Preexistence

[gollamudi]

Hi T8,
Who is having problem with this verse 'before Abraham Iam'? may be all pre-existence believers.
Yes Jews also misunderstood Jesus because they thought that Jesus was physically existing prior to Abraham, the same misunderstanding is being carried out in this forum. You are not appreciating the explanations given by few like Gene, Mandy or myself in this forum. Jesus started this debate with his pre-eminence to Abraham or Moses. He is concluding with the same remarks that he is (see 'I am') before Abraham means he is greater than him. Why Jesus was telling that 'Abraham wanted to see my day'? Because it was the present that Jesus avaible that is the meaning of 'day'. Recollect how Jesus was praying for Jerusalem's destruction “I wanted you to see one of my days”.Abraham, Moses, David, daniel or anybody in O.T. they were knowing that days of Jesus were of future.
Please take care.
Adam

[NickHassan]

Quote (Not3in1 @ May 31 2008,20:01)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 31 2008,19:03) Hi not3, Hand? What?  Does scripture now offend you?

Hi not3,
Hands it is.
Genesis 49:24
But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel:)

[Lightenup]

Quote (Not3in1 @ May 31 2008,02:32)

Quote (Lightenup @ May 31 2008,07:47) Quote (Lightenup @ May 19 2008,14:59) To all, I could see a general contractor of all the homes in a new subdivision as advertising that he was the 'only one' that built the homes in that neighborhood.  Eventhough, he used framers, plumbers, electricians, etc.  He would be correct in saying that he was the 'only one' that built the homes in that neighborhood.  He got the plans made, he gave the orders, he paid the subs and suppliers, he was in charge and it is he that the homeowners came to if there was something wrong, yes?  So, I can certainly see how the Most High God could say that He alone created all things (there was no other 'general contractor' in other words.)  When the scriptures say: 1 Cor 8:5-6 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet 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. NASU In this passage the General Contractor-the Most High God, is telling us who was the only subcontractor-the master craftsman who was by His Father's side-the Son of the Most High God, the one who was predestined to act as a Messiah in the future.  I understand the Son of God's role as the Messiah is what was predestined but actually all the Son of God's roles were all predestined since He did not eternally exist, imo.  Jesus was born of God (an asexual reproduction) before the foundation of the world and was born as the only begotten God.  The role of the master craftsman of creation was carried out many years before His role as the Messiah. It is possible for one person to wear many hats, so to speak. The only begotten God, the actual only Son of God, wore the hat of the master craftsman during creation, I tend to think he wore the 'hat' of a visible messenger at times to people in the old testament (possibly in the fiery furnace, speaker to Joshua, Yahweh to Abraham, etc.)  and all that before he took on the 'hats' of a man to mankind, the Jewish Messiah, our Savior, Lord of Lords and King of Kings, etc.  He was the Son of the Most High God in all those 'hats' and some of them He never takes off. Again, this is my understanding and yes there are verses to support these ideas but I believe you won't understand them this way without God's enlightenment and without surrendering your established ideas. Dear Gene, Here is a post I made a week and a half ago referring to how God could say that He alone created things. Blessings! LU Kathi, I like your story. However God tells us that he used his OWN HAND to lay the foundations.  I don't believe we could mistake this for a crew of hands, could we?

Hi Mandy,
Thank you for your openness. Most on here are not open to “listen” as you are now. This is just a thought but the “hand of the Lord” seems to be figurative of maybe His strength or support or something like that. I think that it could be figurative of someone who does a job for another. Have you ever heard the expression: “He is like my right hand”?

The Son of God was not a “crew” of hands but just one and I think the only helper.

This is just a thought.
God bless,
Kathi

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Not3in1 @ May 31 2008,18:34)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 31 2008,11:02) If angels are different created beings than humans, which I believe they are, then if they are sons of God then that would mean that God has more than one type of son. Very good point! I also wonder if satan was written out of the will?  He started out being a “son” – right?

Hi Mandy

Is there a scripture for that? Where does scripture say that satan was ever a son of God?

