- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Here, Mike, is an excerpt from the account of the martyrdom of Barsamya, the Bishop of Edessa…
Barsamya said: Thy mind is greatly blinded, O judge, and so also is that of the emperors who gave thee authority; nor are the things that are manifest seen by you; nor do ye perceive that lo! the whole creation worships Christ; and thou sayest to me, Do not worship Him, as if I alone worshipped Him-Him whom the watchers(9) above worship on high.
The judge said: But if ye have taught men to worship Christ, who is it that has persuaded those above to worship Christ?
Barsamya said: Those above have themselves preached, and have taught those below concerning the living worship of the King Christ, seeing that they worship Him, and His Father, together with His divine Spirit.(10)
found here: http://new.studylight.org/his….f08-148I found that interesting too. That is all for tonight, I know you are thankful
God bless,
KathiQuote (Lightenup @ May 15 2011,23:16)
You confuse the supernatural Son who is not bound by the laws of nature with those that are bound by the laws of nature. You don't have evidence of any other son who was ever begotten, being found hundreds of years later in the womb of a virgin, do you? So there goes your 'laws of nature' argument…you can't apply that one to the only begotten Son of God, He defies the law of nature.
Okay, so is the fact that Jesus doesn't necessarily have to fit into human laws of nature give you free reign to just claim anything you want about him?Because this is what it all boils down to, isn't it? I say, “He's a Son who was BROUGHT FORTH by his Father, so therefore there was also a time when he didn't exist BEFORE his Father brought him forth”. You say, “Well, you can't apply human logic to the only begotten Son of God, so therefore I'm free to claim any little thing about him that my heart desires.”
See, this is where we're at in this discussion. In fact, it's the only place we've ever been. YOU want to claim unknown and unsupported things about Jesus, and think you have a fair right to do so because he's different than any other creation of God. I, on the other hand, say “Show me the SCRIPTURAL support for these things you claim”.
You haven't. You can't. You will never be able to – because that support just simply doesn't exist.
Kathi, I could claim that there are a billion little Jesus's who literally live in the hearts of all the “good people”. I could refute any rebuttals you made to this claim by saying, “Well, you can't limit Jesus to the constraints of any other being.”
What would you do with that? How could you possibly make an argument against it when, as far as I'm concerned, the sky is the limit because I have no limiting factors to consider? This is the position I'm in with you right now. You can claim as many things as you want to. But I will just keep telling you to show me from scripture the things you claim…………………and then I will believe them. Until that point, you are just a person making unfounded claims.
Quote (Lightenup @ May 15 2011,23:16)
All that was created through the Son was made out of nothing but the will of God and did not exist beforehand, not like wisdom in Prov 8:22.
See, here's another unfounded claim you often make. Everything in existence came from God. Paul says so in 1 Cor 8:6. So the things that make up our universe very well could have originally been within God Himself. I mean, how can you claim that God just “willed” space dust to form? How do you know the particles that make up space dust weren't already inside Him or a part of Him?As far as my wisdom question, you STILL did not address it. I'm asking if Jesus is LITERALLY the wisdom of God, as if God has none without Jesus? (The answer is “NO”, btw. Just say it so I can make my point, okay?
)As far as your supposed writings of Peter, I have my doubts about them, for I don't remember any Apostle speaking of a “book of the Gospel of Jesus”. There was no “book” at that time. They were each just writing letters to congregations.
Also, the word “God” could just as easily be “a god”, like in John 1:1. The word “worship”, could just as easily be “do obeisance to”. The words “eternity” and “everlasting” could just as easily be “from ancient times, days of old” like they are in Micah 5. Nor was Peter or any Apostle ever recorded as baptizing in the name of “the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”. In fact, why did Peter baptize in the name of Jesus Christ ONLY in Acts 2 if he had this other formula? Was he breaking the “commandment” he spoke about in your quote?
Many things about this letter are “up for grabs” without the actual Greek words. And many other things don't align with scripture. I think that it is most likely a fake, or it would be in our canon – especially with the trinity undertones your English translation presents. I believe the Trinitarian scholars would have jumped on this in a heartbeat if it had a chance of being legit.
