Preexistence

[Arnold]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 30 2010,12:43)

Quote (t8 @ July 30 2010,12:08) So I think John's intention was to say that there were two in the beginning or before the universe. God and the Word and the Word was divine, or of the same essence as God. I don't think he meant us to think that there was the Big God and a smaller god in the beginning. It might not seem like there is not much of a difference, but the outcome of saying that the Word is another God has profound consequences to the whole of scripture and seems to conflict with all statements that there is one who is identified as God and that he is the only true God. In effect, you could nullify all those other scriptures on account of that interpretation of John 1:1c. Hi t8, I can live with the first statement above.  Divine could be what John intended.  But IMO, he more likely meant that the Word was with THE MIGHTY ONE, and the Word was himself “a mighty one”. And while I see what you're saying in the second paragraph, I have just never had that “THERE'S ONLY ONE GOD, PERIOD” thinking.  The Bible mentions many, and we can't just wish them away. If people would just substitute “tough one” or “master” or “strong one” or whatever, the problem would solve itself.  Insert the word “king”.  David was a king.  Jesus is a King.  But God is THE KING.  So what Paul and Jesus were both implying was that although there are many kings over many kingdoms, God is the only true KING in that He is, was and always will be KING over any and all other kings, including Jesus. But like I said, I understand we don't view or use the word “god” the same way as it was used in Biblical times.  And so I definitely see where you are coming from. mike

Mike!  That is also how I have always thought Jesus was in John 1:1 and Hebrew 1:8.  Also in Ancient times many were called Gods.  So I find it either way, as long as we understand that The Word of God in Rev. 19 is Jesus.  Because that I cannot see any other way.  He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords.  That makes no trinity, because of God's Holy Spirit is not a person.  The trinitarian will want to use it for their believes that is why I say that.  Oh sprechen Sie deutch?:)that comes directly out of the Catholic Church……….One more thing, in the Old Test. LORD is always in capital letters, while Jesus is Lord of Lords. and LORD is Jehovah God…..Peace Irene

[terraricca]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 30 2010,19:21)

Quote (terraricca @ July 30 2010,11:15) it is understood that God, i mean the true and only God,can make god out of any one he feel to use as is will needed,just like he did with Moses,it is this way that it make sense to understand how Jesus ,the WORD,the Christ became god according to the will of GOD his father,(Christ did not become got of his father ,he is nominate by his father,big difference) Hi Pierre and All, The word “god” simply indicated a “mighty one” in both Hebrew and Greek culture.  But only Jehovah is called the God of gods.  In other words, He alone is the “mightiest of the mighty ones”.  That is why He alone is called “Almighty God”.  That is also why, although Jesus is a god, he still calls Jehovah “my God”. It is no problem whatsoever that Jesus is “a god”, or “mighty one”.  He is the second most powerful being in existence – of course he is a “mighty one”.   What Kathi fails to remember is, although there are many “mighty ones”, we are commanded to worship only the ALMIGHTY ONE. And where the trinitarians get confused is, although Jesus is the Almighty God's Son and servant, and calls the only Almighty God “my God”, they still somehow think he is the same exact being as this Almighty God who is his Father that begot him.   mike

hi mike

i have no problem with that , But only Jehovah is called the God of gods.because i know there is but only one true GOD.

(my mother was a JW)

Pierre

[Arnold]

Quote (terraricca @ July 30 2010,13:33)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 30 2010,19:21) Quote (terraricca @ July 30 2010,11:15) it is understood that God, i mean the true and only God,can make god out of any one he feel to use as is will needed,just like he did with Moses,it is this way that it make sense to understand how Jesus ,the WORD,the Christ became god according to the will of GOD his father,(Christ did not become got of his father ,he is nominate by his father,big difference) Hi Pierre and All, The word “god” simply indicated a “mighty one” in both Hebrew and Greek culture.  But only Jehovah is called the God of gods.  In other words, He alone is the “mightiest of the mighty ones”.  That is why He alone is called “Almighty God”.  That is also why, although Jesus is a god, he still calls Jehovah “my God”. It is no problem whatsoever that Jesus is “a god”, or “mighty one”.  He is the second most powerful being in existence – of course he is a “mighty one”.   What Kathi fails to remember is, although there are many “mighty ones”, we are commanded to worship only the ALMIGHTY ONE. And where the trinitarians get confused is, although Jesus is the Almighty God's Son and servant, and calls the only Almighty God “my God”, they still somehow think he is the same exact being as this Almighty God who is his Father that begot him.   mike hi mike i have no problem with that , But only Jehovah is called the God of gods.because i know there is but only one true GOD. (my mother was a JW) Pierre

