- This topic has 1,826 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 04 2011,16:05) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 04 2011,15:05) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 04 2011,13:16) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 05 2011,03:43) Quote (Istari @ Jan. 04 2011,08:38) Ok, Worshipping Jesus, I apologise for my ADHOMINEM (What is that anyway?)
Please can you just answer the following questions:
Quote Worshipping Jesus, please indulge me one more time… If Jesus is the Son of god from Eternity…how did he become the Son…
For there to be a father – there has to be a Son.
First the MAN then the Father at the conception of the Son…
So the MAN must have existed before becoming a Father…yet Trinity says the Son always existed…please explain, thank you.I look forward to your early response (or just whenever!) but an answer no less – I am intrigued as to your reply – excited even….
Thank you.
IstariApoology accepted! However once again do you require that I only answer your questions and you not answer mine?
But I will answer you again.
You do know that in scriptures not all Sons were Sons by conception right? Also not all Sons were first born Sons by conception.
But even so, if Jesus is the “Only Begotten Son of God” by conception, would he be anything less than God in nature or would he be a “freak of nature”, a demi-god if you will?
Human Fathers beget Human Sons that are in every way human like their Fathers.
Therefore the divine part of Jesus born from the Father is in every way God like his Father.
Now what do you do with the scriptures that call Jesus God?
Is the term Son of God antithetical to the term God? If so, in what way?
Blessings WJ
Hi WJ,You sound very much like a Catholic, why don't you go all the way with this 'idea'
and say that Mary was the mother of God (as they do); and if not, why not? …Please explain?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EDIf you notice the words “Even so” in other words “if” I believed Jesus is “Born from the Father by conception” then how could he not be in nature God since like begets like?
However I do not believe Jesus was born by conception except through the incarnation. I believe that he was “Eternally Begotten” from the Father without a beginning which is what most of the early Church Fathers believed and what I believe the scriptures teach.
Blessings WJ
Hi Keith,
He may not of been born by 'conception' and I never said that he was or meant to say that, but you imply that being a literal Son of God, he wouldn't be less than God in nature or a demi-god. And, that the divine part of Jesus born from the Father is in every way God like His Father.Also, the term 'eternally begotten' was understood differently by early church fathers than how you understand it as far as I can tell. The majority that I have read, understand that the essence that was begotten was eternal but that the act of the begetting happened during eternity, before the ages. The essence had no beginning, the act of begetting had a beginning…before creation. The Son wasn't always begotten.
KathiI don't think you are correct in your opinion as I have shown you the early Nicene Creed and many of the Fathers clearly said that Jesus did not have a beginning and to say so was anathema.
I still hold to the Athanasian Creed which clearly does not allow for the interpretaion of the Son as having a beginnig and they were church Fathers too.
Blessings Keith
Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 04 2011,12:57) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 04 2011,11:43) Quote (Istari @ Jan. 04 2011,08:38) Ok, Worshipping Jesus, I apologise for my ADHOMINEM (What is that anyway?)
Please can you just answer the following questions:
Quote Worshipping Jesus, please indulge me one more time… If Jesus is the Son of god from Eternity…how did he become the Son…
For there to be a father – there has to be a Son.
First the MAN then the Father at the conception of the Son…
So the MAN must have existed before becoming a Father…yet Trinity says the Son always existed…please explain, thank you.I look forward to your early response (or just whenever!) but an answer no less – I am intrigued as to your reply – excited even….
Thank you.
IstariApoology accepted! However once again do you require that I only answer your questions and you not answer mine?
But I will answer you again.
You do know that in scriptures not all Sons were Sons by conception right? Also not all Sons were first born Sons by conception.
But even so, if Jesus is the “Only Begotten Son of God” by conception, would he be anything less than God in nature or would he be a “freak of nature”, a demi-god if you will?
Human Fathers beget Human Sons that are in every way human like their Fathers.
Therefore the divine part of Jesus born from the Father is in every way God like his Father.
Now what do you do with the scriptures that call Jesus God?
Is the term Son of God antithetical to the term God? If so, in what way?
Blessings WJ
Hi Keith,
Bravo!
KathiBTW Thanks! I thought you might like this post!