[Not3in1]

Quote (Lightenup @ June 01 2008,01:29)

This is just a thought but the “hand of the Lord” seems to be figurative of maybe His strength or support or something like that. I think that it could be figurative of someone who does a job for another. Have you ever heard the expression: “He is like my right hand”? The Son of God was not a “crew” of hands but just one and I think the only helper.

Good morning, Kathi,

The “hand of the LORD” could perhaps be figurative? However the context of scriptures surrounding such passages suggest that God wants us to know he was ALONE during creation. Using such phrases as , “….my own hand laid the foundation…” only stands to cement this idea that 1.) He was alone, and 2.) That his hand did the almighty work and he wants sole credit for it.

That being said though, in the NT we are told a new thing: that through Jesus everything was created that was created. We are also told the given Messiah was conceived and born through a women. Why do we have to take these two pieces of information and decide that Jesus had to preexist to fulfill them both?

We know that one does not preexist their birth. I didn't. You didn't. So we can safely conclude that Jesus didn't (considering he's our brother and a human).

So what do we do with those scriptures that *seem* to say he did preexist? In my opinion, we interpret them through the light of what we already know. If we know Jesus didn't preexist, then we know there is another way to view the fact that through Jesus everything came to be. Certainly the explaination of other's here have given us some ideas as to what those other views are.

Preexistence is like trying to put a circle into a square, it just doesn't fit. And it is my opinion that it wasn't meant to fit. The waters around this theology are too muddy to navigate in. With a subject this important, I believe there would be more clear teachings. We cannot not point to very many on the topic. I would venture to say that there are nearly zip in the OT as we have discovered.

Thanks,
Mandy

[Not3in1]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 01 2008,02:53)

Quote (Not3in1 @ May 31 2008,18:34) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 31 2008,11:02) If angels are different created beings than humans, which I believe they are, then if they are sons of God then that would mean that God has more than one type of son. Very good point! I also wonder if satan was written out of the will?  He started out being a “son” – right?   Hi Mandy Is there a scripture for that? Where does scripture say that satan was ever a son of God?

Oh, I dunno. I just assumed because he was an angel (and angels are considered “sons”) that originally satan was considered such? I don't know, though, that's why I was asking you.

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (Not3in1 @ June 01 2008,03:07)

Quote (Lightenup @ June 01 2008,01:29) This is just a thought but the “hand of the Lord” seems to be figurative of maybe His strength or support or something like that. I think that it could be figurative of someone who does a job for another. Have you ever heard the expression: “He is like my right hand”? The Son of God was not a “crew” of hands but just one and I think the only helper. Good morning, Kathi, The “hand of the LORD” could perhaps be figurative? However the context of scriptures surrounding such passages suggest that God wants us to know he was ALONE during creation. Using such phrases as , “….my own hand laid the foundation…” only stands to cement this idea that 1.) He was alone, and 2.) That his hand did the almighty work and he wants sole credit for it. That being said though, in the NT we are told a new thing: that through Jesus everything was created that was created. We are also told the given Messiah was conceived and born through a women. Why do we have to take these two pieces of information and decide that Jesus had to preexist to fulfill them both? We know that one does not preexist their birth. I didn't. You didn't. So we can safely conclude that Jesus didn't (considering he's our brother and a human). So what do we do with those scriptures that *seem* to say he did preexist? In my opinion, we interpret them through the light of what we already know. If we know Jesus didn't preexist, then we know there is another way to view the fact that through Jesus everything came to be. Certainly the explaination of other's here have given us some ideas as to what those other views are. Preexistence is like trying to put a circle into a square, it just doesn't fit. And it is my opinion that it wasn't meant to fit. The waters around this theology are too muddy to navigate in. With a subject this important, I believe there would be more clear teachings. We cannot not point to very many on the topic. I would venture to say that there are nearly zip in the OT as we have discovered. Thanks, Mandy

Mandy…….Amen, excellent post.

Blessing to you and yours…………………gene

[GeneBalthrop]

lightenup…….you can make up any thing to try to fit your point of views, but where are they in the scriptures. And if they are contrary to scripture or not found there why assume it then. We shouldn't force the text to mean something
thats not there. When people become indoctrinated in a Ideology like trinitarians thats what they do, they take snap shots of scripture, but not the sum of them inconsideration.