Quote (Lightenup @ May 15 2011,23:16)
The pre-existent divine spirit that was within Jesus was the deity part of Jesus that did not die…God, as the Son, did not die. Do you understand now?
Oh, I've ALWAYS understood WHAT you were claiming. I just never knew why, since no scripture supports your claim. And it seems we're still here in that same boat, eh? First, show me “God, as the Son” in the scriptures. Then, show me how “from eternity” is absolutely a requirement of partaking in divine nature.Quote (Lightenup @ May 15 2011,23:16)
In conclusion, I have debunked your rebuttals to John 1 and Proverbs 8. My answer stands that John 1 and Proverbs 8 speak of an eternal existence for the Son.
Yet they don't. Prov 8 speaks of God's Son, being metaphorically referred to as “wisdom”. Oh, and it also makes clear he was CREATED as the FIRST of God's works. So your “new heart” scripture doesn't change the meaning of “create” in Prov 8. Remember, FIRST OF HIS WORKS. That speaks of a NEW creation. One that wasn't around UNTIL it became the FIRST OF GOD'S WORKS.And your words about creation being from an “eternal age, but did not eternally exist” tells me nothing about “in the beginning” in John 1:1. In fact, I can't even understand what it is you're saying there.
Kathi, there are many “beginnings” mentioned in the Bible. There is NOTHING in the wording of John 1:1 to imply that this particular beginning was “from eternity”. Like I said, it OBVIOUSLY refers to a time AFTER Jesus was created as the FIRST of God's works, but BEFORE all other things were created through him. This makes perfect sense to me. Tell me scripturally why my understanding must be flawed?Can you see that John 1 and Prov 8 don't really say what you imagine them to say? Neither of them even hint at, let alone make it PERFECTLY CLEAR, that Jesus existed “from eternity”. And that is what I was asking for from the first post, remember? A scripture that makes it CLEAR that Jesus existed from eternity.
I'll try to read your other posts tomorrow. I'm tired.
peace and love to you,
mikeOkay, I just glanced at the other posts. None of these are claiming to be the words of anyone from scripture, right? In that case……………….WHO CARES WHAT THESE MERE MEN THINK?
Kathi, remember that “worship” is “proskuneo”. Remember that it doesn't always mean “worship”. Also remember that Deborah was also a god. And so is Satan. So don't put too much thought into some Trinitarian English translators capping the “G” in God, or the “H” in “He”, etc., in reference to Jesus.
And finally, remember that the word translated as “eternity” is most likely the Greek word “aion”, which doesn't mean eternity.
I was never really interested in your “Early Church Fathers” thread because that stuff just doesn't appeal to me like it does to you. Let's keep this thread about the actual cannonized scriptures, okay?
Goodnight to you friend,
mike
Hi Mike,
I found this today and thought it was a good way to show the two natures of Jesus and that the divinity of Jesus did not die but the humanity of Jesus did. You don't need to comment on it, I just wanted to put it here before I lost it:An Exposition of The Mysteries
He was laid in a manger and wrapped in swaddling clothes, as Man;
and the watchers extolled Him with their praises, as God.
He offered sacrifices according to the Law, as Man;
and He received worship from the Persians, as God.
Simeon bore Him upon his arms, as Man;
and he named Him 'the Mercy' who showth mercy to all, as God.
He kept the Law completely, as Man;
and He gave His own new Law, as God.He was baptized in Jordan by John, as Man;
and the heaven was opened in honour of His baptism, as God.
He went in to the marriage-feast of the city of Canna, as Man;
and He changed the water that it became wine, as God.
He fasted in the wilderness forty days, as Man;
and watchers descended to minister unto Him, as God.
He slept in the boat with His disciples, as Man;
and He rebuked the wind and calmed the sea, as God.He set out and departed to a desert place, as Man;
and He multiplied the bread and satisfied thousands, as God.
He ate and drank and walked and was weary, as Man;
and He put devils to flight by the word of His mouth, as God.
