- This topic is empty.
- Posts
The early fathers, when using the flame illustration, speak of eternally emitting from the source and that there never was a time that the flame did not emit from the source. I believe their point is you can't have one without the other, like you can't have a father without there being an offspring in existence for as long as the father was a father. In other words, they believe that the Father was never NOT a Father. This flame teaching is not about one little thing coming from one bigger thing.
Also, attributes do not become sons. A pre-begotten Son can become a begotten Son though.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 26 2013,00:25) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 26 2013,19:03) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 25 2013,23:59) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 26 2013,17:48) This should get you a tile. All sorts of lies here. Reader please note:
This comment is so full of lies it is awful and the moderator is so breaking the HN rules and the other moderator agrees with him. Both moderators are corrupt on HN. Both misrepresent me terribly and get away with it because they are moderators and don't tile themselves. Abuse of power!!Moderators, if you disagree with me, that Mike's statement about me is full of lies, then prove it to be true. Have I EVER SAID that Jesus is not the Son, Servant, Prophet, Lamb, Messiah, Priest, Mediator and Spokesman of the most high God? No I haven't. I fully accept all of that.
Plank (Opening line no less)
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son;Speck
enlightened by the will of God, who formed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour;Notice how the speck overrides the plank according to you? Yet we see the plank and know that the speck must line up with the plank. Thus we draw on our understanding of the usage of 'theos' in Greek.
We believe the plank, you nullify the plank with the speck.
So it is true what we say. And this is not the first time this has happened. I wouldn't say such a thing if it only happened once and might not say anything if it happened twice. But tree times onward and we have a pattern.
We speak correctly regarding this matter.
t8,
I have said that that there are two powers of Jehovah, the Father is the FIRST Power and the Son is the SECOND Power. That would make the Father the most high power would it not?
PlankJohn 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.Speck
John 20:28
Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”So in your view Kathi, the speck nullifies the plank, and in our view, the plank is true and the speck can be read in 2 ways.
One as supporting the plank completely by referring to Jesus and then God the Father, and even the other one doesn't nullify the plank because Jesus said, “ye are theos” to men, thus in a similar way and all the more so, could be applied to Jesus too.
t8,
This can be read in more than one way too.Quote the only true God 1. The Father is the true God, Jesus is the true God/Man. The Father is not true God/Man. Jesus is not only true God, He is the true God/Man.
You admit that Jesus was considered theos even before He became man and not considered a false theos; and you believe that this particular theos became man, right?
2. Jesus is making a contrast, not between the Father and Himself, but between the Father and all the false gods that were being worshiped in the nation in which Jesus lived.
Either option is true.
The context does not indicate that Jesus was inferring to the Father that Jesus was not also a true God. I do not see that as the intent AT ALL.
Kathi, even that does not mean that JEsus is YHWH the Most High God.
Jesus said, 'ye are theos'. There you go. If they can be 'theos' then how much more Jesus. And if angels are elohim, then would not someone greater also be and that much more.
You see, either way you lose the debate.
For us there is one God the Father.
For you there is not.Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 26 2013,19:42) The context does not indicate that Jesus was inferring to the Father that Jesus was not also a true God. I do not see that as the intent AT ALL.
Oh yeah.John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.What part of THE ONLY TRUE GOD do you not understand. And what part of the only true God SENDING ANOTHER namely Jesus Christ do you not understand?
It appears you understand neither. Yet it is so clear that my 7 year old son could understand that if I showed it to him.
The reason you do not understand is because you are full of your own understanding. And you have no room for even this most basic of truths in scripture.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 26 2013,01:25) Kathi, even that does not mean that JEsus is YHWH the Most High God. Jesus said, 'ye are theos'. There you go. If they can be 'theos' then how much more Jesus. And if angels are elohim, then would not someone greater also be and that much more.
You see, either way you lose the debate.
For us there is one God the Father.
For you there is not.
I never said that Jesus was God the Father too. I never said that Jesus was the most high YHVH either. Maybe you should have your seven year old read my posts to you and explain them.I have said that Jesus is YHVH the Son and together with YHVH the Father…with their Spirit, they are the fullness of YHVH the eternal unity.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 26 2013,20:47) I never said that Jesus was God the Father too.
You are saying that Jesus is the Only true God too and that he sent Jesus because we both know that the only true God sent Jesus. Two problems here.1) The only true God is the Father, so you are wrong.
2) The only true God sent Jesus. Jesus did not send Jesus because he is not the only true God.A normal person when confronted with this says that the only true God and Jesus are two different persons/entities.
A brainwashed or deceived person could overlook this if they were brainwashed or deceived enough. Congrats, you are such a person.
No, I am saying that in the beginning there were two who were theos (so does John and Ignatius…John 1:1). One of those theos sent the other theos to become flesh and from that time, the other theos was not just theos but theos AND man.
You have made it clear that One who is YHWH sent the other who is YHWH.
