- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ July 30 2010,22:55) 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.
Hi t8,And isn't that what God Himself implied in Isaiah. What else did He mean by “he will be called mighty god”?
He never said he would be called “Almighty God” though.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 30 2010,23:01) 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.
Mike,
You grew up around people that think that Jesus was created out of nothing. I am not surprised that you think the way you do.I however think that Jesus was procreated out of eternal substance within God and is the very God OF Very God.
That explains why we think so differently on this. What do you think that Ignatius thought about this?
Quote (terraricca @ July 30 2010,21:44) 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?
LUif 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
terraricca,
Sons are never their fathers too but their nature is one and the same no matter if your personality was like your dad's or not, both of you were 100% human. Moses was 100% human. The Son of God begotten as the firstborn of all creation was 0% human but instead 100% divine. You don't seem to know this.Quote (t8 @ July 30 2010,23:03) 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.
I don't necessarily disagree with your (and apparently Origen's) understanding. Origen even claims the same reason for coming to his understanding as you do…….fear of people thinking “two gods”. He says people's fear of this drives them to false doctrines.I completely understand this fear. But should we make it out to be “god” instead of “a god” out of fear of what others would make of it?
Where else in all of scripture is “god” used as a qualifier without any article or as a substitute for “divine”?
mike
Mike,
Thank you for answering my question about wording.
I feel that I should try once again to address the point you have about pronoun use as you seem to have a different idea about using pronouns than I do. God attributed glory to Jesus in his presence before Jesus existed and therefore the Glory was the possession of Jesus even though he did not yet exist. It was Jesus’ possession in the same way an inheritance is the possession of the one future inheritor. As this is so, “I had” is appropriate wording in the situation.
Now that I have addressed that issue I want to point out that Peter states the same point I am striving to make with these words from the first letter in scripture attributed to him.
1 Peter 1:20(NIV) reads:
Quote He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.
As such I am attempting to demonstrate that one can be honored in the presence of another even when the one being honored is not present. I used a posthumous medal ceremony to illustrate my point because it is obvious the one being glorified in the presence of others is not themselves present at the ceremony and that they are being glorified. Yet you seem to be denying that such a thing can happen despite it being clearly observed to happen. That type of denial is clearly irrational and there is no real way to argue with the irrational except pointing out their lack of rationality.
It is possible that you are not explaining your position in a way that I can understand what it is but that is certainly not what looks to be the case. Please think it through and consider that God had foreknowledge of what Jesus would accomplish and thus chose him even before Jesus existed. That was the glory that Jesus had in the presence of God just like a dead hero is given glory in the presence of others even though they themselves are not present.
This is the point that both Peter and Jesus are making.
Quote (Lightenup @ July 31 2010,22:22) Quote (terraricca @ July 30 2010,21:44) 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?
LUif 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
terraricca,
Sons are never their fathers too but their nature is one and the same no matter if your personality was like your dad's or not, both of you were 100% human. Moses was 100% human. The Son of God begotten as the firstborn of all creation was 0% human but instead 100% divine. You don't seem to know this.
LUwhy is it you think i don't know that,i am surprised you don't take in account that men are not 100% flesh but part spirit as well.and also by it part of God spirit ,i do not know what the % is.
now Christ is the first born of all creation,but different from is father ,yet is father being spirit so Christ is also spirit but not 100% because if so then he would be God or equal to it ,this would work against God s will to create,you see God did not create anything greater and more powerful than himself,but lower in power so it could not be the same and the difference is not known,but we know that there is nothing greater than GOD or more POWERFUL,
we also know that Christ is the next powerful being created ,because all the angels were created trough him,and are weaker in power,we also know that men as been created weaker than angels so they are different as well and weaker .
so there is no way that you can make a god to worship out of Christ or the son,or the WORD,or under his new name ,?the name
god to me looks more like the title of MANAGER,you can managed many things,but you would never be the BIG BOSPierre
Quote (Arnold @ July 31 2010,00:42) 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….
Hi Irene,The Jews stopped speaking the divine name YHVH for unknown reasons. Some speculate it was because it was too holy for men to even say. Others because, like you say, they feared accidently using it in a worthless way – “taking it in vain”. I think it might have stemmed from the destruction of Jerusalem somehow.
Amos 6:10 NIV
9 If ten men are left in one house, they too will die. 10 And if a relative who is to burn the bodies comes to carry them out of the house and asks anyone still hiding there, “Is anyone with you?” and he says, “No,” then he will say, “Hush! We must not mention the name of the LORD.”I think they were afraid to call God's attention to them, for nothing good was coming to the Israelites from Him at that time. He was very angry.
