Preexistence

[Lightenup]

Keith,
Augustine is a trinitarian and I am not, nor do I pretend to be (like some on here). He seems to contradict himself which is understandable since he admits that his God is “incomprehensible” to him. He is consistent with claiming that the Son was the 'only begotten' before creation (and doesn't say the 'only unique' son, btw) and was a Son before creation and did not assume that role beginning in Mary. Therefore, he also understands things differently than you two and would add you to the 'dull of understanding' group. So, I don't know why you set yourselves up?

It is clear that earlier Christians believed the words were 'only begotten' and not 'the one and only.' That is what I am showing you mainly with all these earlier Christians info…

Can you and Jack admit that the earlier Christians use the term 'only begotten Son'? They define monogenes as 'only begotten.' That is what I am showing that I agree with, not necessarily the non-scriptural ideas of the trinity.

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 04 2010,16:07)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,15:30) Keith, I think that we use trinitarian's comments because we are trying to help you see some things that they saw and you argue against over and over, like the meaning of 'monogenes' in John, for example. Kathi The word “Monogenes” was not found referring to Jesus until John 1:14, it is not in John 1:1 and follows after the word “ginomai” (genes) the second half of Monogenes which means “came into existence. Jesus came into existence in the flesh and became the “Monogenes” ((1) single of its kind, only which is the first definition of “Monogenes”. A close study of Phil 2:6-8 shows “ginomai” being used by Paul in reference to Jesus coming in the likeness of sinful flesh (coming into existence) and is found in fashion as a man. Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,15:30) I don't think that earlier trinitarians have as much of a difference with me as you, Jack and I do.  I'm trying to get you to realize that so that we can get a bridge built instead of keep building a wall and digging the moat larger and larger.  Do you want to build bridges or build walls and dig moats? The earlier trinitarians are different than today's trinitarians, imo. And I am trying to get you to realize that the Trinitarian Fathers are miles apart from you and Mike in their differences as opposed to Jack and I. You and Mike insist that the Early Church Fathers believed Jesus had a beginning and when asked to show where this is so you give a quote from Augustine which in context is ambiguous especially seeing that Augustine believed in One Divine being consisting of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit Why have you and Mike ignored Ignatius quote below?… There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN**; GOD EXISTING IN FLESH; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible, –Jesus Christ our Lord (Letter to the Ephesians VII). **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN**   **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN**   **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN** What does “BORN AND UNBORN” mean Kathi? Not to mention the Early Church Fathers believed in the “One God” consisting of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Not a “Binity” where there are 2 divine beings, one being who is literally born from the other. I think I might create a thread on the Trinity and the Early Church Fathers. WJ

Keith,
I have answered the question of 'born and unborn' in the 'born and begotten' topic here:

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….y254991

The answer is so simple.

As far as monogenes goes, it should by now be painfully clear that the early Christians use the term “only begotten” for monogenes and place that act before the ages.  They equate the 'word' in John 1:1 to the only begotten Son, begotten before the ages.  Or do I need to show you that…again?

[terraricca]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 05 2010,12:11)

To Kathi and Mike and all. My business has picked up which is good but requires me to spend less time here on HN. I have every intent to continue the debate with Mike in the debates thread, and Kathi I have every intent of answering both yours and Mikes claim that the Early Church Fathers supports your and Mike's views more than Jack and myself. Briefly I might mention the theology of the Athanasian Creed is firmly rooted in the Augustinian tradition, using exact terminology of “Augustine's On the Trinity” (published 415 AD). A close study of Augustine’s writings on the Trinity shows that his theology as well as the other Fathers lines up with Jacks belief and mine and not with the views of Kathi and especially Mike. The Fathers view is there is “One God” consisting of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, not one God who brought birth to a separate being who is another God, not to mention their view of the Holy Spirit is totally alien to Kathi's and Mike's views. It will sure be interesting to see how they can prove that the Early Church Fathers views line up with theirs and not ours. WJ

WJ

what a question;It will sure be interesting to see how they can prove that the Early Church Fathers views line up with theirs and not ours

you are out of your mind,you on one side,the early so called fathers on one side and theirs ? how about God side?

you live in the dark and smoke,how is it that you CAN discuss what you do not comprehend,you are so self centered on your own ideas ,how can you see the truth of GOD??