We are told the (SUM) of Gods words are truth.

peace to you and yours………..gene

[seek and you will find]

Gen  Please in your words how do you explain Colosians 1:15-18?  Also John 6:38-40, John 1:15, John 1:3, Rev. 3:14 and Hebrew 1:1-2 These are the words of God so please explain them to me?
Mrs.

[942767]

Quote (t8 @ May 31 2008,20:34)

Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 110 A.D) wrote the following: For what says “The man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself” for the life and salvation of the world. Whosoever, therefore, declares that there is but one God, only so as to take away the divinity of Christ, is a devil, and an enemy of all righteousness. He also that confesseth Christ, yet not as the Son of the Maker of the world, but of some other unknown being, different from Him whom the law and the prophets have proclaimed, this man is an instrument of the devil. And he that rejects the incarnation, and is ashamed of the cross for which I am in bonds, this man is antichrist. Moreover, he who affirms Christ to be a mere man is accursed, according to the prophet, since he puts not his trust in God, but in man. (To the Antiochians, IV-V). What do others think? If saying that Jesus is a man only, then is such a person putting their trust in man and therefore accursed?

Hi T8:

I believe that he is indicating rejecting that Jesus is not God's only begotten Son and His Christ by saying that he is just a man. If so, he is accursed if this is what he is preaching.

Quote

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed

[NickHassan]

Hi GB,
God brought His son into the world.
Heb1

[942767]

Quote (Lightenup @ May 28 2008,02:32)

Quote (942767 @ May 26 2008,19:33) Quote (Lightenup @ May 27 2008,11:08) Quote (942767 @ May 26 2008,17:52) Hi Lightenup: You say: Quote and One Begotten God, The Lord Jesus Christ. Where is the scripture to support this? Hi 94, Nick is right it is in John 1:18: 18 No one has seen God at any time; the ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.   NASU Here it is in the Greek: qeon oudeiv ewraken (5758) pwpote; monogenhv qeov o wn (5752) eiv ton kolpon tou patrov ekeinov echghsato. monogenhv qeov means only begotten God. Some translations say only begotten Son but the greek word after begotten is qeov which when transliterated is Theos which means God. And Jesus is Lord: 1 Cor 8:6 6 yet 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. NASU Hi Lightenup: As I said to Nick, no wonder why there is so much confusion. There has to be in this translation maybe something like the only begotten (of) God in order for this to be consistent with the rest of the bible. As I stated Jesus is God in the sense that he is the express image of God's person, and that we see through the works that he did in obedience to God's Word.  God does call him God in Hebrews 1:10 but he exlains why saying, Quote But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom. Hbr 1:9  THOU HATH LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND HATED INIQUITY; “THEREFORE” GOD (EVEN THY GOD), HATH ANOINTED THE WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE THY FELLOWS. God Bless Hi 94, I am glad that you are not just satisfied that your Bible says what you hope it means but that you are thinking this through.  I feel your pain because I used to not know a thing about Greek (not saying that YOU don't know a thing about Greek).  I was at the mercies of the translator.  If you want me to explain how to manuever http://www.studylight.org to find out a bit more about the original Greek words then let me know. You might try going to this web page and see John 1:18 in english and the Greek also. http://www.studylight.org/isb….=1&l=en Regarding John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. qeon oudeiv ewraken (5758) pwpote; monogenhv qeov o wn (5752) eiv ton kolpon tou patrov ekeinov echghsato. Now, go to this web page to see if qeov is in the genitive case (that is the case that would show possession and be tranlated “of God”) http://www.studylight.org/isb….8&nt=na We see here that monogenhv is: Adjective : Nominative : Singular : Masculine.   Which means that it is an adjective in this sentence and that it is describing the subject, (that is what nominative tells us).  The words singular and masculine are agreeing with the noun that it is describing which is qeov (God). We also see on this web page that qeov (God) is: Noun : Nominative : Singular : Masculine Which means that God is used in this sentence as the noun and subject (because it is in the nominative case).  Singular means that it is just one God spoken about in this sentence and that the noun is masculine, not feminine or neuter. You see, 94, if it was supposed to be “the only begotten OF God” then qeov would be spelled differently to match the genitive case and not in the nominative case.  When a Greek noun is written in the genitive case translators are to put the word “of” in front of it because genitive cases show possession. Now, I have given you a bit of a Greek lesson.  You are not ready to fly yet but I want you to know that the translators have some rules that they have to follow.  It is true that they have some freedom within their translating but certainly not much. Let me know if I haven't explained it clearly enough. And by the way, by referring to the Son of God as the Begotten God then you have the understanding that is consistent with the rest of the Bible.  If you accept Him as the Begotten God, well that clears up many of the scriptures we have been going round and round with here in the trinity and pre-existence thread.  I will speak of that in my next post. Peace, LU