He prayed and watched and gave thanks and worshipped, as Man;
and He forgave debts and pardoned sins, as God.
He asked water of the Samaritan woman, as Man;
and He revealed and declared her secrets, as God.He sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, as Man;
and He forgave the sinful woman her sins, as God.
He went up into the mountain of Tabor with His disciples, as Man;
and He revealed His glory in their sight, as God.
He shed tears and wept over Lazarus, as Man;
and He called him that he came forth by His mighty power, as God.
He rode upon a colt and entered Jerusalem, as Man;
and the boys applauded Him with their Hosannas, as God.He drew nigh to the fig-tree and shewed that He was hungered, as Man;
and His mighty power caused it to wither on a sudden, as God.
He washed the feet of His twelve, as Man;
and He called Himself Lord and Master, as God.
He ate the legal passover, as Man;
and He exposed the treachery of Iscariot, as God.
He prayed and sweated at the time of His passion, as Man;
and He scared and terrified them that took Him, as God.the attendants seized Him and bound His hands, as Man;
and He healed the ear that Simon cut off, as God.
He stood in the place of judgement and bore insult, as Man;
and He declared that He is about to come in glory, as God.
He bore His Cross upon His shoulder, as Man;
and He revealed and announced the destruction of Zion, as God.
He was hanged upon the wood and endured the passion, as Man;
and He shook the earth and darkened the sun, as God.Nails were driven into His body, as Man;
and He opened the graves and quickened the dead, as God.
He cried out upon the Cross 'My God, My God,' as Man;
and promised Paradise to the thief, as God.
His side was pierced with a spear, as Man;
and His nod rent the temple veil, as God.
They embalmed His body and He was buried in the earth, as Man;
and He raised up His temple by His mighty power, as God.He remained in the tomb three days, as Man;
and the watchers glorified Him with their praises, as God.
He said that He had received all authority, as Man;
and He promised to be with us for ever, as God.
He commanded Thomas to feel His side, as Man;
and He gave them the Spirit for an earnest, as God.
He ate and drank after His resurrection, as Man;
and He ascended to the height and sent the Spirit, as God.found here: http://www.peshitta.org/
I will address your post later when I have some more time.
Blessings,
KathiQuote (Lightenup @ May 18 2011,16:05) Hi Mike, I am being challenged by our conversation, I hope you are too. It is very nice to not have any interruptions from others, we should have done this months ago
I agree. My only complaint is that we've both ballooned our simple Q and A discussion into monster posts! Let's fix that right now, okay? You seem to be busy, which is fine. And I prefer smaller, to the point posts instead of the big ones we've worked up to.So let's back it down, because all the info is right here for us to discuss whenever we want to, right? Let's get through this John 1:1 and Proverbs 8 thing first, for those are the topics that stem from my very first question. John 1:1 first, okay?
Please explain to me how exactly John 1 says “Jesus is from eternity”. Then we'll evaluate if what you're claiming is actually in the words John wrote. If it is not, then we will eliminate John 1 as a “proof text” and move on to Prov 8. Is that fair?
peace and love,
mikeHi Mike,
I am busy with end of the school year stuff and at the same time, I have three sons that are all over seas in different places, two in the UK and one on Cayman's Island…and yes, I'm jealous, ha! So, in one way I'm busier and in another way not so. Maybe Istari will see my two boys in the UK singing with their guitars on some street corner and he'll put a couple of coins in their guitar case They could use it. It is nice to have kids old enough to pay for their own trip, lol.Anyway, I'm all for shorter posts…we'll see if that is even possible here by the next page…smile.
Regarding John 1, obviously the Son existed before creation, I think we both agree with that. The reason that I think He is eternal in some manner is because He 'was God' who was with God before creation. The Word was God…and then by Him all things came into being. The fact that the Word was God shows me that He was as properly divine in nature as the one He was with. Being properly divine in nature would mean He was eternal. Divine nature does not come into existence, it always exists. Believers are merely partakers of the divine nature that always has existed, believers are not divine in nature but only partakers of it. The saints will have the fullness of the fruits of the Spirit and eternal life but saints will not have an omnipresent capability for instance.