Hey, there is nothing wrong with the J.W. in fact some time ago my Husband let some of them in to our Home and we had several debates, and it was one of them that told us about Jesus preexisting. At first we told them no way. But in time God did open our minds to it…Peace Irene

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Arnold @ July 30 2010,13:26)

Mike! That is also how I have always thought Jesus was in John 1:1 and Hebrew 1:8. Also in Ancient times many were called Gods. So I find it either way, as long as we understand that The Word of God in Rev. 19 is Jesus. Because that I cannot see any other way. He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. That makes no trinity, because of God's Holy Spirit is not a person. The trinitarian will want to use it for their believes that is why I say that. Oh sprechen Sie deutch?:)that comes directly out of the Catholic Church……….One more thing, in the Old Test. LORD is always in capital letters, while Jesus is Lord of Lords. and LORD is Jehovah God…..Peace Irene

Hi Irene,

And Jesus being a god, or “mighty one” in no way infers he is THE Almighty One or even a part of Him anymore than the Philistine “mighty one” Dagon being called “god” would infer he was part of THE God or equal to Him.

And any time you read LORD in the OT, it is how the English translators render the Hebrew YHVH. So when you read LORD, the original Hebrew text actually used God's divine name YHVH, there. In other words, when you read LORD in most English translations, the Hebrew text actually said “Jehovah”, but the English translators changed it to LORD.

peace and love,
mike

[Proclaimer]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 30 2010,12:43)

I can live with the first statement above.  Divine could be what John intended.  But IMO, he more likely meant that the Word was with THE MIGHTY ONE, and the Word was himself “a mighty one”.

Yup.

Like you could also read that as and the Word himself “was mighty”.

Then that way you eliminate the confusion of mixing up the identifies of other mighty ones because you are describing something rather than identifying it.

This is where Trinitarians think they have a strong-hold, and the truth is that they are merely playing with words and over time, what was meant as a description has become an association.

When you read the early writings after the bible and before Nicea, you don't see the Word as God himself. But you see this transition over time.

Let's for argument sake say that translations decided to use the indefinite article instead of assuming that God was being identified and hence the God or capital (G) God as we see today with most translations simply said, “a god”.

That could easily bring rise to a doctrine that Jesus is the Devil for example. If Jesus is a god and Satan is a god, then an association would most likely be made by some and if that association happened to be by an important translator, then his bias could cause a huge false doctrine to occur. Scriptures that referred to the Devil tempting Jesus could be parablized into an internal conflict within the same being, something that happens to all of us.  

But this hypothetical error could easily be avoided by saying that the Word was like God or had divine nature. This way, you could never make the association that Jesus and the Devil were the same being from John 1:1c.

A description or qualifying something is not meant to be understood that you are identifying someone, and adding an article whether it is definite or indefinite then runs that risk of making a false association with an identity, when really it is just a description. So in this case, when you identify a being when there is no indefinite article, you run the risk of drawing a conclusion that is not necessarily the intended conclusion.

In simple terms, a person cannot dispute that the Word was divine which is what the text is saying, but a person can dispute that the Word was a particular god if you indeed say that John 1:1c is identifying the Word by saying “a god”. In actual fact it is not really until John says “And the Word became flesh”, that we have him identifying the Word.

Also, it is a true statement that God is a god. So then you are giving credence to the possibility that Jesus is God, by saying that the Word was a god. Because if he is a god, the next logical assumption is to say, which God, and the Most High God would make that list along with other gods.

Like I said, John is not asking us to identify the Word when he says, “and theos was the Logos”, or the Logos was theos”.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (t8 @ July 30 2010,14:32)

Also, it is a true statement that God is a god. So then you are giving credence to the possibility that Jesus is God, by saying that the Word was a god. Because if he is a god, the next logical assumption is to say, which God, and the Most High God would make that list along with other gods.

I don't think any more credence would be given than is given by reading about Satan being “the god of this world/age”.

Anybody that would take “a god” in John 1:1 the way you say would also be the type of person to think by Paul's statement that Jehovah is only God in heaven, but Satan is God on earth.