Pierre

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 05 2010,05:11)

To Kathi and Mike and all. My business has picked up which is good but requires me to spend less time here on HN. I have every intent to continue the debate with Mike in the debates thread, and Kathi I have every intent of answering both yours and Mikes claim that the Early Church Fathers supports your and Mike's views more than Jack and myself. Briefly I might mention the theology of the Athanasian Creed is firmly rooted in the Augustinian tradition, using exact terminology of “Augustine's On the Trinity” (published 415 AD). A close study of Augustine’s writings on the Trinity shows that his theology as well as the other Fathers lines up with Jacks belief and mine and not with the views of Kathi and especially Mike. The Fathers view is there is “One God” consisting of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, not one God who brought birth to a separate being who is another God, not to mention their view of the Holy Spirit is totally alien to Kathi's and Mike's views. It will sure be interesting to see how they can prove that the Early Church Fathers views line up with theirs and not ours. WJ

I can't wait for you to post some of it! I get a lot of my evidence for refuting the trinity from stuff you and Jack post to support it!

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote

There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN**; GOD EXISTING IN FLESH; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible, –Jesus Christ our Lord (Letter to the Ephesians VII). **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN**   **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN**   **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN**[ What does “BORN AND UNBORN” mean Mikey? The Trinity doctrine teaches that God consist of three co-equal, co-eternal persons in One God Mikey? Thats what Jack and I believe according to the scriptures. You can continue with your misrepresentations and false claims all you like but the truth stands Mikey! WJ

Hello there Mr. Worshipping (the man) Jesus (when God specifically said in Deut 4:15-19 not to)  

15 You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below. 19 And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven.

Is Jesus a man?  Have people ever seen his form?  Was God's Messiah “apportioned to all the nations under heaven” by his God?

If you can answer “yes” to any of these questions……you are worshipping someone or something God specifically told us not to!  

WJ, why DOES Ignatius say “born and unborn”?  I don't get it.  But more importantly, why do you think he said Jesus was “both OF Mary and OF God”?  We know in what sense Jesus was “OF Mary” – he was BORN OF HER.  So the “BOTH of Mary AND of God” should tell you he thought Jesus was also BORN OF GOD.

And when you add this letter to the mix…..

But our Physician is the Only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin.

…..it seems pretty concrete that Ignatius didn't actually believe what you think he did.  And you can give any trinitarian sponsored definition of begotten that you want to.  Go ahead and try to fit your definition in this sentence in all the various forms of “beget”.  My definition of “procreated” works just fine…….does yours?  Try the “single of it's kind” one.  Try it in all three forms of “beget”.

If begotten doesn't mean “procreated” here, how is the Father the “unbegotten” and “Begettor”?  Ignatius says Jesus was begotten of God before time began, but afterwards was born of Mary as a man?

Too many holes, brother.  You'd do well to run from Ignatius like you do from Eusebius!  

peace and love,
mike

[Lightenup]

Mike,
Did you see my response to their question here:

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….y255000

See second post from the top.

[gollamudi]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 05 2010,03:50)

Jesus existed in the form of God. Other translations say that he existed with divine nature. Of course this is easily understood in that it says that he emptied himself and was found in the flesh. It is written and what is the point in trying to nullify what is written?

Hi brother T8,
If Jesus existed as divine being prior to his birth there must have been two Godly beings existing in heaven at least as per your calculations. Is it not polytheism of Christianity if they say Jesus was divine and emptied himself and came as human into this world?

Peace to you
Adam

[gollamudi]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 05 2010,02:13)

Quote (gollamudi @ Aug. 04 2010,23:10) Hi all, Pre-existence of Jesus is another mythology which christianity incorporated into its religion from its pagan neighbours. If Jesus was pre-existing as some being prior to his birth as human he could not be a true human at all but an alien who visited our planet from another celestial abode and after his mission he had flown back to his celestial abode. This is nothing but mythology for which there is no historical proof. Be realistic in your approach. Thanks and peace to you Adam Adam………Right on brother. Jesus was the (FIRST) of the Human race to become a real son of GOD at the Jordan River , He is of pure (HUMAN) Stock and no from Heavenly STOCK as a Preexistent Morphed Being would be. God was not trying to save a preexisting being who was already perfect , but a (PURE) Human Being He was Perfecting and creating him into his dear son. Scripture plainly say Jesus was son of man, Jesus even said when the  SON OF MAN COMES WILL HE FIND FAITH ON THE EARTH. Notice he did not say the son of GOD come but Son of Man. Jesus was (BEGOTTEN) as a SON BY GOD AT the JORDAN. “this day (I) have (begotten) you” God said not some time in the Past.  And again (I) shall be a Farther unto him and He shall Be a son unto me. ( this also shows (future tense)> not Past tense. peace and love to you and yours Adam………………..gene

Amen and love to you brother Gene.