Good night and sweet dreams,
KathiHi Kathi,
I'm jealous of the one on Cayman also. Not so much the UK, for it seems to be cloudy all the time there. (I didn't purposely move to the middle of a desert for no reason.
)Quote (Lightenup @ May 18 2011,22:29)
Regarding John 1, obviously the Son existed before creation, I think we both agree with that.
I agree the Son existed before the creation of everything else. But the Son was created by God first, and then all other things were created by God through His Son. Many scriptures support my understanding.Quote (Lightenup @ May 18 2011,22:29)
The reason that I think He is eternal in some manner is because He 'was God' who was with God before creation.
What's your point? There are many gods and many lords. Only one of them is ever said to be from eternity. Jesus is obviously one of these other gods who is NOT the only God who is said to be from eternity. (Remember that you have acknowledged that John 1:1 speaks of two different theos.)Kathi, what if Satan was the first thing created through God's new firstborn? Because we know that Satan is also a god, we could say, “In the beginning, Satan was with God and was a god”, right? If that wording wouldn't make you think Satan was from eternity, why does that same wording make you think Jesus is from eternity?
Your info about divine nature is from your own understanding. Who knows, you might even be right about it. But since scripture doesn't teach it, we must rightfully eliminate it from this discussion, for it is merely your unsupported opinion, right?
Nothing in your last post scripturally supports your claim that Jesus is from eternity.
peace and love,
mikeHi ya Mike,
Yes, the Cayman Islands are appealing but the guys in England seem like they are having a blast.you said:
Quote I agree the Son existed before the creation of everything else. But the Son was created by God first, and then all other things were created by God through His Son. Many scriptures support my understanding. The scriptures that you say support your understanding are more commonly translated and explained in ways as to not support your understanding, so I don't think that you have proven anything by your scriptures. You know that for every scripture that you put up, there is another way it is translated by some other translation that doesn't agree with your understanding. When the early church father's and historical documents are viewed to bring clarity, they do not verify what you believe. You need to rethink your view.
For instance:
Rev 3:14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation.Prov 8:22 “The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old.
Quote There are many gods and many lords. Only one of them is ever said to be from eternity. Actually it says that there is one God AND one Lord and both of them were with each other before time which began on day one.
1 Cor 8:5For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
Quote Kathi, what if Satan was the first thing created through God's new firstborn? Because we know that Satan is also a god, we could say, “In the beginning, Satan was with God and was a god”, right? If that wording wouldn't make you think Satan was from eternity, why does that same wording make you think Jesus is from eternity? Even if the being that became the evil satan, god of this world, was the first living heavenly being created by the Son, he was not 'a god' at that time in the beginning. He started out as good and then fell. He was not created 'a god' and neither was any of the other so-called gods. They may have become 'as gods' to some but they were not created that way. The Son was, though, God in the beginng and wasn't something else before He was God.
Also, John 1:1 is not the same wording as you have. “A god' is not in John 1:1. That is a big difference. If the wording was:
In the beginning was satan and satan was with the God and satan was God…that would make it sound like satan was eternal. It gives me the creeps to even write that, yuk.Quote Your info about divine nature is from your own understanding. Who knows, you might even be right about it. But since scripture doesn't teach it, we must rightfully eliminate it from this discussion, for it is merely your unsupported opinion, right? If I am right about it, SUPPORTED with the majority of early church fathers and contemporary church fathers AND historical writings, then you are teaching very wrong things. I don't think that we can eliminate this from our discussion since I have SO MUCH SUPPORT and it is vital to the truth one way or another.
I do not see how anyone can think that true divine nature can have a beginning, that would not be possible and be true divine nature. Divine nature can't possibly come from something or someone else otherwise the something or someone else would have a higher nature than divine nature and 'divine nature' wouldn't be divine in the true sense at all. Created nature CANNOT be the exact representation of eternal nature. The Son's nature is an exact representation of eternal nature.
Can you show me any scripture that says the divine nature can be created?