Blessings Keith
SimplyForgiven
Group: Regular Members
Posts: 1885
Joined: May 2010 Posted: Jan. 05 2011,04:59sorry sf, one man girl, like to know who i am dealing with, with the assurance i am only speaking to him.
the conversation of how we choose our mates you missed, it is a subject Stuart and i have discussed and agree.much is involved with how we choose our mates, smell, sight, health, culture, beliefs. for you to even to lift your nose my way, would be of no use, due to your belief, i would never know who i was talking to at the time, you could be either in the jesus, god or the holy ghost mood, too crowded for me.
anything else you have to add?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 05 2011,03:43) Quote (Istari @ Jan. 04 2011,08:38) Ok, Worshipping Jesus, I apologise for my ADHOMINEM (What is that anyway?)
Please can you just answer the following questions:
Quote Worshipping Jesus, please indulge me one more time… If Jesus is the Son of god from Eternity…how did he become the Son…
For there to be a father – there has to be a Son.
First the MAN then the Father at the conception of the Son…
So the MAN must have existed before becoming a Father…yet Trinity says the Son always existed…please explain, thank you.I look forward to your early response (or just whenever!) but an answer no less – I am intrigued as to your reply – excited even….
Thank you.
IstariApoology accepted! However once again do you require that I only answer your questions and you not answer mine?
But I will answer you again.
You do know that in scriptures not all Sons were Sons by conception right? Also not all Sons were first born Sons by conception.
But even so, if Jesus is the “Only Begotten Son of God” by conception, would he be anything less than God in nature or would he be a “freak of nature”, a demi-god if you will?
Human Fathers beget Human Sons that are in every way human like their Fathers.
Therefore the divine part of Jesus born from the Father is in every way God like his Father.
Now what do you do with the scriptures that call Jesus God?
Is the term Son of God antithetical to the term God? If so, in what way?
Blessings WJ
WorshippingJesus,Quote But I will answer you again.
When you say “I will answer you again” do you realise that you have never answered me before…This part you have never answered before…which was the part you should have been answering from the beginning. You chose to respond to the PREMISE in the first part and never moved on till just now – so how can you say that you answered me before?Quote But even so, if Jesus is the “Only Begotten Son of God” by conception, would he be anything less than God in nature or would he be a “freak of nature”, a demi-god if you will?
WorshippingJesus, (can I call you “WJ”, I'm getting tired writing “WorshippingJesus”) how did you get onto “Only Begotten Son of God” by conception?
I thought my question was to do with Jesus becoming the Son of God from Eternity?Quote Human Fathers beget Human Sons that are in every way human like their Fathers.
I did not mention anything to do with HUMAN Procreation. It appears you are trying to equate God giving birth to Jesus in the same way that HUMANs give birth to children. This is wrong in two ways:
1) If anything at all, it would be HUMANS being said to give birth like God gives birth – not God gives birth like humans. This would be like giving God the benefit of HUMAN reproduction…
2) God Creates – Humans Procreate. Not quite the same thing.Quote Therefore the divine part of Jesus born from the Father is in every way God like his Father.
WJ, are you talking again about Jesus born of Mary? Seems so.
WJ, I was talking of Jesus BECOMING a SON of God from Eternity.So, i don't feel that you have answered any of my questions.
I will return to them later.Quote Now what do you do with the scriptures that call Jesus God?
WJ, there are Scriptures that refer to Jesus as 'God' as has been pointed out many times to you – why do you ask me?
Anyway, These verses are not inferring that Jesus is God Almighty but 'a God', as in 'A Mighty ONE', a HERO, 'A Man of Renown', 'A Great One'.Isaiah says that Jesus “SHALL BE CALLED 'Mighty GOD'”. What does 'SHALL BE' mean to you? Does it imply 'Not as yet'?
God ALMIGHTY said to David in prophecy of Jesus,”Thy Throne 'O GOD'…”. So if God Almighty was calling Jesus “O GOD” meaning Jesus was God, then he would also have been calling David “O GOD” meaning that David was God, too.