Anyway, after it was not proper to SAY the name, scribes started replacing YHVH with “Adonai” or “Lord” so it wouldn't accidently be spoken out loud in a synagogue reading. Most English translations cap all the letters in “LORD” to show that this was one of the time the Hebrew text used to read “YHVH”.
I don't know anything about LORD OF LORDS in the Greek scriptures, though.
mike
Quote (Lightenup @ July 31 2010,15:15) Mike,
You grew up around people that think that Jesus was created out of nothing. I am not surprised that you think the way you do.I however think that Jesus was procreated out of eternal substance within God and is the very God OF Very God.
That explains why we think so differently on this. What do you think that Ignatius thought about this?
Does it matter how Ignatius believed? Or any of them for that matter? The early writings are useful for determining what certain words meant closer to the time of Jesus, and some history and social climate, but not much more.For example, Eusebius believed how I do. And he is useful for understanding that in 325 A.D., “prototokos pasa ktisis” actually did mean “firstborn of every creature”. But I wouldn't dare ask any of you to believe like I do based only on the fact that Eusebius also did.
And growing up, I didn't discuss the intricate details of God and Jesus – so that point is apparently an unnecessary attempt to imply that I believe how I do because of what I was told as a young person. I read the Bible for the first time 2 years ago. I read it alone in my room. I made my own conclusions on every single thing I believe based ONLY on what the scriptures say. I'm now in the process of taking that a step further by being challenged on those beliefs and having to delve further into scripture and lexicons and concordances, etc.
peace and love,
mikeOkay Kerwin,
I'm getting tired of this “crazy talk” from you guys. The scripture says, “Father glorify me in your presence”. That means Jesus is asking to be glorified in the Father's presence in heaven. Then he says, “with the glory I had in your presence before the world was created”. That means Jesus, not his glory, was in the Father's presence before the world was created.
Answer this one question: Is it possible that it means just what it says? Is my interpretation of it POSSIBLY what it means?
mike
Mike,
It does mean exactly what it states, as I already pointed out what it litterally states, but you do not want to believe it for your own reasons. You do not choose to believe it even when Peter rephrases the same idea in the first letter of scripture attributed to him.
It clearly does not state that Jesus was in God's pressence before the world was created though he entered God's pressence after being crucified and received the glory God had in his, God's, pressence that was waiting for Jesus.
I cannot put this any more plain that what it is already spoken by Jesus and written by Peter.
Below you can read some of what Calvin has to say about John 1:14. He tells us why the Son is called the begotten and also tells us that He was begotten before the ages. He implies that the 'word' and the 'son' are synonymous.
John 1:14
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
NASUQuote The plain meaning therefore is, that the Speech begotten by God before all ages, and who always dwelt with the Father, was made man. On this article there are two things chiefly to be observed. The first is, that two natures were so united in one Person in Christ, that one and the same Christ is true God and true man. The second is, that the unity of person does not hinder the two natures from remaining distinct, so that his Divinity retains all that is peculiar to itself, and his humanity holds separately whatever belongs to it. And, therefore, as Satan has made a variety of foolish attempts to overturn sound doctrine by heretics, he has always brought forward one or another of these two errors; either that he was the Son of God and the Son of man in so confused a manner, that neither his Divinity remained entire, nor did he wear the true nature of man; or that he was clothed with flesh, so as to be as it were double, and to have two separate persons. Thus Nestorius expressly acknowledged both natures, but imagined two Christs, one who was God, and another who was man. Eutyches, on the other hand, while he acknowledged that the one Christ is the Son of God and the Son of man, left him neither of the two natures, but imagined that they were mingled together. And in the present day, Servetus and the Anabaptists invent a Christ who is confusedly compounded of two natures, as if he were a Divine man. In words, indeed, he acknowledges that Christ is God; but if you admit his raving imaginations, the Divinity is at one time changed into human nature, and at another time, the nature of man is swallowed up by the Divinity.
The Evangelist says what is well adapted to refute both of these blasphemies. When he tells us that the Speech was made flesh, we clearly infer from this the unity of his Person; for it is impossible that he who is now a man could be any other than he who was always the true God, since it is said that God was made man. On the other hand, since he distinctly gives to the man Christ the name of the Speech, it follows that Christ, when he became man, did not cease to be what he formerly was, and that no change took place in that eternal essence of God which was clothed with flesh. In short, the Son of God began to be man in such a manner that he still continues to be that eternal Speech who had no beginning of time.