Hi Lightenup

Thanks for the Greek lesson, but I was not trying to make the point that this should be translated begotten (of) God.  I was just saying that in order for this scripture to be true it would have to be this way because there is no such thing as a begotten God.

As Nick pointed out some manuscripts state the only begotten Son of God, and that is correct.

Brother WJ has posted an excellent post to refute any begotten God here:

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….=105828

God Bless

[Lightenup]

Quote (Not3in1 @ May 31 2008,11:07)

Quote (Lightenup @ June 01 2008,01:29) This is just a thought but the “hand of the Lord” seems to be figurative of maybe His strength or support or something like that.  I think that it could be figurative of someone who does a job for another.  Have you ever heard the expression: “He is like my right hand”?   The Son of God was not a “crew” of hands but just one and I think the only helper. Good morning, Kathi, The “hand of the LORD” could perhaps be figurative?  However the context of scriptures surrounding such passages suggest that God wants us to know he was ALONE during creation.  Using such phrases as , “….my own hand laid the foundation…” only stands to cement this idea that 1.) He was alone, and 2.) That his hand did the almighty work and he wants sole credit for it. That being said though, in the NT we are told a new thing:  that through Jesus everything was created that was created.  We are also told the given Messiah was conceived and born through a women.  Why do we have to take these two pieces of information and decide that Jesus had to preexist to fulfill them both? We know that one does not preexist their birth.  I didn't.  You didn't.  So we can safely conclude that Jesus didn't (considering he's our brother and a human). So what do we do with those scriptures that *seem* to say he did preexist?  In my opinion, we interpret them through the light of what we already know.  If we know Jesus didn't preexist, then we know there is another way to view the fact that through Jesus everything came to be.  Certainly the explaination of other's here have given us some ideas as to what those other views are. Preexistence is like trying to put a circle into a square, it just doesn't fit.  And it is my opinion that it wasn't meant to fit.  The waters around this theology are too muddy to navigate in.  With a subject this important, I believe there would be more clear teachings.  We cannot not point to very many on the topic.  I would venture to say that there are nearly zip in the OT as we have discovered. Thanks, Mandy

Hey Girl,
We all have to follow our hearts. I'm on a different path but I will follow the Creator and not the creature. I follow Christ.

Peace,
Kathi

[Not3in1]

Quote (Lightenup @ June 01 2008,11:42)

I'm on a different path but I will follow the Creator and not the creature.  I follow Christ.

If this is the path you are on, please tell me how we are on different paths?

I also follow Christ. I follow him all the way to his example. I worship and pray to his Father who is also my Father. The One, Almighty God. There is no other…..  
Thanks,
Mandy

[Lightenup]

Hi 94,
For some reason my computer would not follow the link you provided to WJ's post. I remember it included the NET Bible's notes from the translators. So I have copied the verse as they have it translated and their notes. Note that in verse 18, son is not the word to use but “God” is correct. Technically, it can be only begotten God, (read the notes) they just can't have it that way because it throws off their theology.

Anyway, do you like how they translate the verse to read that Jesus is the “The only one, 45 himself God, who is in closest fellowship with 46 the Father”. I thought he was just a man like us in your opinion doesn't that kinda mess up your theory?