God ALMIGHTY called Moses “God”, ' And though shalt be as a GOD to your brethren Aaron”. Yet we know that God Almighty was not saying that Moses was “Another God” or “a Human God” or “a So-Called God” for Paul also says (1 Corin 8:5) “as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”)”. But that it means that Moses would pass on the WORD of God directly FROM God as if it were God himself speaking through the mouth of Moses (As Moses professed to have a speech impediment)
And Jesus himself, when confronted by the Jews who accused him of blasphemy, replied “WHAT OF IT….that I call myself SON OF GOD” (He did not say “I am GOD” but “I am the Son of God” and further…”What of it”!?!)
Jesus went on to explain “Did God [ALMIGHTY]…”, (Why didn't he say “I”?), “…not call then 'gods' unto whom the word of GOD [ALMIGHTY] came?”
Here, the Jews accused him, in their error, of saying he was God Almighty. If they had not been in error why did Jesus correct them by pointing out that other were called 'god' by God Almighty himself – and we just saw the immediate example of Moses. But it is greater than Moses, the meaning is “SONS OF GOD, as Jesus pointed out “WHAT IF I SAY I AM THE SON OF GOD” – note: SON OF GOD…A SON OF GOD is ANYONE who carries out the will of god and is SINLESS IN THE EYES OF GOD (Not the eyes of Man!) So, Abraham, Jacob, JOB, David, Daniel, Isaac, Solomon, some of the Prophets,…many others…Jesus – these all were partakers of the “Word of God”.
What does it mean to you, WJ: that which Jesus spoke in his defence?Quote Is the term Son of God antithetical to the term God? If so, in what way?
WJ, again, why do you ask me this question that has nothing to do with what I asked you. Your question – is ANTITHETICAL to what we are discussing.
“SON OF GOD” means:
1) ANYONE WHO WALKS IN THE WAY OF GOD
2) ANYONE WHO RECEIVES THE WORD OF GOD
3) ANYONE WHO HAS A MEASURE OF THE SPIRIT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS IN THEM.
Jesus is “The only BEGO
TTEN” Son of god at this time for only he has the full measure of the Holy Spirit in him – given to him by the father of grace – God Almighty.
But Scriptures tells us that many more from Mankind will become “Begotten of God” in time to come – namely the Patriachs, the Disciple and Apostles and the Saints, in fact 144,000 of them. They will be like Christ, HEIRS to God, SONS OF GOD, Brothers with CHRIST.Quote Blessings WJ Quote
Thank you.WJ,
Here are the questions I would like you to answer, please:If Jesus is the Son of god from Eternity…how did he become the Son…
Quote For there to be a father – there has to be a Son.
First the MAN then the Father at the conception of the Son…
So the MAN must have existed before becoming a Father…yet Trinity says the Son always existed…please explain, thank you.I am asking how Jesus became the Son of God from ETERNITY yet Trinity says that the Son always Existed.
The PERSON cannot be a Father unless HE has a Son (There is no conceptual Father if there is no conceptual Son!)
Therefore, BEFORE the SON existed and therefore the Person became a Father – there was NO Father because there was no Son.Further, Trinity says “Jesus is the SON OF GOD”.
It does not say that Jesus is “the Son of the Father”
BUT Since Father and Son are paternally linked this is a given.
But then there is a dilemma:
GOD (ALMIGHTY) is the Father of Jesus – but then so is the Father!!!
Jesus is the SON of God (ALMIGHTY) – and – the Son of the Father!!!
The Holy spirit is the Spirit of the Father – and – the Spirit of God Almighty???——————————
God (ALMIGHTY?)
——————————
^ ^ ^
/ | \
/ | \
| | |
| | |
V V V
The } <—–> { The } The
SON } { FATHER } <—-> HOLY SPIRITQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 04 2011,16:59) Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 04 2011,16:05) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 04 2011,15:05) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 04 2011,13:16) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 05 2011,03:43) Quote (Istari @ Jan. 04 2011,08:38) Ok, Worshipping Jesus, I apologise for my ADHOMINEM (What is that anyway?)
Please can you just answer the following questions:
Quote Worshipping Jesus, please indulge me one more time… If Jesus is the Son of god from Eternity…how did he become the Son…
For there to be a father – there has to be a Son.