And dwelt. Those who explain that the flesh served, as it were, for an abode to Christ, do not perceive the meaning of the Evangelist; for he does not ascribe to Christ a permanent residence amongst us, but says that he remained in it as a guest, for a short time. For the word which he employs (ἐσκήνωσεν) is taken from tabernacles 2323 “Est deduit d’un mot qui signifie Tabernacles, c’est a dire, tentes et avillons;” — “is derived from a word which signifies Tabernacles, that is, tents and pavilions.” He means nothing else than that Christ discharged on the earth the office which had been appointed to him; or, that he did not merely appear for a single moment, but that he conversed among men until he completed the course of his office.
Among us. It is doubtful whether he speaks of men in general, or only of himself and the rest of the disciples who were eye-witnesses of what he says. For my own part, I approve more highly of the second view for the Evangelist immediately adds:
And we beheld his glory. for though all men might have beheld the glory of Christ, yet it was unknown to the greater part on account of their blindness. It was only a few, whose eyes the Holy Spirit opened, that saw this manifestation of glory. In a word, Christ was known to be man in such a manner that he exhibited in his Person something far more noble and excellent. Hence it follows that the majesty of God was not annihilated, though it was surrounded by flesh; it was indeed concealed under the low condition of the flesh, but so as to cause its splendor to be seen.
As of the only-begotten of the Father. The word as does not, in this passage, denote an inappropriate comparison, but rather expresses true and hearty approbation; as when Paul says, Walk as children of light, he bids us actually demonstrate by our works that we are the children of light. The Evangelist therefore means, that in Christ was beheld a glory which was worthy of the Son of God, and which was a sure proof of his Divinity. He calls him the Only-begotten, because he is the only Son of God by nature; as if he would place him above men and angels, and would claim for him alone what belongs to no creatureI would like to note that Calvin says that the begotten always dwelt with the Father. In other words, once the Son was begotten, He dwelt with the Father and not someplace else until He was sent to earth. This doesn't have to mean that the Son always existed but when He did exist it was with the Father. I find this stuff interesting and I hope you do also.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 31 2010,00:09) Quote (Lightenup @ July 31 2010,15:15) Mike,
You grew up around people that think that Jesus was created out of nothing. I am not surprised that you think the way you do.I however think that Jesus was procreated out of eternal substance within God and is the very God OF Very God.
That explains why we think so differently on this. What do you think that Ignatius thought about this?
Does it matter how Ignatius believed? Or any of them for that matter? The early writings are useful for determining what certain words meant closer to the time of Jesus, and some history and social climate, but not much more.For example, Eusebius believed how I do. And he is useful for understanding that in 325 A.D., “prototokos pasa ktisis” actually did mean “firstborn of every creature”. But I wouldn't dare ask any of you to believe like I do based only on the fact that Eusebius also did.
And growing up, I didn't discuss the intricate details of God and Jesus – so that point is apparently an unnecessary attempt to imply that I believe how I do because of what I was told as a young person. I read the Bible for the first time 2 years ago. I read it alone in my room. I made my own conclusions on every single thing I believe based ONLY on what the scriptures say. I'm now in the process of taking that a step further by being challenged on those beliefs and having to delve further into scripture and lexicons and concordances, etc.
peace and love,
mike
Mike,
I think it is very important what Ignatius believed since he was a disciple of John who wrote John 1:1, used the term only begotten, etc. If John didn't consider the Son as the begotten God then Ignatius was completely off on his understanding. What is the likely possibilities of him not understanding this very important teaching of John? We are fortunate to have his writings.Btw, I agree that “prototokos pasa ktisis” means firstborn of every creature. I do not agree that it means the first created of every creature since a firstborn comes from another of its same kind.
I don't know of one Christian writer who wrote in the 100s or 200s that believed that Jesus wasn't the literal first-born of all creation.
These writers often talk about Jesus being Wisdom and the Logos. They conclude that after God himself, Jesus is the first and that God made all things through him and for him.Here is a question that deserves a thread of its own: What did the Angels do while the creation was being effected?
Did they just 'watch'?
Scriptures says that the 'Stars' sang together and that the 'Sons of God shouted with joy'Who are the 'Stars' and who are the 'Sons of God'?
We also know that one of the Stars has fallen. Which Star, who, might that Star be?
And if the answer is as i feel you agree, then 'Stars' are the 'Princes', the 'PRINCiplE' Sons of God, of which 'Jesus' is PreEminent.
This, then, clearly shows, in as much as it is believed by virtually everyone that Satan is 'PreExistent' before falling to Earth, that also Jesus must also have been PreExistent before coming to Earth.