I truly believe he meant “a mighty one”. But who knows for sure? Someday we will.

And every last one of us will eventually know for a fact that he definitely didn't mean God Almighty was with Himself and was the Word and Son of Himself and sat at His own right hand as His own servant.

peace,
mike

[kerwin]

Mike,

I simply broke it up the second clause of the scripture into segments to show you that the subject of the clause was Jesus’ glory and that it existed in God’s presence before the world began.  That is merely a way of putting that Jesus was predestined to be the mediator of the New Covenant and nothing else.

Either from ignorance or corruption as Peter declares you have chosen to put more into the words than is there and that is sad.   I assume ignorance as we are but students.  I did point out that it is Jesus’ glory, and not Jesus, that was in God’s presence which is literally what that scripture states.

Your argument is that it implies that Jesus was also there and I say that it does not imply such a thing as one does not have to be present to be glorified.  For example a metal can be given post humorously.  That is why I asked if you had trouble with the idea that Jesus was predestined to become King of everything in heaven and on earth.

You also seem to misunderstand what I believe about the first clause wherein Jesus is asking God to give him glory.   The glory Jesus asking for is the glory that God has had waiting for him since the beginning of the world.  God did just what Jesus asked when he made Jesus Lord of heaven and earth and Jesus ascended to become the mediator of the New Covenant.

Out of curiosity, how would you phrase it if you were speaking of glory God reserved for you before the beginning of the world even though you did not exist yet?  To me the words “I had” seem appropriate as it is something attributed to the speaker in the past.

Your fellow student,

Kerwin

[Lightenup]

Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2010,19:15)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 30 2010,15:57) Quote (terraricca @ July 28 2010,22:51) Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2010,06:51) Quote (kerwin @ July 29 2010,02:48) Pierre, You seem to speculate that Jesus is or was at one time was an immaterial being and not a human being.  Do you have any scriptures that state that?   I know of scripture that calls Jesus a human being even after his ascension but none that call him any other type of being. If you have no evidence that states Jesus is or was an immaterial being then what are you basing that speculation on. Your fellow student, Kerwin hi KW why you try to, to say other wise and be true,according to the scriptures and see?? Pierre hi KW God did in a similar way ,what he did with Adam wen he create EVE, in the same way he took from himself to create Jesus ,Christ, the WORD, the SON of GOD,ect. Pierre terraricca, This has really helped me differentiate between how man came about and how the Son came about. Man-created The Son of God-procreated You see, when one is procreated/begotten they are like the one that beget them.  Since the Heavenly Father is self-sufficient, He had no need for a counterpart to have a literal offspring. When something is created, then they are not like the one that created them. It has really helped me understand the difference and see the Son as God also.  God begets God…an unbegotten God and a begotten God. hi LU it is understood that God, i mean the true and only God,can make god out of any one he feel to use as is will needed,just like he did with Moses,it is this way that it make sense to understand how Jesus ,the WORD,the Christ became god according to the will of GOD his father,(Christ did not become got of his father ,he is nominate by his father,big difference) now it could be understand that Jesus always said ;i do my father s will,;I speak my fathers words;and also;i have been send ,and i go back to where i come from ;heaven; we also now understand his birth,by the intervention of God organization. we also understand the words Jesus said before he died,ALL IS DONE. the reason for Christ to come is first to accomplish the promise the scriptures made to the faithful people of old. and secondly to save, not the ones who know or think they know how to be saved,but to save the ones who depend totally on him and his father to have live,and so follow the only way to salvation. Pierre

terraricca,
So you equate the only begotten Son of God to be a designated god? Is that what you are saying? You don't know that the Son has the same nature as His Father? Moses did not have the same nature as deity, the Son does. There is a big difference between a person designated to act as god and a person being born one.