Well, so long for now my friend,
KathiQuote (Lightenup @ May 19 2011,22:54)
The scriptures that you say support your understanding are more commonly translated and explained in ways as to not support your understanding, so I don't think that you have proven anything by your scriptures.
First of all, I didn't set out to prove anything. YOU set out to prove that Jesus is from eternity, presumably using scriptures to do it. You have so far not done that.Secondly:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Your own words tie your hands on this one. The default meaning is “one born first”, right? This makes Jesus the one born first out of all creation. That makes him a part of creation. And that means he was created.I also will offer what I posted to Paul today:
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 20 2011,17:18) Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 19 2011,21:43) Hang on a minute….. Explain to me how Acts 4: 30 makes Yeshua a Creature and therefore includes him in the “everything” in verse 24. I'm struggling to understand what point you're trying to make here.
Okay Paul,Peter and John prayed TO the ONE who created the heavens and the earth and EVERYTHING in them.
Do you see that they did not pray TO Jesus? So if Jesus is not the ONE that created the heavens and the earth and EVERYTHING in them, he has no choice but to be one of the “EVERYTHING in them” that was created BY the ONE they prayed TO. If he is one of the “EVERYTHING” that was created by his God, then he is a creature.
Do you see it now? There are only two options listed: The ONE who created all, and the “all” that ONE created. Since Jesus is listed in this prayer as the SERVANT of the ONE who created all, he is obviously NOT the ONE who created all. And if he is not that ONE, then he must be in the category of “Part of the EVERYTHING that was created by that ONE”.
So there are two scriptures right there. I also showed you the NETNotes info about older translators not knowing about the second root of the word in Proverbs 8, although they knew it had to exist based on other scriptures. Well, they've now confirmed that it exists, and “possessed” is a thing of the past for that verse. The correct translation is “created”.
So what does that leave you? The fact that Rev 3:14 could be translated as “ruler”? Do you forget that it also could be translated as “beginning”, which would fit right in with these other four scriptures we're discussing?
Quote (Lightenup @ May 19 2011,22:54)
Actually it says that there is one God AND one Lord and both of them were with each other before time which began on day one.
Scripture says nothing about “time” being created. No human in existence knows anything about it, so don't go there. And we've already confirmed that Jesus was with his Creator before God created anything else through him. Also, there is no such thing as a “so-called god” in scripture. But there are many gods and many lords mentioned. You've already acknowledged that there are two different ones mentioned in John 1:1, right?Quote (Lightenup @ May 19 2011,22:54)
Also, John 1:1 is not the same wording as you have. “A god' is not in John 1:1. That is a big difference. If the wording was:
In the beginning was satan and satan was with the God and satan was God…that would make it sound like satan was eternal. It gives me the creeps to even write that, yuk.
Really Kathi? After the “Freak Greek” thread, you're still going to say this? That's a cop out, because you've admitted that John 1:1c does refer to Jesus as A different god than the God in 1:1b. You've admitted that you know Jesus was A god in a scripture that mentions two of them.
Quote (Lightenup @ May 19 2011,22:54)
I don't think that we can eliminate this from our discussion since I have SO MUCH SUPPORT and it is vital to the truth one way or another.
Is any of your support SCRIPTURAL? If not, then we need to drop it, for it is the OPINION of certain individual human beings, and nothing more.Quote (Lightenup @ May 19 2011,22:54)
I do not see how anyone can think that true divine nature can have a beginning, that would not be possible and be true divine nature.
There is no scripture that explains exactly what “divine nature” is, or what it entails. It obviously does NOT include being “from eternity”, for many of us who will partake in it were never “from eternity”. Again, drop any claims that aren't scripturally supported so we can move forward to the part where you say, “No Mike, there really ISN'T any actual scriptural support to my claim that Jesus is from eternity.”.mike
Hi Mike,
I graduated another son this weekend from high school and so I have had limited time on here. Thanks for your patience. I thought you didn't want long posts and then right away you write these long posts and I write long posts to respond to your long posts. We are a lost causeyou said:
Quote First of all, I didn't set out to prove anything. So by that statement you seem to be admitting that you cannot scripturally prove that the Son was created. I do believe that I can prove that divine nature has always existed though simply by proving that the Father always existed but you already know that…right?