Michael, the Archangel, is said to be 'ONE' of the Captains of the army of God, God Himself being the 'Field Marshall', so to speak, so who are the other 'Captains of God's army, hosts of powerful angels, sons of God'.
They, then, must be the other 'Stars', Principle sons…perhaps Twelve Sons altogether, perhaps…what Scriptural fractal might reflect this idea?
Perhaps Gabriel. The bible doesn't really identify many angels/sons/stars. The Book of Enoch mentions a lot more.
Some speculate that there were/are 12 tribes of angels and that Satan created the 13th tribe.
Probably a discussion of this nature needs its own topic as you say.
To All………..There is (ONLY) (ONE) Creator and that is GOD (ALONE) Jesus nor anyone else has (Never) done a Miracle in their entire lives. No one ever will either, this is the Glory of GOD and He gives His Glory to NO MAN> Jesus did not preexist his berth on earth , He did not create any thing (EVER). GOD Said He (ALONE) Created everything and He said He did it by HIMSELF. Jesus never took credit of any creation if he was the creator he sure did not think so. “THE SON OF MAN CAN DO NOTHING OF HIMSELF, the father (IN) ME (HE) does the works”. Stealing the Glory of GOD, and applying it to Jesus is nothing but a false teaching. It is every bit as bad as the doctrine of the TRINITY in fact it is kin to it and even supports that evil teaching. IMO
peace and love to you all………………….gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 01 2010,00:35) To All………..There is (ONLY) (ONE) Creator and that is GOD (ALONE) Jesus nor anyone else has (Never) done a Miracle in their entire lives. No one ever will either, this is the Glory of GOD and He gives His Glory to NO MAN> Jesus did not preexist his berth on earth , He did not create any thing (EVER). GOD Said He (ALONE) Created everything and He said He did it by HIMSELF. Jesus never took credit of any creation if he was the creator he sure did not think so. “THE SON OF MAN CAN DO NOTHING OF HIMSELF, the father (IN) ME (HE) does the works”. Stealing the Glory of GOD, and applying it to Jesus is nothing but a false teaching. It is every bit as bad as the doctrine of the TRINITY in fact it is kin to it and even supports that evil teaching. IMO peace and love to you all………………….gene
Hi Gene,When did anyone (that's NOT a trinitarian) say Jesus had “GOD'S” glory?
All miracles are done through power on loan from God.
How does any of this say Jesus didn't pre-exist?
mike
t8,
Gabriel! Pourquoi dites-vous que? Why do you say Gabriel? How could it be Gabriel when we know he was active in God's service?
?
t8,
Thirteen? Isn't this straying into superstition?Twelve Disciples (Including One that Fell…!)
Twelve Tribes
Twelve loaves of of bread
12 * 12000 (144,000) in Heaven
Twelve years old to be 'grown'
Any others out there to listThe plain meaning therefore is, that the Speech begotten by God before all ages, and who always dwelt with the Father, was made man. Calvin
Kathi you say based on the above…
Quote (Lightenup @ July 31 2010,01:01) I would like to note that Calvin says that the begotten always dwelt with the Father. In other words, once the Son was begotten, He dwelt with the Father and not someplace else until He was sent to earth. This doesn't have to mean that the Son always existed but when He did exist it was with the Father.
Honestly, I do not see how you come to that conclusion for Calvin didn't say…The plain meaning therefore is, that the Speech begotten by God before all ages, (and who afterwards) always dwelt with the Father, was made man… Did he?
Again, why do you use the words of a Trinitarian who believes in the “co-equal, co-eternal” nature of the Son to support you doctrine?
The following information is proof that John Calvin did not believe that “Begotten” meant “to literally be born” from the Father.
If anything Calvin agrees with Jack and me.
It is sometimes said that Calvin denied the eternal generation of the Son. This assertion is based on the following passage: “For what is the profit of disputing whether the Father always generates, seeing that it is foolish to imagine a continuous act of generating “when it is evident that three persons have subsisted in one God from eternity.” Institutes I. 13, 29. But this statement can hardly be intended as a denial of the eternal generation of the Son, since he teaches this explicitly in other passages. It is more likely that it is simply an expression of disagreement with the Nicene speculation about eternal generation as a perpetual movement, always complete, and yet never completed.
(Quoted from Berkhof, History of Christian Doctrines, 95-96.) And found here…These are Calvin’s words…
“For what is the profit of disputing whether the Father always generates, seeing that it is foolish to imagine a continuous act of generating “WHEN IT IS EVIDENT THAT THREE PERSONS HAVE SUBSISTED IN ONE GOD FROM ETERNITY.”
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