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 29 2010,20:21)

Quote (terraricca @ July 30 2010,11:15) it is understood that God, i mean the true and only God,can make god out of any one he feel to use as is will needed,just like he did with Moses,it is this way that it make sense to understand how Jesus ,the WORD,the Christ became god according to the will of GOD his father,(Christ did not become got of his father ,he is nominate by his father,big difference) Hi Pierre and All, The word “god” simply indicated a “mighty one” in both Hebrew and Greek culture.  But only Jehovah is called the God of gods.  In other words, He alone is the “mightiest of the mighty ones”.  That is why He alone is called “Almighty God”.  That is also why, although Jesus is a god, he still calls Jehovah “my God”. It is no problem whatsoever that Jesus is “a god”, or “mighty one”.  He is the second most powerful being in existence – of course he is a “mighty one”.   What Kathi fails to remember is, although there are many “mighty ones”, we are commanded to worship only the ALMIGHTY ONE. And where the trinitarians get confused is, although Jesus is the Almighty God's Son and servant, and calls the only Almighty God “my God”, they still somehow think he is the same exact being as this Almighty God who is his Father that begot him.   mike

Mike, Mike, Mike…

Kathi doesn't fail to remember…Kathi just believes that worshiping Jesus is part of the process of worshiping the Father and it pleases the Father.

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,15:06)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 28 2010,14:54) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 28 2010,14:16) Quote (Lightenup @ July 28 2010,14:08) It is one thing for the Son of God to be equal in nature to God, His Father…another thing to be the God OF God where one is the source/unbegotten and the other is from the source/begotten (before the ages). Kathi, there is no scripture that says the Father is the source of Jesus. They are One. Your theory is flawed because you insist that “begotten” always means to be “Born”. It doesn't and there are no scriptures that prove Jesus had a beginning, but it is only conjecture for those who reject Jesus as the “The One True God”. WJ Keith, I do not say what you say I do.  Maybe you don't mean to misrepresent my words, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I have agreed that begotten doesn't ALWAYS mean born yet you say that I think that it always means born. It is obvious to the early christians that the Father is the source. Calvin says this (for example); “He says, then, that we subsist in the Father, and that it is by the Son, because the Father is indeed the foundation of all existence; but, as it is by the Son that we are united to him, so he communicates to us through him the reality of existence.” found here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom39.xv.i.html I have also shown recently of the many who say that it was the Father who begat and the Son was the begotten.  It is obvious to MANY that the Father is the source, not the Son although He brings things into being by the son. I'll be gone for a while… Kathi But none of what you are posting implys Jesus had a beginning and again there is no scripture that says the Father is the source of Jesus. Why do you use the commentary of “Trinitarians” who obviously believe Jesus is “One God” with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit who always existed?     I believe you are misrepresenting their views when you do this. WJ

Keith,
I am only quoting the words, not revising them. Perhaps and very likely, I can understand them in a different light than you. For instance, if I read someone say that the Son has been around as long as the Father, I can see that they may mean that before the Son was begotten, the Father was not a Father yet. The Father became a Father when He begat a Son and thus, they have existed as long as each other. My husband was not a father before he beget a son either, yet he existed before he was a father. My husband has been a father for about 24 years, since when I conceived our firstborn and my son has existed for about 24 years but they are not the same age. You might read the same thing and make the assumption that the Son has always existed as long as God has. See what I mean?

It has been very enlightening to me to read the famous Christians' comments on verses that we disagree on here at HN over and over. I am finding that they believe monogenes means 'only begotten' and not merely an 'only one of its kind' like you insist. I am trying to help you see this. You never admit this and I think you are blind to it. Put aside the possible implications of this, just see that they say 'only begotten' and place that before the ages…please admit this.

Also, many of the Christians that I am quoting say 'true God of true God' but you don't seem to have the reasoning to accept that a true God could come from the true God. You make it into a big God little God debate or true God/false god debate and you miss the message, imo. I don't think that you believe God is able to have an offspring that is truly like Him because you continually respond with calling the offspring 'lesser,' or 'little.'

We need to know here that these earlier Christians did use the words 'only begotten' before the ages and true God of true God. From what I can tell, there is a common belief of the beginning of the Son as a separate person whose substance from which He is from always existed. That, to me sounds like a 'seed' so to speak, the 'seed' of the Son within the Father. I can agree with this.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 30 2010,14:48)

Quote (t8 @ July 30 2010,14:32) Also, it is a true statement that God is a god. So then you are giving credence to the possibility that Jesus is God, by saying that the Word was a god. Because if he is a god, the next logical assumption is to say, which God, and the Most High God would make that list along with other gods. I don't think any more credence would be given than is given by reading about Satan being “the god of this world/age”. Anybody that would take “a god” in John 1:1 the way you say would also be the type of person to think by Paul's statement that Jehovah is only God in heaven, but Satan is God on earth. I truly believe he meant “a mighty one”.  But who knows for sure?  Someday we will.   And every last one of us will eventually know for a fact that he definitely didn't mean God Almighty was with Himself and was the Word and Son of Himself and sat at His own right hand as His own servant.   peace, mike

Some good points here and the last one is humorous and true at the same time.