First the MAN then the Father at the conception of the Son…
So the MAN must have existed before becoming a Father…yet Trinity says the Son always existed…please explain, thank you.I look forward to your early response (or just whenever!) but an answer no less – I am intrigued as to your reply – excited even….
Thank you.
IstariApoology accepted! However once again do you require that I only answer your questions and you not answer mine?
But I will answer you again.
You do know that in scriptures not all Sons were Sons by conception right? Also not all Sons were first born Sons by conception.
But even so, if Jesus is the “Only Begotten Son of God” by conception, would he be anything less than God in nature or would he be a “freak of nature”, a demi-god if you will?
Human Fathers beget Human Sons that are in every way human like their Fathers.
Therefore the divine part of Jesus born from the Father is in every way God like his Father.
Now what do you do with the scriptures that call Jesus God?
Is the term Son of God antithetical to the term God? If so, in what way?
Blessings WJ
Hi WJ,You sound very much like a Catholic, why don't you go all the way with this 'idea'
and say that Mary was the mother of God (as they do); and if not, why not? …Please explain?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
EDIf you notice the words “Even so” in other words “if” I believed Jesus is “Born from the Father by conception” then how could he not be in nature God since like begets like?
However I do not believe Jesus was born by conception except through the incarnation. I believe that he was “Eternally Begotten” from the Father without a beginning which is what most of the early Church Fathers believed and what I believe the scriptures teach.
Blessings WJ
Hi Keith,
He may not of been born by 'conception' and I never said that he was or meant to say that, but you imply that being a literal Son of God, he wouldn't be less than God in nature or a demi-god. And, that the divine part of Jesus born from the Father is in every way God like His Father.Also, the term 'eternally begotten' was understood differently by early church fathers than how you understand it as far as I can tell. The majority that I have read, understand that the essence that was begotten was eternal but that the act of the begetting happened during eternity, before the ages. The essence had no beginning, the act of begetting had a beginning…before creation. The Son wasn't always begotten.
KathiI don't think you are correct in your opinion as I have shown you the early Nicene Creed and many of the Fathers clearly said that Jesus did not have a beginning and to say so was anathema.
I still hold to the Athanasian Creed which clearly does not allow for the interpretaion of the Son as having a beginnig and they were church Fathers too.
Blessings Keith
Hi Keith,
Well, I would definitely say that the early church fathers and the creeds wouldn't have used the term 'begotten before the ages' if they didn't consider Him 'not yet begotten' prior to that? Otherwise they would have used the term 'unbegotten' as they did regarding the Father.Kathi,
yet the creeds say that Jesus is “The Son”.
– From where does a Son come but from a father
and
– From where does a father come but at the conception of a Son.So, before there was a Son, there was no father.
And A father cannot be except by a Son.So, before the Father-and-the-Son there was Neither.
There was only God ALMIGHTY and HIS Holy Spirit!
So Kathi,
The FATHER — IS —- God Almighty, not whatever it is that Keith says – some OverArching Covering Body….that includes Father , son and Holy Spirit.
See Kathi, nothing that Trinity says can reconcile the scriptures to itself – because it isn't true.
Who says what in Scriptures; Is it Jesus, is it GOD? is it the father – Who Who Who…?
Lets play Scrabble – that's what Trinity says…pick your own ideas…
Jesus is SON OF GOD – SON OF GOD – which God? The Holy Spirit, the Father, God, or HIMSELF – for he, JESUS is ALSO GOD?
Jesus IS HIS OWN GOD for HE IS GOD? Then HE is HIS OWN FATHER – FOR HE, JESUS, IS GOD and GOD is HIS FATHER, so HE, Jesus IS his own SON, Jesus is his own Son for Jesus IS GOD and Jesus is the SON OF GOD…!Kathi,
You see, when Constantine devised the trinity creed he had no idea that it would last. He thought it would just about do to quell the fighting between the two Christian beliefs. And that's all he wanted…Roman rulers hated uprisings because the Roman Senators would just send someone else to take over in the provinces.
Constantine devised this quick fix but it was a leaking seive….how to fill all the holes in the trinity…A sticking plaster “BUT THESE ARE NOT THREE GODS BUT ONE”.