Quote He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Your own words tie your hands on this one. The default meaning is “one born first”, right? This makes Jesus the one born first out of all creation. That makes him a part of creation. And that means he was created.There were NO true offsprings created as the first of their kind. You can't be a true offspring and also be the first of a kind creation. So, you have to decide if the Son is a true offspring or a true first of a kind. If He is a true first of a kind, then He is merely a work. If He is a true offspring, then He is not a work. Firstborns are offsprings, not the first of a kind. Therefore I have no hands tied here but you do.
Now about Acts 4:
“O Lord, it is You who MADE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA, AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM,
25who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your servant, said,
‘WHY DID THE GENTILES RAGE,
AND THE PEOPLES DEVISE FUTILE THINGS?26‘THE KINGS OF THE EARTH TOOK THEIR STAND,
AND THE RULERS WERE GATHERED TOGETHER
AGAINST THE LORD AND AGAINST HIS CHRIST.’27“For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.
Let's look at this:
“O Lord, it is You who MADE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA, AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM,Sounds like they are quoting:
Neh 9:6
“You alone are the LORD.
You have made the heavens,
The heaven of heavens with all their host,
The earth and all that is on it,
The seas and all that is in them.
You give life to all of them
And the heavenly host bows down before You.Which sounds like:
Col 1:16
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities– all things have been created through Him and for Him.WHY DID THE GENTILES RAGE,
AND THE PEOPLES DEVISE FUTILE THINGS?26‘THE KINGS OF THE EARTH TOOK THEIR STAND,
AND THE RULERS WERE GATHERED TOGETHER
AGAINST THE LORD AND AGAINST HIS CHRIST.’This part sounds like:
Psalms 2
1Why are the nations in an uproar
And the peoples devising a vain thing?2The kings of the earth take their stand
And the rulers take counsel together
Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,That seems, once again that the early believers are quoting the OT. Their forefathers did not know exactly who the 'anointed' was but these early believers now knew and that must have had special meaning to quote this scripture with more understanding.
I do believe that the thrust of the passage was that the early believers were confessing that Jesus was the Christ, the very Son of the Lord who created heaven and earth, that was spoken of by their forefathers. I don't think that it was meant to be a teaching about creation.
The early church grew in their knowledge and understanding, it wasn't complete then nor is it now. They got it right that Jesus was their promised anointed Messiah, as far as His role in creation, they may have not been given that fuller revelation yet. John wrote His gospel years later as well as Paul who wrote later. Anyway, Col 1:16 clearly demonstrates that the Son was involved in creation. So these scriptures were what the early believers were saying as they quoted the OT…that Jesus was definitely the Messiah, the one sent from the very creator of heaven and earth. I certainly don't think that the intention of these verses was to teach that the Son wasn't also involved in creation.
Regarding Prov 8, like I said, you have to decide if the 'created' is literal and the Son is just a work and not a literal offspring, or was it figurative because the Son is a literal offspring who was begotten and had the wisdom of God. You know that Eve used the term 'created' in regards to her literal offspring and it did not mean that her offspring was literally created as the first of its kind. We also know that this offspring of hers existed for about 9 months before she gave birth and said that she created him.
So, I think you have to make a decision, one way or the other. Was the Son a literal offspring of God with eternal nature, or was He a literal created work and not a literal offspring of God. You can't have it both ways, Mike.
Regarding Rev 3:14, again, decide which is He…literal offspring or literal created work. It can't be both.
I believe that the truth that He was the Son of the living God was teaching a literal offspring before creation, not a created figurative son. No one would have crucified Him for saying that He was a figurative son like the rest of the Jews.
Quote Scripture says nothing about “time” being created. No human in existence knows anything about it, so don't go there. And we've already confirmed that Jesus was with his Creator before God created anything else through him. Also, there is no such thing as a “so-called god” in scripture. But there are many gods and many lords mentioned. You've already acknowledged that there are two different ones mentioned in John 1:1, right? Scripture does mention a beginning and a day one, time is relative to what you are referring to. When talking about the beginning of the heavens and the earth it is understood that there was a past time before this which is commonly referred to as eternity. I don't know what is hard about that.