According to Origen and other early Christian writers and defenders, as well as some modern day scholars, even including Trinity believing ones, there is the understanding that had the definite article been used, which is the same as capitalizing theos as Theos or God, then the Word would be God to the exclusion of the Father. That is how the language works.

So if the indefinite article is being used, then surely “a god” wouldn't bring that confusion. When you say mighty one, you are qualifying anyway, but when you say “a mighty one”, then you are identifying someone who is mighty, of which God is mighty and so he is a possible candidate.

I guess the difference isn't much except to say, that adding the indefinite article introduces alternative possible meanings, whereas no indefinite article leaves the reader no choice but to see that the Word is being described as divine or of God's nature or essence.

Another possible meaning that you can derive from saying that the Word was a god, is that there is more than one legitimate God, with differing levels of power and one who is at the top. But the truth is that there is one God who is the Divine and he of course has divine nature and he shares that nature, so that even we can partake in it. In other words there is one who is the source of all, and those that are called theos are either false or receive from Theos his nature, essence, authority, etc.

I guess you could say, that one introduces the idea of another god besides YHWH, while the other says that the Word and others who are described as theos (except for false gods) as being God-like, possessing divine nature, made of the same essence as God, and/or being under God's authority.

[Proclaimer]

To mike.

Origen said this in the early 200s.
(He was said to be a man who knew the languages of his time.)

Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos (gods), and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is autotheos (God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know You the only true God; “but that all beyond the autotheos (God) is made theos by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply “the” theos but rather theos.

[terraricca]

Quote (Lightenup @ July 30 2010,23:08)

Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2010,19:15) Quote (Lightenup @ July 30 2010,15:57) Quote (terraricca @ July 28 2010,22:51) Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2010,06:51) Quote (kerwin @ July 29 2010,02:48) Pierre, You seem to speculate that Jesus is or was at one time was an immaterial being and not a human being.  Do you have any scriptures that state that?   I know of scripture that calls Jesus a human being even after his ascension but none that call him any other type of being. If you have no evidence that states Jesus is or was an immaterial being then what are you basing that speculation on. Your fellow student, Kerwin hi KW why you try to, to say other wise and be true,according to the scriptures and see?? Pierre hi KW God did in a similar way ,what he did with Adam wen he create EVE, in the same way he took from himself to create Jesus ,Christ, the WORD, the SON of GOD,ect. Pierre terraricca, This has really helped me differentiate between how man came about and how the Son came about. Man-created The Son of God-procreated You see, when one is procreated/begotten they are like the one that beget them.  Since the Heavenly Father is self-sufficient, He had no need for a counterpart to have a literal offspring. When something is created, then they are not like the one that created them. It has really helped me understand the difference and see the Son as God also.  God begets God…an unbegotten God and a begotten God. hi LU it is understood that God, i mean the true and only God,can make god out of any one he feel to use as is will needed,just like he did with Moses,it is this way that it make sense to understand how Jesus ,the WORD,the Christ became god according to the will of GOD his father,(Christ did not become got of his father ,he is nominate by his father,big difference) now it could be understand that Jesus always said ;i do my father s will,;I speak my fathers words;and also;i have been send ,and i go back to where i come from ;heaven; we also now understand his birth,by the intervention of God organization. we also understand the words Jesus said before he died,ALL IS DONE. the reason for Christ to come is first to accomplish the promise the scriptures made to the faithful people of old. and secondly to save, not the ones who know or think they know how to be saved,but to save the ones who depend totally on him and his father to have live,and so follow the only way to salvation. Pierre terraricca, So you equate the only begotten Son of God to be a designated god?  Is that what you are saying?  You don't know that the Son has the same nature as His Father?  Moses did not have the same nature as deity, the Son does.  There is a big difference between a person designated to act as god and a person being born one.

LU

no i do not equate Christ to his father,and this is not a thesis for a Dr or master degree,

God word is to be understood by the spirit of truth,not by some grammar wording and definition in the hands of the scholars.

the reason for Christ to come is first to accomplish the promise the scriptures made to the faithful people of old.

and secondly to save, not the ones who know or think they know how to be saved,but to save the ones who depend totally on him and his father to have live,and so follow the only way to salvation.

if you add to Christ words this would place you above Jesus ,and if you worship Christ then you should be worship as well,and this would be evil.