That was the sticking plaster – and it worked for the first few centuries…
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 05 2011,03:08) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 03 2011,22:31) No matter which way you choose to believe, one thing is ABUNDANTLY clear. And that is that this “ONLY ONE TRUE GOD” is THE FATHER. It is not the Son who is called the “ONLY ONE TRUE GOD”, is it? No, of course not. So if it is the FATHER, and NOT the Son who is SPECIFICALLY NAMED as this “ONLY ONE TRUE GOD”, then you have a choice to make. Is the Son a “usurper”, “imposter”, “false god”…………or is he a god/powerful ruler who just doesn't happen to be the “only God who is truly the God of all other gods”?
Exactly MikeJesus has to be “The True God” because the Apostles call him God even with the Definite article, and because the scriptures say there is “Only One True God”. We know he can’t be a false god or imposter don’t we?
Hi Keith,This is kind of pointless, don't you think? You have clearly admitted that THE FATHER is “THE ONLY ONE TRUE GOD”. And you are in agreement with scripture when you admit this, so all is good.
Now, you can either agree with Dennison that Jesus IS the Father, or you can agree with scripture that Jesus is the SON of the “ONLY ONE TRUE GOD”.You say, “but the Apostles call Jesus by the title 'god'!” (paraphrase)
2 Kings 24 NIV
17 [Nebuchadnezzar] made Mattaniah, Jehoiachin’s uncle, king in his place and changed his name to Zedekiah.18 Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem eleven years.
Keith, during these 11 years, Nebuchadnezzar was the “ONLY ONE TRUE HUMAN KING” of Judah. But that doesn't mean that Zedekiah was an “imposter”, “usurper” or “false king”. He was a real live king of Jerusalem at the time, and had much power in Jerusalem. But Nebuchadnezzar was the “ONLY ONE TRUE KING” of Jerusalem at the time. And even so, at that same exact time, YHVH God was really the “ONLY ONE TRUE KING” of Jersalem!
Keith, your argument wouldn't be so lame were there not SO MANY mentions of others with the TITLE of “god” in the scriptures. But there are. And we both know that “god” means “powerful ruler”. So for you to claim that the powerful rulers that YHVH Himself called “gods” were not really what YHVH called them is to call Him a liar. To say that Satan is not a powerful ruler when the inspired words of scripture call him “the god of this age”, is to call the One who inspired the scriptures a liar. And to say that Jesus is not a powerful ruler when YHVH Himself says he would be called “mighty god” also makes YHVH a liar.
On the other hand, to assume that Jesus is God Almighty because he is called by the title of “god”, is to assume that Satan and the ones whom YHVH called “gods” are also God Almighty.
You can keep pretending you don't understand what Jesus and Paul meant if you want to. But I think deep down in your heart, you know that “ONLY TRUE GOD” is saying YHVH is the God OF all other gods. Just like when Nebuchadnezzar is called the “King of kings”, it could also have been said that he was the “ONLY TRUE KING”, because he was ABOVE all the other kings, making his word mean more than all the other kings combined.
The arrangement Jesus has with our “ONLY TRUE GOD, THE FATHER” is similar to the one Zedekiah had with Nebuchadnezzar. Zedekiah wasn't a “fake” king, but he had a king over and above himself, who could be called the “real” king or the “true” king of Jersusalem.
1 Samuel 8 NIV
6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”
So Saul was ANOINTED BY GOD HIMSELF as king of Israel. But we know that God is the “ONLY ONE TRUE KING” of everyone and everything everywhere, right? Does this mean that Saul was a “usurper”, “imposter” or “false king”? Or does it just mean that although he was a REAL, TRUE king, he wasn't the the One who was “the great King over all the earth”? (Psalm 47:2)
peace and love,
mikeHi Istari,
Perhaps the Father that is also God Almighty can bring to Himself a literal Son by a process that is unimaginable to us. We aren't told what the process of begetting a Son before the ages was like.
Also, we can consider the Almighty God as being the Creator even before anything was created because nothing changed within Him so that He became able to create. He was always Almighty God before there was anything to be God of. He was always the Father of the Son because the essence of the Son always existed. He was the Father of a yet begotten Son and then became the Father of a begotten Son…before the ages. He was the Creator of a yet created world and then became the Creator of the existing world. Before and after He was still the Creator.