There are many gods and many lords mentioned in scripture but they are pagan gods and not to be believed in. We are only to believe in the Father and the Son and follow them. They both are God, two different persons with a common nature, one the Father and one the Son. They are not two unrelated Gods, but two persons, each with divine nature, one from the other. They are not both God as the Father, only one was God as the Father, and only one was God as the Son.
I have never admitted that in John 1:1c should read 'a god.' The 'a' is out of place there. You wouldn't say that the word
was a divine but that the word was divine, remember?Quote Is any of your support SCRIPTURAL? If not, then we need to drop it, for it is the OPINION of certain individual human beings, and nothing more. Yes, I have given you scripture backed up with reason.
Quote There is no scripture that explains exactly what “divine nature” is, or what it entails. It obviously does NOT include being “from eternity”, for many of us who will partake in it were never “from eternity”. Tell me when divine nature was ever said to be created, or that the Son became divine nature. If the Father has divine nature, then divine nature is as old as the Father who is eternal. The partaking of divine nature, which is the hope of the believer, is obviously not about the incommunicable traits of divine nature. As you have said believers will never have been eternal in their past.
Believers will never be the exact representation of divine nature like the Father and the Son.
Please answer this question:
Was the Son a literal offspring of God with eternal nature, or was He a literal created work and not a literal offspring of God.Why don't we get some scripture that talks about divine nature…how about it. I will put up something in the next post.
Kathi
Mike,
A passage about becoming partakers of the divine nature.2 Peter 1:1
1Simon 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: 2Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; 3seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. 4For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust. 5Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, 6and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, 7and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. 8For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins. 10Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; 11for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.Quote (Lightenup @ May 23 2011,21:30)
I thought you didn't want long posts and then right away you write these long posts and I write long posts to respond to your long posts. We are a lost cause
Say no more!Quote (Lightenup @ May 23 2011,21:30)
So by that statement you seem to be admitting that you cannot scripturally prove that the Son was created
No. Proverbs 8 proves this, among others. I'm saying that this all started because YOU were going to prove Jesus was “from eternity” scripturally. So far you've claimed it a thousand times, but you haven't shown any scriptural proof of it.Quote (Lightenup @ May 23 2011,21:30)
Please answer this question:
Was the Son a literal offspring of Godwith eternal nature, or was He a literal created work and not a literal offspring of God.
(I struck through some of your words, because that quality is not ever said to be a requirement of being a literal offspring of God.)But here's your answer, in your own words, “You know that Eve used the term 'created' in regards to her literal offspring and it did not mean that her offspring was literally created as the first of its kind.”
Cain was the first of his kind (a human being brought forth by human beings), a literal offspring, and a creation.You are making your own rules up about what “can be” and what “can't be” – but that doesn't mean I have to follow them.
peace,
mikeMike,
Literal offsprings are not 'created.' Literal creations are the first of their kind. Offsprings come from their kind. So, if the term 'created' is used on an offspring, it is not the literal use of the word 'created' but a figurative use of the word 'created.' The term 'offspring' does not represent a kind, Mike.So, let me ask the question with different words…
Was the Son literally an offspring of His Father, with the same nature as His Father?
Or…
Was the Son a figurative offspring of His Father, with a different nature than His Father?Thanks,
KathiHi Kathi,
If those “born” are not “created” then they are not part of the creation.
Isa 54:16 – Mal 2:10 – Job 33:4 – Deut 32:18 – Job 33:6 – Isa 43:7 – Isa 44:2 – Isa 44:24 – Isa 49:5 – Jer 1:5
The above scriptures prove that all men are created beings. But notice Deut 32:
15 Jeshurun[Israel] grew fat and kicked;
filled with food, he became heavy and sleek.
He abandoned the God who made him
and rejected the Rock his Savior.18 You deserted the Rock, who fathered you;
you forgot the God who gave you birth.19 The LORD saw this and rejected them
because he was angered by his sons and daughters.This one passage carries conotations of God creating those of Israel AND fathering them as in childbirth.