Christ is just what he says he is.and what scriptures says about him.

Pierre

[Arnold]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 30 2010,14:01)

Quote (Arnold @ July 30 2010,13:26) Mike!  That is also how I have always thought Jesus was in John 1:1 and Hebrew 1:8.  Also in Ancient times many were called Gods.  So I find it either way, as long as we understand that The Word of God in Rev. 19 is Jesus.  Because that I cannot see any other way.  He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords.  That makes no trinity, because of God's Holy Spirit is not a person.  The trinitarian will want to use it for their believes that is why I say that.  Oh sprechen Sie deutch?:)that comes directly out of the Catholic Church……….One more thing, in the Old Test. LORD is always in capital letters, while Jesus is Lord of Lords.  and LORD is Jehovah God…..Peace Irene Hi Irene, And Jesus being a god, or “mighty one” in no way infers he is THE Almighty One or even a part of Him anymore than the Philistine “mighty one” Dagon being called “god” would infer he was part of THE God or equal to Him. And any time you read LORD in the OT, it is how the English translators render the Hebrew YHVH.  So when you read LORD, the original Hebrew text actually used God's divine name YHVH, there.  In other words, when you read LORD in most English translations, the Hebrew text actually said “Jehovah”, but the English translators changed it to LORD. peace and love, mike

Mike! I don't know were Georg read but as far as LORD is concerned the Translators were afraid to take His name in vain, and therefore started using LORD instead….I find it rather interesting that even our German Bibles is saying “Das Word Gottes” Meaning The Word of God….the only Bible that differs is the Moffatt translation of King James. In it it says Logos instead of Word…in both John 1:1 and Rev. 19:13, but then in verse 16 it says KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS…all in capital letters, just like the rest of our Bibles..
Even in the Rye study Bible of King James it says The Word of God……we do have a Hebrew and Greek Translation, however I have no idea what it says. And I am not going to learn another language, two is enough….
Peace to you, Irene

[Lightenup]

Quote (terraricca @ July 30 2010,08:25)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 30 2010,23:08) Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2010,19:15) Quote (Lightenup @ July 30 2010,15:57) Quote (terraricca @ July 28 2010,22:51) Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2010,06:51) Quote (kerwin @ July 29 2010,02:48) Pierre, You seem to speculate that Jesus is or was at one time was an immaterial being and not a human being.  Do you have any scriptures that state that?   I know of scripture that calls Jesus a human being even after his ascension but none that call him any other type of being. If you have no evidence that states Jesus is or was an immaterial being then what are you basing that speculation on. Your fellow student, Kerwin hi KW why you try to, to say other wise and be true,according to the scriptures and see?? Pierre hi KW God did in a similar way ,what he did with Adam wen he create EVE, in the same way he took from himself to create Jesus ,Christ, the WORD, the SON of GOD,ect. Pierre terraricca, This has really helped me differentiate between how man came about and how the Son came about. Man-created The Son of God-procreated You see, when one is procreated/begotten they are like the one that beget them.  Since the Heavenly Father is self-sufficient, He had no need for a counterpart to have a literal offspring. When something is created, then they are not like the one that created them. It has really helped me understand the difference and see the Son as God also.  God begets God…an unbegotten God and a begotten God. hi LU it is understood that God, i mean the true and only God,can make god out of any one he feel to use as is will needed,just like he did with Moses,it is this way that it make sense to understand how Jesus ,the WORD,the Christ became god according to the will of GOD his father,(Christ did not become got of his father ,he is nominate by his father,big difference) now it could be understand that Jesus always said ;i do my father s will,;I speak my fathers words;and also;i have been send ,and i go back to where i come from ;heaven; we also now understand his birth,by the intervention of God organization. we also understand the words Jesus said before he died,ALL IS DONE. the reason for Christ to come is first to accomplish the promise the scriptures made to the faithful people of old. and secondly to save, not the ones who know or think they know how to be saved,but to save the ones who depend totally on him and his father to have live,and so follow the only way to salvation. Pierre terraricca, So you equate the only begotten Son of God to be a designated god?  Is that what you are saying?  You don't know that the Son has the same nature as His Father?  Moses did not have the same nature as deity, the Son does.  There is a big difference between a person designated to act as god and a person being born one. LU no i do not equate Christ to his father,and this is not a thesis for a Dr or master degree, God word is to be understood by the spirit of truth,not by some grammar wording and definition in the hands of the scholars. the reason for Christ to come is first to accomplish the promise the scriptures made to the faithful people of old. and secondly to save, not the ones who know or think they know how to be saved,but to save the ones who depend totally on him and his father to have live,and so follow the only way to salvation. if you add to Christ words this would place you above Jesus ,and if you worship Christ then you should be worship as well,and this would be evil. Christ is just what he says he is.and what scriptures says about him. Pierre

