- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Thinker,
Apparently you can't say what Peter said because Peter was speaking in present tense, not future tense which your lofty opinion would require.Matt 16:15-17
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
NASUOf course for you to know this, it will hopefully one day be revealed to you too by His Father.
Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 20 2010,09:12) Thinker,
Apparently you can't say what Peter said because Peter was speaking in present tense, not future tense which your lofty opinion would require.Matt 16:15-17
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
NASUOf course for you to know this, it will hopefully one day be revealed to you too by His Father.
Kathi,Peter's confession included the affirmation that Jesus was “the Christ.” Yet Peter Himself said that Jesus became the Christ at His exaltation.
“For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself:
‘ The LORD said to my Lord,
“ Sit at My right hand,
35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”’36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Acts 2:34-36
Peter CLEARLY said that Jesus was made both Lord and “the Christ” at His exaltation.
Therefore, the present indicative “you are,” as in “you are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” indicates that Peter saw that Jesus was indeed the promised one who came to fulfill the scriptures and to become the Christ, the [Mediatorial] Son from the living God.
Kathi:
Quote Of course for you to know this, it will hopefully one day be revealed to you too by His Father.
The scripture knows nothing of Jesus being begotten or firstborn TWICE.thinker
hi TT
Ge 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”you see TT how the devil twist the orders given to Adam ,this start to look as your statement ;
The scripture knows nothing of Jesus being begotten or firstborn TWICE.Thinker,
Maybe someone will come along that is willing to waste their time with you arguing…I choose to spend my time more effectively and hopefully more wisely towards a more deserving discourse.hi LU
YOU RIGHT this is TT quote from his believes;Group: Regular Members
Posts: 4681
Joined: Jan. 2009 Posted: Jan. 12 2010,07:14——————————————————————————–
Quote (gollamudi @ Jan. 12 2010,01:09)
Hi Sis Irene,
The scriptures you often quote on preexistence are age old scriptures often quoted by trinitarians. But at the same these are the scriptures written by biased New Testament writers who believed that Jesus was somebody other than normal human. No one was perfect in the N.T including Paul. See for yourself. These writers composed Jesus according to their understanding and to suit their community.Hope you will also realise the dilemma of our scriptures
Love to you
AdamSEE FOLKS!
The scripture do teach the pre-existence of Jesus. But we should reject the scriptures because they are not inspired but written by biased men.
thinker
Back to top
——————————————————————————–Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 20 2010,10:07) Thinker,
Maybe someone will come along that is willing to waste their time with you arguing…I choose to spend my time more effectively and hopefully more wisely towards a more deserving discourse.
Kathi,God did not reveal Christ's person to Peter in a vacuum. Peter's revelation that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God was based in his eyewitness accounts of the works of Jesus and His teachings about Himself. Add to this that Peter had to compare all that he both saw and heard with the prophetic scriptures in order to arrive at his conclusions about Jesus. The Father did not just “zap” Peter with this knowledge.
Therefore, Peter's belief and his confession was with the anticipation that Jesus would finish the course laid out in the prophetic scriptures and thus fulfill those scriptures. It was on this basis that Peter called Jesus “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” But he knew that Jesus would fulfill the scriptures and consequently be installed as the Christ.
CALLED DOES NOT = INSTALLED….The fulfillment of the scriptures could not be bypassed.
Peter is CLEAR that Jesus was not installed as the Christ UNTIL His exaltation as I have already shown (Acts 2:34-36). And Hebrews chapters 1 & 5 along with Acts 2 & 13 are as equally clear that Jesus was not installed as the officiating Son UNTIL His exaltation. It is at this time that Jesus was “begotten.” The scriptures speak of no other time when the “begetting” occurred. And it speaks of no other “begettings” in a different sense.
So you must be guided by the time frame of the begetting in your definition of the begetting. The term “begotten” has only ONE sense in reference to Jesus and it indicates what Christ is in His official capacity. The term has nothing to do with His ontological being or nature.
Ontologically: Jesus was the eternal Word outside time.
Officially: Jesus became the only begotten Son in time.
Kathi:
Quote I choose to spend my time more effectively and hopefully more wisely towards a more deserving discourse.
