was only a plan until the conception in Mary, sorry. In fact, I have every reason to think that the Word of the Lord (the Son) actively existed eternally. The mystery plan that existed before the ages was the plan that there would be a Messiah sent in the future who would be slain. I agree with you here except,the Word of the LORD,the logos,the plan of salvation was always active and being revealed in the OT in the various types and shadows of Christ from Genesis to Malachi.All the histories,covenants,and prophecies relate to Christ and man's redemption.The mystery of Christ and His sacrifice was always unfolding and became flesh when Christ was begotten Jn1:14,or was manifest for us 1 Pet1:10-12,20-25. John 5:37 And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life. I copied this verse from your thread on the targums and as it says the Father testified of the Son in the OT and the OT scriptures actually testify about Christ-this I see as the active plan of redemption unfolding.I take notice that Jesus doesn't say I testified of myself in the OT,but the Father testified concerning me. Or Heb 4:12,13 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. The author of Hebrews writes in this context of the OT story of Joshua leading Israel to the promised land and David speaking of a yet future day of rest.The Word of Gods salvation was living and active by His spirit in the OT looking forward to Christ's coming as it is now living and active since Christs redemptive work,except we have a better covenant enacted on better promises. By saying you believe Christ was begotten on day one as Tertullian then I would agree with the trins that you're taking an Arian view as-there was a time when he was not.Even the term only begotten God was a verse the Arians used at Nicea to present Christ as a lesser God,which the Athanasians opposed in favor of only begotten Son.It's true that many of the early church fathers aren't in agreement with Nicea or the later creeds but some were made saints anyway like Justin and Irenaeus.It was some of the thought of the early fathers that led to the later trinity doctrine though.I find the writings of the early fathers interesting but they were men influenced by modern thought as we and what they say must be weighed against God's word as well. As per your DNA topic,as far as I can tell without much thought or study I agree with it in the sense Christ came out or forth from God Jn16:27-30,or Jn17:8.As in Heb7:5-10 Levi existed in the loins of his father so Christ did in Father Gods but in a much more personal way. As far as Gene goes I don't know what he or anyone here believes on everything but I do believe in a literal satan based on scripture and experience. My firm belief is that there always was and still is only one God in heaven,not two or three.Jesus Christ always existed in God even before day one of creation but wasn't “begotten” until he became flesh. Isa 44:24 Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; God bless you too Kathi!

Hi Andrew,
You are welcome, thanks for your reply
you said:

Quote

I appreciate you relating to where I am at in my theology at this point.As I related to you in one of my responses in the Divider of Christians thread I feel we see some things similarly to the which you responded that we”unfortunately don't”Perhaps I haven't or don't relate my thinking clearly and as I've admitted I don't pretend to understand everything clearly.But I do pray and believe that the Lord is guiding me and has a plan,that is active or actively working by His Spirit in my life.If I'm wrong in whatever area of my belief I pray the Lord to correct me and show me the truth.As Christians I believe that we have an unction or anointing from God that will lead us into all truth and we have no need for anyone to teach us if we abide in Him.1 Jn 2:27 The problem is when we choose to accept teachings of men as or above the Word of God and don't actively search the scriptures to see if what they say is true.By not doing so we can be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine,become confused,discouraged and find ourselves no longer abiding in Him.I for one have been guilty of this and this has been the majority of my”Christian”experience.

I agree with much of that. We do see some things similarly but the differences would make you be the one who was called a heretic in that Nicene doctrine with the anathema.

Quote

I agree with you here except,the Word of the LORD,the logos,the plan of salvation was always active and being revealed in the OT in the various types and shadows of Christ from Genesis to Malachi.All the histories,covenants,and prophecies relate to Christ and man's redemption.The mystery o f Christ and His sacrifice was always unfolding and became flesh when Christ was begotten Jn1:14,or was manifest for us 1 Pet1:10-12,20-25. John 5:37

Was the Word of the LORD active and being revealed as the YHWH who was talking to Abraham in Gen 18?

When was the Word of the LORD revealed, for instance, but was not also the Son but the one that became the Son in the OT?

Quote

By saying you believe Christ was begotten on day one as Tertullian then I would agree with the trins that you're taking an Arian view as-there was a time when he was not.Even the term only begotten God was a verse the Arians used at Nicea to present Christ as a lesser God,which the Athanasians opposed in favor of only begotten Son.

Not if begotten means 'brought forth' that which was always within. Then the Son would have eternal nature like His Father, yet still a son.

Quote

I find the writings of the early fathers interesting but they were men influenced by modern thought as we and what they say must be weighed against God's word as well.

Absolutely!

Quote

As per your DNA topic,as far as I can tell without much thought or study I agree with it in the sense Christ came out or forth from God Jn16:27-30,or Jn17:8.As in Heb7:5-10 Levi existed in the loins of his father so Christ did in Father Gods but in a much more personal way.

Well, we agree that Christ was existed before He came forth/was begotten, so that's good.

[QUOTEMy firm belief is that there always was and still is only one God in heaven,not two or three.Jesus Christ always existed in God even before day one of creation but wasn't “begotten” until he became flesh.][/QUOTE]

So who or what was the God with God in John 1:1. Do you believe the Word was God? If the Word that was God was with God, that would make two.

Quote

Isa 44:24 Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

The Father reveals the Son as the one that stretcheth out the heavens in Heb 1.

Who is the 'you' identified as in this passage:

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.”

10And,
“YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH,
AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;

11THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN;
AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT,

12AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP;
LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED.
BUT YOU ARE THE SAME,
AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END.”

[Author]

Posts