Before anything existed He was Almighty God but creation was not there to be Almighty God to.
Before the Son was begotten, the Father was God the Father because the Son was always yet to be begotten within the Father…the Son's essence had no beginning. He was begotten to express the Father. No need to be begotten when there was no one to express the Father to.Quote (Istari @ Jan. 04 2011,19:46) So Kathi, The FATHER — IS —- God Almighty, not whatever it is that Keith says – some OverArching Covering Body….that includes Father , son and Holy Spirit.
See Kathi, nothing that Trinity says can reconcile the scriptures to itself – because it isn't true.
Who says what in Scriptures; Is it Jesus, is it GOD? is it the father – Who Who Who…?
Lets play Scrabble – that's what Trinity says…pick your own ideas…
Jesus is SON OF GOD – SON OF GOD – which God? The Holy Spirit, the Father, God, or HIMSELF – for he, JESUS is ALSO GOD?
Jesus IS HIS OWN GOD for HE IS GOD? Then HE is HIS OWN FATHER – FOR HE, JESUS, IS GOD and GOD is HIS FATHER, so HE, Jesus IS his own SON, Jesus is his own Son for Jesus IS GOD and Jesus is the SON OF GOD…!
Istari,
An understanding of the one true God as the unbegotten God, the Father, and one Lord as the begotten God, and both of them are of the same essence/nature has given me peace with those matters you ask about. One is just like the other except one being unbegotten/never begotten and the other being not yet begotten/then begotten before the ages.kathi, Kathi…this is heartfeltness…
One cannot say that the SON existed because God thought of him before he created him.
If so then you would have to agree with Gene.
Before there was a Son – Before there was a Father – because you cannot have a Father without a Son – nor a Son without a Father.
Therefore – before a Son, Before a Father – There was NO SON and, ipso facto: No Father!
Therefore – ONLY GOD and His Holy Spirit.
When God created a SON then he ALSO at the same time BECAME a Father.
But the TRINITY CREED cannot reconcile this because it makes GOD…the Father of Jesus —-AND – it Makes the Father, the Father of Jesus!!
Jesus IS the SON of GOD
AND
Jesus is the SON of the FATHERSo then,
Where did the father come from to be the father of the SON?
Where did the PERSON who BECAME THE FATHER to the SON come from – what is his NAME or TITLE?See, Kathi, It does't work?
Who is the Person who BECAME the FATHER to the SON?
It wasn't GOD (According to the WJ's Creed) because GOD is just (according to the Creed) a epheral overarching body umbrellaring 'the Father, son and holy Spirit. God is not a PERSON (According to WJ) but a covering Title body…So where was the FATHER BEFORE there was a SON for him to be a FATHER too?
I'm not asking for an answer – unless you have one – I'm showing the absurdity of the Trinity Creed!!
Istari,
I agree with you that the trinity doctrine seems to indicate a triune God encompassing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That has not set well with me either.In my recent post to you, I didn't mean to indicate that the Son was a 'thought' of the Father's before He was begotten. I will give you a word picture…when you see a woman with a baby inside of her, she is a mother and the baby is a son or daughter yet-to-be begotten but nevertheless, whether begotten or yet-to-be begotten, the woman is a mother and the baby is her son or daughter. So I am drawing a parallel with the Father and saying that until the Son was begotten before the ages, the Father was always 'expecting,' in a unique way, the Son that existed within Him. Then, at some point before creation, that Son became begotten/brought forth and was used to create creation through and represent the Father to that creation and then make a way to return mankind to the Father and He will sit on the throne of God forever with His Father.
That is the simplest way I can explain the Son that always existed as a Son and the Father who always existed as a Father, yet they are truly a Son and a Father and also both eternal. I hope that helps you understand me.
No Kathi,
The WOMAN is NOT a MOTHER until she 'drops' the Child.
The woman is a 'Potential Mother' – said as “To be WITH CHILD”. It is SENTIMENT that makes us say “She is a Mother”…we are not dealing with human SENTIMENT here…
The Man is not a Father until the child is born – See, we say “How is the FATHER-TO-BE” because men aren't fussy but to a woman we say “How is the Mother” (On a rare occasion someone might 'slip' and say “Mother-to-be”) because women are sensitive.No, see you even say “The Father was 'Expecting'”.
no, WHO WAS this Person who was the “Expectant Father”…please give him a name – please…
And therefore – who is GOD then?And Kathi, BEFORE THE FATHER BECAME A FATHER AND THERE WAS NO SON Who was in Heaven? Who but God and His Holy Spirit – ALONE.