1:14 Now 34 the Word became flesh 35 and took up residence 36 among us. We 37 saw his glory – the glory of the one and only, 38 full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. 1:15 John 39 testified 40 about him and shouted out, 41 “This one was the one about whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is greater than I am, 42 because he existed before me.’” 1:16 For we have all received from his fullness one gracious gift after another. 43 1:17 For the law was given through Moses, but 44 grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ. 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, 45 himself God, who is in closest fellowship with 46 the Father, has made God 47 known. 48

tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh” qeo”, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh” Juio”, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo” hn Jo logo”) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.

tn Or “The unique one.” For the meaning of μονογενής (monogenh”) see the note on “one and only” in 1:14.

tn Or “of the unique one.” Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clem. 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant., 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God, Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18).

If you read the notes carefully, it explains why the translations that say “only begotten Son” is not the preferred reading and why.
Also, you will see that it is technically possible for it to read that Jesus is the only begotten God.

LU

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (seek and you will find @ June 01 2008,05:14)

Gen Please in your words how do you explain Colosians 1:15-18? Also John 6:38-40, John 1:15, John 1:3, and Hebrew 1:1-2 These are the words of God so please explain them to me? Mrs.

seek ………..Col 1: 12.giving thanks to the fathers who enabled us to share in the inheritance of the saints of light,he has rescued us from the power of darkness and transfered us into the kingdom of hid beloved son,in whom we have redemption , the forgiveness of sins , he is the (image) of the invisible God the first born of all creation ,

question he is in the what (IMAGE) what is the image of God, is it not what God had in mind for all humanity, but Jesus was the firstborn to become that image, and the word image does not mean exact same as , it means to reflect or mirror something, but is never the actual being it he is reflecting nor does he have the same power either. An image of the invisible God is not God Himself.

for in him (God) all things were created in heaven and on the earth things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers- all have been created through him (God)and for him,he(GOD) himself is before all things, and in him (GOD)all things are held together. he (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he may have preeminence.

Your making all of the text be about Jesus when all of it was not.
if you take all the bible into consideration all the other scriptures that show that God said He (ALONE)and By (HIMSELF) crated the earth and all thats in it. you could have easily properly understood the text. Your problem is your not taking (all) scripture into consideration before you draw a conclusion.

All the rest of what you asked to be explained have been explained over and over, but if you don't get it, you simply don't get it.

peace to you………gene

[Lightenup]

Quote (Not3in1 @ May 31 2008,20:25)

Quote (Lightenup @ June 01 2008,11:42) I'm on a different path but I will follow the Creator and not the creature.  I follow Christ. If this is the path you are on, please tell me how we are on different paths? I also follow Christ.  I follow him all the way to his example.  I worship and pray to his Father who is also my Father.  The One, Almighty God.  There is no other…..   Thanks, Mandy

Mandy,
The Christ you follow is a creature, a created being, a created man. The Christ that I follow is not created but was used to create. Two different Christs, two different paths.

Bless you,
K

[GeneBalthrop]

Lightenup…………if you can't see Jesus as a Man, who Had the spirit of God in him you simply don't see Jesus at all. And you have no identity with Him, because you have separated yourself from his likeness, and you do not believe you can come to the (FULL) stature of Christ, thats oblivious.

IMO……….gene

[Lightenup]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 31 2008,21:15)

Lightenup…………if you can't see Jesus as a Man, who Had the spirit of God in him you simply don't see Jesus at all. And you have no identity with Him, because you have separated  yourself from his likeness, and you do not believe you can come to the (FULL) stature of Christ, thats oblivious. IMO……….gene

Gene,
“oblivious” really

Show me where I have stated that I didn't think that Jesus was a man that had the spirit of God in him. Don't bother looking…never said that.

What I do believe is that Jesus DID come as a man with the pre-existing spirit of the son, the begotten God within Him and also has the spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, in Him. People can have both of those spirits within them too. God gave me the spirit of the son to which allows me to cry out “Abba Father” and recognize God as my Father too.

Gal 4:6-7
6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.
NASU

1 John 4:2-3
2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;
NASU

You make some pretty judgemental statements, I guess that you think you are qualified to make your own set of rules on who is a child of God???

As my house full of teenagers would say “whatever”, Gene.

[Lightenup]

Wow,
I just made 6 dozen chocolate chip cookies and 4 dozen dessert bars during the last few posts. I was bakin' and debatin' thanks Gene and Mandy, that time went fast. And yes, it does smell pretty good around here.:p

[Author]

Posts