You have made it clear that YHWH is more than one person or identity.
You have made it clear that Jesus is ALSO the Almighty God.Kathi, no one here ascribes credibility to you or your doctrine.
Think for a minute.
Paul and us disagree with you.
The Jews disagree with you.
The Trinitarians disagree with you.
And yourself in the past disagrees with you.Only your present self has the truth according to you.
What will you be saying 2 years from now.
Who knows.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 26 2013,13:04) No, I am saying that in the beginning there were two who were theos (so does John and Ignatius…John 1:1). One of those theos sent the other theos to become flesh and from that time, the other theos was not just theos but theos AND man.
LU,Jesus is theos and man as he is the human being that has been appointed King of all things in heaven and on earth. That does not make him Yawheh as even the emperors of Rome were both theos and man.
Quote (abe @ Mar. 26 2013,04:49) Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 25 2013,14:28) Quote (abe @ Mar. 26 2013,01:04) Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 25 2013,06:28) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 25 2013,19:43) Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 25 2013,05:44) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 25 2013,02:49) T, My parable is not false.
When the Spirit speaks through a person that person speaks, jest as was the case of the Prophets.
When the Spirit speaks Jehovah speaks via it, since he dwells in believers by his Spirit.
In some cases a person that is without the Spirit acts like one with the Spirit.
We can judge a person's fruit but not their final destination.
Knot all are prophets ,and we are not in Christ times neither
T,Those that believe in the current times are greater than the Prophets as they have Jesus Christ to mediate for them and the Spirit living in them.
KBelieving and having the spirit living in them(?) ,so that Christ is mediating for them seems very vague in deed ,
Any addition to that
Hi T,When the Spirit speaks through a person that person speaks, jest as was the case of the Prophets.
When the Spirit speaks Jehovah speaks via it, since he dwells in believers by his Spirit.
WHY is this vague?
Those that believe in the current times are greater than the Prophets as they have Jesus Christ to mediate for them and the Spirit living in them.
Rom.8:22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. 23And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for [our] adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.
FIRSTFRUITS are our counselors.
Peace brother.
abedid you ever read the scriptures about true and false prophets ???if you did ,then are you comparing them to the believers in Christ ,and I am not talking about the apostles, but all the others that is ,???
Hi T,(quote)
did you ever read the scriptures about true and false prophets ???if you did ,then are you comparing them to the believers in Christ ,and I am not talking about the apostles, but all the others that is ,???I am sorry, but I don't understand your question?
Peace brother…
aberead your comment first ,then read my questions ,
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 26 2013,19:28) The early fathers, when using the flame illustration, speak of eternally emitting from the source and that there never was a time that the flame did not emit from the source. I believe their point is you can't have one without the other, like you can't have a father without there being an offspring in existence for as long as the father was a father. In other words, they believe that the Father was never NOT a Father. This flame teaching is not about one little thing coming from one bigger thing. Also, attributes do not become sons. A pre-begotten Son can become a begotten Son though.
kathi, that claim is not supported in the text.As you can see for yourself the Word was brought forth to become the first work of the Father.
And by His simple will the Word sprang forth, and the Word, not coming forth in vain, became the firstbegotten work of the Father . Him [the Word] we know to be the Beginning of the world (cf. Rev. 3:14). But He came into being by participation, not by cutting off, for what is cut off is separated from the original substance, but that which comes by participation, making its choice of function, does not render him deficient from whom it is taken. For just as from one torch many fires are lighted, but the light of the first torch is not lessened by the kindling of many torches, so the Word, coming forth from the Word-Power of the Father, has not divested of the Word-Power Him who begat Him.
I have read where other early fathers wrote something similar using this symbolism. And I am assuming that Tatian was the first to write this since he wrote this around 165 A.D.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 26 2013,02:33) You have made it clear that One who is YHWH sent the other who is YHWH.
You have made it clear that YHWH is more than one person or identity.
You have made it clear that Jesus is ALSO the Almighty God.Kathi, no one here ascribes credibility to you or your doctrine.
Think for a minute.
Paul and us disagree with you.
The Jews disagree with you.
The Trinitarians disagree with you.
And yourself in the past disagrees with you.Only your present self has the truth according to you.
What will you be saying 2 years from now.
Who knows.
Quote Kathi, no one here ascribes credibility to you or your doctrine. You say 'no one' but that really isn't true. Many have come and gone that believes Jesus is Jehovah, the Son of God. I know plenty that agree that God is a corporate unity. I have no trouble finding scholars that have had years of experience in the ancient language that agree with me. Most of the Christians in fundamental believing churches believe in the Son of God and that He is called Jehovah too. So, just because a dozen or so here, uneducated people of the Biblical languages, don't, that is really not too threatening to me. I guess I am here to show you a different perspective. I continually offer reasonable counter points to your understanding and have corrected you on many accounts. Usually it has fallen on rocky soil, though. Maybe it helps the readers that lurk on the other side of the world who prefer just to read what is written on here. Hopefully you will not cause them to stumble to the point of losing their faith.