terraricca,
My question was whether you were equating the only begotten Son of God with others that are 'designated' as God like Moses.

Do you think that the Spirit can enlighten the written scriptures to us and change our previous supposed understanding? Do you think that it is possible that the Spirit wants to reveal truth in what is written? Do you think that the Spirit wants to make what seems unclear…clear? If the Spirit enlightens us towards a clear understanding towards unclear scripture is that adding to the words or bringing life to the words?

[terraricca]

Quote (Lightenup @ July 31 2010,11:32)

Quote (terraricca @ July 30 2010,08:25) Quote (Lightenup @ July 30 2010,23:08) Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2010,19:15) Quote (Lightenup @ July 30 2010,15:57) Quote (terraricca @ July 28 2010,22:51) Quote (terraricca @ July 29 2010,06:51) Quote (kerwin @ July 29 2010,02:48) Pierre, You seem to speculate that Jesus is or was at one time was an immaterial being and not a human being.  Do you have any scriptures that state that?   I know of scripture that calls Jesus a human being even after his ascension but none that call him any other type of being. If you have no evidence that states Jesus is or was an immaterial being then what are you basing that speculation on. Your fellow student, Kerwin hi KW why you try to, to say other wise and be true,according to the scriptures and see?? Pierre hi KW God did in a similar way ,what he did with Adam wen he create EVE, in the same way he took from himself to create Jesus ,Christ, the WORD, the SON of GOD,ect. Pierre terraricca, This has really helped me differentiate between how man came about and how the Son came about. Man-created The Son of God-procreated You see, when one is procreated/begotten they are like the one that beget them.  Since the Heavenly Father is self-sufficient, He had no need for a counterpart to have a literal offspring. When something is created, then they are not like the one that created them. It has really helped me understand the difference and see the Son as God also.  God begets God…an unbegotten God and a begotten God. hi LU it is understood that God, i mean the true and only God,can make god out of any one he feel to use as is will needed,just like he did with Moses,it is this way that it make sense to understand how Jesus ,the WORD,the Christ became god according to the will of GOD his father,(Christ did not become got of his father ,he is nominate by his father,big difference) now it could be understand that Jesus always said ;i do my father s will,;I speak my fathers words;and also;i have been send ,and i go back to where i come from ;heaven; we also now understand his birth,by the intervention of God organization. we also understand the words Jesus said before he died,ALL IS DONE. the reason for Christ to come is first to accomplish the promise the scriptures made to the faithful people of old. and secondly to save, not the ones who know or think they know how to be saved,but to save the ones who depend totally on him and his father to have live,and so follow the only way to salvation. Pierre terraricca, So you equate the only begotten Son of God to be a designated god?  Is that what you are saying?  You don't know that the Son has the same nature as His Father?  Moses did not have the same nature as deity, the Son does.  There is a big difference between a person designated to act as god and a person being born one. LU no i do not equate Christ to his father,and this is not a thesis for a Dr or master degree, God word is to be understood by the spirit of truth,not by some grammar wording and definition in the hands of the scholars. the reason for Christ to come is first to accomplish the promise the scriptures made to the faithful people of old. and secondly to save, not the ones who know or think they know how to be saved,but to save the ones who depend totally on him and his father to have live,and so follow the only way to salvation. if you add to Christ words this would place you above Jesus ,and if you worship Christ then you should be worship as well,and this would be evil. Christ is just what he says he is.and what scriptures says about him. Pierre terraricca, My question was whether you were equating the only begotten Son of God with others that are 'designated' as God like Moses. Do you think that the Spirit can enlighten the written scriptures to us and change our previous supposed understanding?  Do you think that it is possible that the Spirit wants to reveal truth in what is written?  Do you think that the Spirit wants to make what seems unclear…clear?  If the Spirit enlightens us towards a clear understanding towards unclear scripture is that adding to the words or bringing life to the words?