As to your bolded question: “I DON'T KNOW”. I'm not sure what all is involved in the word “nature”. For example, I have as part of my nature an addictive personality. I've struggled with drugs and alcohol for 30 of my 46 years. And I pray often that God let that particular nature of mine pass by my son, so he does not have to go through what I have been through.
So I don't really know, Kathi. Jesus is surely much LIKE his Father and Creator. Even WE are like our Creator, in that we were made in His image. I know Jesus is even more LIKE Him than any of us, but Jesus was also brought forth FROM Him. There is nothing in scripture to imply that the laws of nature and logic were overturned in the bringing forth of God's first creation. And there is nothing in scripture that says one begotten BY an eternal being would himself be eternal. The “begotten BY” part demands the opposite to be true.
peace,
mikeMike,
Eve did not create her son otherwise she would be her son's creator and we know that she is merely a creature. The Bible says that the creature is not the creator.Rom 1:24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
See here that Eve was created in case you thought she really was the creator
13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
A creature cannot be the creator, thus Eve did not create her son and if a translation has Eve saying that, either Eve spoke inaccurately or the translators inaccurately translated the word which has more than one meaning to choose from.
Also, I know all men are part of creation and all men but Adam and Eve were definitely born. All men are part of creation but only because they came from a 'created' kind. The Son of God was born from an uncreated kind and we should know that if He was born from an uncreated kind then, that uncreated 'kind' (God) had a nature that was not created i.e. 'eternal nature' and that eternal nature would be within that 'kind's' (God) offspring also. The nature in Adam is the same nature that is in you. Before day six in creation, that nature did not exist. The Son's nature always existed for as long as His Father nature existed and if His Father is always existing, so is the nature which belongs to the Son.
I don't know what you are trying to say about Deut 32. You do know that the birth spoken of is figurative, right?
About your answer to my question…I am ever so sorry that you have had to deal with the addictions of drugs and alcohol for 30 years and I hope that you have gotten freedom from that. I wouldn't classify addictive tendencies as part of your human nature but maybe a curse from the enemy that has been passed on to you passively by your father by his modeling his poor way of handling his problems, idk. I think that nature is that which is within us that we have no choice in. I think that we ought to explore what the nature of God is and what the nature of man is.
Goodnight,
KathiQuote (Lightenup @ May 30 2011,23:14) I think that we ought to explore what the nature of God is and what the nature of man is.
Okay. Which book shall I check out of the library first? Would it be in Dewey under “Nature of God”?Kathi, neither of us know. You want to claim that a being who was said to “be created”, “be begotten”, “be brought forth”, “be born”, “have a beginning” and “have died” could be “from eternity to eternity”.
You cannot and will never be able to prove this claim using scriptures. The claim is simply just not supported by scripture.
Let's just reserve this space for our next personal discussion, and drop this one, okay?
It is your opinion that “divine” means “from eternity”, but that is not a scriptural fact that you can prove. It is your opinion about “this nature” and “that nature”, but again, you can't prove scripturally that Jesus and God even share the same nature exactly, let alone if the one who had that nature passed on to him at birth, would all of a sudden be “from eternity” because of that nature.
It is my opinion that if God beget another Son today, that Son would NOT have been “existing” this whole time, just because his Father is from eternity. I can't scripturally prove my opinion, nor can you scripturally disprove it.
At first, I wanted to see your scriptures to see if there was something to this claim of yours. But we've examined them, and none of them say what you claim. So now this has turned into a “What do YOU think nature means?/ Well I think this, what do YOU think it means” discussion.
Do you agree?
peace,
mikeOk Mike, it seems that I could not even prove that the Father was eternal to you so It is fine with me if we move on. From now, maybe we should just ask for a good reason for the other to consider another point of view and not ask for proof. How about that?
I would like to explore the idea of the nature of man and the nature of God through what scripture tells us, what science tells us and what other thoughts which may be reasonable and helpful.
Kathi
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