You say this every time you get raked over the coals.thinker
No Thinker, I do not say that because I feel like you have raked me over the coals…hardly…dream on. But that statement that you made about the coals is a perfect example of you not taking words for their real meaning but twisting them to fit your arrogant perceptions. Thus, based on my experience with you, I have noticed that you want to argue, I want to discuss. There is a difference. I really would be foolish to spend a good portion of my day merely to follow you around as you misrepresent me and God's word as I would try to untangle the tangled web you have woven for your entertainment. So, I choose to rarely if at all, spend much time on your posts. Life is short and God has called me to be wise about my time.
Better days ahead…
KathiQuote (Lightenup @ Jan. 21 2010,07:58) No Thinker, I do not say that because I feel like you have raked me over the coals…hardly…dream on. But that statement that you made about the coals is a perfect example of you not taking words for their real meaning but twisting them to fit your arrogant perceptions. Thus, based on my experience with you, I have noticed that you want to argue, I want to discuss. There is a difference. I really would be foolish to spend a good portion of my day merely to follow you around as you misrepresent me and God's word as I would try to untangle the tangled web you have woven for your entertainment. So, I choose to rarely if at all, spend much time on your posts. Life is short and God has called me to be wise about my time. Better days ahead…
Kathi
No Kathi. You do not dictate what is the “real” meaning of a word. You cannot ignore the cultural context. Isaac was called Abraham's “only begotten son.” This had no reference at all to Isaac's origin or to his nature. Isaac was not called the “only begotten” UNTIL Ishmael was kicked out of the covenant. Ishamael's being kicked out of the covenant resulted in the name “only begotten son” or “firstborn” being transferred to Isaac.The name had to do with Isaac's office and not his origin. It had sole reference to His position as the mediating son.
The Apostolic scriptures are replete with statements indicating that Christ was “begotten” at His exaltation. There is no evidence at all that this was a second “begetting.” Your theory that Jesus was begotten TWICE is exactly that, a theory.
You think that called = installed. Yes He was called the Son of God before His exaltation. Jesus referred to Himself as the only begotten Son with the full knowledge that He was the one who was ordained to fulfill the scriptures and consequently be installed as such. Make no more mistake about it. He was not begotten in time UNTIL He was installed as the officiating Son.
Before this Jesus was the only begotten Son by decree only just as Isaac. Isaac was not legally the only begotten son until that decree was fulfilled. So Jesus was not legally the only begotten Son until He finished His course and fulfilled the scriptures. It is CLEAR! It was at His exaltation that the Father said, “Today I have begotten You.”
WHAT IS THE “REAL” MEANING OF “TODAY” KATHI?
You teach that God multiplied Himself and literally begat a little god. This is both arrogant and pagan! It is you who is wasting everyone's time!
thinker
Thinker,
Did Jesus also refer to himself as the “High Priest” before he was “installed?” I can't recall that? Dod He go around saying “I am the High Priest?”I believe the real meaning of “today” that you are referring to is the day of His resurrection. I have already told you that. The Son of God as the monogenes theos has no record of a beginning of days. Heb. 7:3
3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.Hi,
Monogenes does not state that Jesus is the ONLY begotten son.
Rather it is closer to meaning unique surely.Nick,
“Mono” means “only”, or “alone”. “Genes” derives from the word “ginomai”, which has as its first definition: to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be,.
The word is used in scripture about 7 times in reference to a parent's only begotten child.
Nick, the newest Trinitarian trend is to claim that “monogenes” doesn't really refer to “only begotten”, because they don't want Jesus to have been begotten by his God. But read the Nicene Creeds. The early church fathers knew what it meant.
(So do the Trinitarian scholars. They just don't LIKE what it means because it causes their God #2 to have a beginning. That's why they are trying to convince people like you that the meaning has recently changed to “unique”.)
Nick, nobody questions the meaning of the “mono” part. Of course it means “ONLY”.
I thought you were falling in with the latest Trinitarian twist that “genes” doesn't refer to bringing something/someone into existence.
No time. If you've got something to say, then just spit it out. Save the riddles for the others here.
Good. Then you are on to me now.
Please remember that the next time you want me to read through an entire thread in an attempt to gleen some unknown thing you are trying to show me.My time is limited, Nick. From now on, just state your case and scripturally support it. If the scriptures indeed support your understanding, you and I will no doubt be in agreement.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