I can't let you do that but you keep me very busy!
BTW, there are many here that don't ascribe to your teaching.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 26 2013,23:38) Also notice the words “But He came into being”. What does that tell you?
t8
A tree comes into being from a seed, that doesn't mean it's coming into being was a beginning of existence. It just means that it came into being in a different state. It went from within a seed to be apart from the seed. It existed within the seed before it came forth from the seed.Going from a closed seed, to a sprouted plant took work. The bringing forth was 'work' but that doesn't mean that it was a work of creating something that did not exist in it's early stages.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 26 2013,00:16) Most early Fathers who mention the Word talk about it residing in God as an attribute and then it being brought forth at some point like a flame that lights another flame. Where as you believe that there was always 2 flames (so to speak). We see a similar account regarding Wisdom in scripture. Spoken of as an attribute (she) it is given birth and becomes the workman at God's side.
So if you take logos and wisdom and rewind the clock, they originate in God as attributes of his nature.
t8,
When I said what I said about the flame illustration I was not shown that specific text that now you quote. I was referring to something that others have mentioned about the sun and its rays all existing together which is a teaching of the early church fathers.I believe the Tatian quote is showing how the Father did not become less when He begat from Himself another person, like how one flame can start another flame without becoming less than it was before. It is the idea of being fruitful by multiplying, not fruitful by dividing and becoming less.
The second torch gained a flame without taking any of the flame away from the first torch. The first torch remained as it always was.
Tatian, imo, is just saying that the Father didn't loose any part of Himself when He brought forth the Son.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2013,20:04) t8
A tree comes into being from a seed, that doesn't mean it's coming into being was a beginning of existence. It just means that it came into being in a different state. It went from within a seed to be apart from the seed. It existed within the seed before it came forth from the seed.Going from a closed seed, to a sprouted plant took work. The bringing forth was 'work' but that doesn't mean that it was a work of creating something that did not exist in it's early stages.
Kathi, and attribute doesn't exist on it's own accord.
When it is brought forth, it can, and it doesn't divest God of that attribute. It is like a flame that produces another flame. The original flame is not lessened because of it.“For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.”
“Jesus said to them, 'If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me'.”
Notice that the words of Jesus whom you claim to stick up for is completely contradictory to the Jesus you preach.
Conclusion: You teach another Jesus. When will you stop fighting him by denying his words and raising your own words above his?
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2013,20:14) I believe the Tatian quote is showing how the Father did not become less when He begat from Himself another person, like how one flame can start another flame without becoming less than it was before. It is the idea of being fruitful by multiplying, not fruitful by dividing and becoming less.
Well of course that is what you saw because you are blind to anything that competes with your teaching and you were able to manipulate this particular point into your teaching.You ignored “But He came into being by participation…” for example.
You also ignored that one flame produced another. That means that one flame preceded the other and not the other way round and nor were both flames existing for all eternity. But that one produced another to become the first work of the Father. And there is another clue, the original flame is the Father.So you think you can look righteous and true by agreeing in part, but if you do not agree with the whole, then you do not agree with the teaching and raise yours as an alternate view.
Even a Satanist or an Atheist could agree with parts of the Bible. So don't go around pretending that you agree with Tatian when you clearly do not.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 27 2013,02:05) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 27 2013,20:04) t8
A tree comes into being from a seed, that doesn't mean it's coming into being was a beginning of existence. It just means that it came into being in a different state. It went from within a seed to be apart from the seed. It existed within the seed before it came forth from the seed.Going from a closed seed, to a sprouted plant took work. The bringing forth was 'work' but that doesn't mean that it was a work of creating something that did not exist in it's early stages.
Kathi, and attribute doesn't exist on it's own accord.
When it is brought forth, it can, and it doesn't divest God of that attribute. It is like a flame that produces another flame. The original flame is not lessened because of it.“For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.”
“Jesus said to them, 'If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me'.”
Notice that the words of Jesus whom you claim to stick up for is completely contradictory to the Jesus you preach.
Conclusion: You teach another Jesus. When will you stop fighting him by denying his words and raising your own words above his?
Jesus is not an attribute of God, Jesus has the fullness of God in Him.Also,
“For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.”Notice the word 'as' it shows that in the similar way that the Father has life, the Son does also.
And then this:
“Jesus said to them, 'If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me'.”The Roots sent the Shoot and yet the Shoot is the continuation of one of the Roots, therefore one of the Roots and the Shoot are the same person as Jesus says that He is the Root and Offspring of David. The first Root sent the second Root to continue it's life in a Shoot and as a Shoot as well as remaining the Root of itself, out of a nearly dried up stump. Amazing, isn't it.
Contradiction is in the eye of one who has no understanding, not in the truth itself.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