LU

first, those are good questions.

1)My question was whether you were equating the only begotten Son of God with others that are 'designated' as God like Moses
ans;no ,any one who s God make god ,is in is own environment according to Gods will and needs.

2)Do you think that the Spirit can enlighten the written scriptures to us and change our previous supposed understanding?

ans;no,all as been said ,the only remains to be accomplish is what as already been said.anything different will be from the devil.apostate.

3) Do you think that it is possible that the Spirit wants to reveal truth in what is written?

ans;this is true ,but how can you be sure that it is the spirit of truth and not the spirit of deceit??

4)
Do you think that the Spirit wants to make what seems unclear…clear?
yes,but this is accomplish on the inside of a believer from the heart,Paul talk about it,but it is always related to the truth of God will,and there is no deceit in it .

5) If the Spirit enlightens us towards a clear understanding towards unclear scripture is that adding to the words or bringing life to the words?

ans;your enlightenment is from God trough his spirit ,and can not for that reason be nothing else than what as been said already but to you it will be more understandable more real,so that your faith become very strong.

6)You don't know that the Son has the same nature as His Father?
ans;he as some of the nature of his father ,but the % of it i do not know.thus anyone know?

7)There is a big difference between a person designated to act as god and a person being born one.

ans;what were the circumstances for Moses to be nominated god?who did Moses represent?i mea
n in the future ,and the 144k would they not become like gods as well judging the nations?and anyone who acting in Gods name is he not a god,is it not for that reason that it is written you are all gods,but there is only one God.
In scripture when it says that at the end of it all even Christ will submit all things to his father ,WHO IS GOD NOW??and remain so forever.

Pierre

[Lightenup]

terraricca,
thanks for your answers. Why do you say that the Son has some percent of the Father's nature. Do you just have some percent of your earthly father's nature or are you 100% man?

[terraricca]

Quote (Lightenup @ July 31 2010,20:28)

terraricca, thanks for your answers.  Why do you say that the Son has some percent of the Father's nature.  Do you just have some percent of your earthly father's nature or are you 100% man?

LU

if you would have known my father ,and then known me you could swear that i was not is son.

you see even we both are humans we are a world apart,
flesh does count for nothing.

in the case of Jesus Christ the WORD the first born of all creation sure he as the qualities of his father,but he is not his father,so he can not be the same,

he as by is birth become the god to all creation ,just like Moses became god to Israel and the egyptians,

to make it even simpler Jesus his the only connection to GOD his father we have,you see there is no one else.

until the time come to past that we all become gods in our own right ,Jesus Christ is the only way to the true GOD.

Pierre

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ July 30 2010,15:33)

Out of curiosity, how would you phrase it if you were speaking of glory God reserved for you before the beginning of the world even though you did not exist yet?  To me the words “I had” seem appropriate as it is something attributed to the speaker in the past.

Hi Kerwin,

You answer the riddle in your own post.  It was something attributed to the speaker in the past, while he was in God's presence in the past.  Who is the speaker?

You try to make it sound as if it makes sense for Jesus to be saying, “Can I, the person, now have that glory you've had set aside in your presence waiting for me since before the world was created?”

That's crazy talk, Kerwin.  But more to the point, THAT'S NOT WHAT HE SAID.  He said, “Glorify ME…..with the glory I HAD….”  How could the man Jesus, who is clearly the one speaking, have HAD glory IN GOD'S PRESENCE before if he never was in God's presence before?  He doesn't say for God to glorify him with the glory YOU HAVE HAD waiting for me since before the world was created.

Do you deny the words “ME” and “I HAD”?  How can you think personal pronouns are in referrence to a non-person thing like glory?

You asked how I would word it……”And now God, could you bestow upon me the glory that you have held beside yourself in anticipation of this occasion?”, or something like that I guess.  I wouldn't ever say “the glory I HAD IN YOUR PRESENCE”.

The person Jesus couldn't say I HAD that glory before if he didn't exist before.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ July 30 2010,16:11)

Mike, Mike, Mike… Kathi doesn't fail to remember…Kathi just believes that worshiping Jesus is part of the process of worshiping the Father and it pleases the Father.

Sadly, AGAINST what God Almighty commands.

[Author]

Posts