Where was the TRINITY? Yet Trinity say they ALWAYS EXISTED – see – ANOMALY – doesn't work?Constantines cronies never thought that hard about it – quick fixes never work in the long run…
Kathi, we both working towards an unbreakable cunundrum – keep opposing me with ideas and I will break them – this is good!
Kathi, see I ask WJ two simple questions and it took two pages or ramblings and accusationa and counteraccusations to even get him to look at the questions – and then he asnswered some questions he devised of his own – nothing to do with what I asked him.
So I wrote them out plain again – answering his question to me first – but even as yet he cannot come back to me.Does this sound like someone speaking truth and Istari is speaking false – then how can Istari answer fluently but the '(so-called)TRUTHFUL ONE' cannot answer?
Kathi, Kathi, IMPOSSIBLE “The Son that ALWAYS EXISTED AS A SON and the Father that ALWAYS EXISTED as A FATHER” – come one!!!
To what purpose would there be an EVEREXISTING SON?
How in HEAVENS CAN there be an EVEREXISTING SON.
What would be the POINT of a Subordinate person eminating from the Superior ONE FROM EVERLASTING?
No, Kathi, the SON PROCEEDS from The one who BECOMES HIS FATHER…AND if Proceeding then he cannot have EXISTED FROM ETERNITY…and if he didn't exist FROM ETERNITY then the FATHER cannot have Existed either …oh, wait, don't get me wrong “THE FATHER” not, but the ONE WHO BECAME THE FATHER – yes…but I am asking: WHO IS THAT ONE ? Who WAS HE before he BECAME a FATHER?Kathi, read the Scriptures carefully, THE ETERNAL SON, is pertaining to Jesus as RISEN CHRIST – That is what “ETERNAL SON” is alluding to – After God said (Romans 1:4), “You are my Son, TODAY I have begotten you (I have BECOME YOUR FATHER)…Today I have become YOUR FATHER and i also make you the High Priest in my Temple”.
See kathi, this is when Jesus became the EVERLASTING BEGOTTEN SON of GOD…and who is that God, but “HIS Father”, God Almighty, the Same God Almighty who is JEHOVAH and YHVH and “I AM”, and “GOD MOST HIGH”.More and more Kathi,….more to say much more…
Quote (Istari @ Jan. 04 2011,22:35) No Kathi, The WOMAN is NOT a MOTHER until she 'drops' the Child.
The woman is a 'Potential Mother' – said as “To be WITH CHILD”. It is SENTIMENT that makes us say “She is a Mother”…we are not dealing with human SENTIMENT here…
The Man is not a Father until the child is born – See, we say “How is the FATHER-TO-BE” because men aren't fussy but to a woman we say “How is the Mother” (On a rare occasion someone might 'slip' and say “Mother-to-be”) because women are sensitive.No, see you even say “The Father was 'Expecting'”.
no, WHO WAS this Person who was the “Expectant Father”…please give him a name – please…
And therefore – who is GOD then?And Kathi, BEFORE THE FATHER BECAME A FATHER AND THERE WAS NO SON Who was in Heaven? Who but God and His Holy Spirit – ALONE.
Where was the TRINITY? Yet Trinity say they ALWAYS EXISTED – see – ANOMALY – doesn't work?Constantines cronies never thought that hard about it – quick fixes never work in the long run…
Kathi, we both working towards an unbreakable cunundrum – keep opposing me with ideas and I will break them – this is good!
Istari,This definition says that the woman is a mother even when pregnant and from conception.
moth·er 1 (mr)
n.
1.
a. A female person who is pregnant with or gives birth to a child.
b. A female person whose egg unites with a sperm, resulting in the conception of a child.
c. A woman who adopts a child.
d. A woman who raises a child.Regarding your comments about WJ, or the trinity doctrine, that is not my concern. I hope you understand.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