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 05 2010,04:02)

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 05 2010,02:13) He is of pure (HUMAN) Stock and no from Heavenly STOCK That is your testimony Gene. But I believe this testimony. Philippians 2:6-11 (New International Version) 6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,      did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing,      taking the very nature of a servant,      being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man,      he humbled himself      and became obedient to death—         even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place      and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,      in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,      to the glory of God the Father. You are against this Gene. Notice how the first sentence in particular completely exposes your quoted statement for what it is. I am not sure what you think you might gain from denying his origins. Are you that hard-hearted that such words have no impact on you?

T8……….You are right that is my testimony and martians and Adams and Nicks, and barely and Jodi. But not yours and some others. Your assuming Paul meant Jesus' preexisting state before He came to earth , but Paul was talking about him as a past event of his (EARTHLY) EXPERIENCE not his prior to a earthly existence. If you apply (existing) as the Greek shows, or (existed) as you believe it makes no different Paul was still talking about his earthly existence period. You are forcing the text to meet your preconceived conclusions.

As far as hardhearted, that has nothing to do with it , i could say the same about you and others who do not understand Jesus did not exist (as a Being) before His berth on earth except in the plan and will of GOD. No where did Jesus say He (PREEXISTED) as a (live) Being before his earthly experience. No where did Jesus say he was a live being before his berth on earth , you and others force the text to that conclusion, but scripture no where say that you even change or add words to force those conclusion when needed.

If Jesus did preexist then that would make him and God deceivers by portraying of Him as (SON OF MAN) when in fact he was a morphed preexisting being and even worse saying he was (EXACTLY) like us in every way, this would be a lie and GOD nor Jesus are Liars IMO. Jesus was 100% human in whom GOD the Father Dwelt nothing more and nothing less. Your are separating Jesus from our (EXACT) likeness in (EVERY) way by saying he did not come into his existence (IN) the flesh is the Spirit (intellect) of the Antichrist. IMO

T8……..The Spirit (BOTH) accuses us and defends us. Why Should we believe those who twist scriptures to meet there false teachings?. You have not come all the way out of the apostate teachings yet brother. IMO

peace and love to you and yours…………………..gene

[Worshipping Jesus]

Kathi

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2010,20:55)

Keith, Augustine is a trinitarian and I am not, nor do I pretend to be (like some on here).

Nice jab Kathi. I thought you were trying to build bridges? Can you “define” what a Trinitarian is? Because it seems rather strange that on this site an anti-trinitarian knows more about what a Trinitarian is than a Trinitarian. Kathi, are you pretending to be a “true Christian” according to your church’s definition of what a Christian is? Because “if you  do not agree IN EVERYWAY” in your churches doctrine, then by definition you cannot be a Christian, right? Get the point?

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2010,20:55)

He seems to contradict himself which is understandable since he admits that his God is “incomprehensible” to him.

What is understandable is you an “anti-trinitarian” thinks he contradicts himself, but the fact is you try to misrepresent his teachings to conform to your belief. You used his quote as if he agrees with you and now you scorn him. Kathi are you so right and high-minded in your beliefs that you can claim that your finite puny little mind can understand every thing about an infinite being and his nature? Why do you scorn this man for saying God is “incomprehensible”?

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2010,20:55)

He is consistent with claiming that the Son was the 'only begotten' before creation (and doesn't say the 'only unique' son, btw) and was a Son before creation and did not assume that role beginning in Mary.

Now you praise the man because you think you understand what he means when he says Jesus was the only Begotten Son before creation.

But you haven’t proved that is what he meant since you say “he seems to contradict himself”, have you Kathi? And you sure haven’t proved scripturally that Jesus had a beginning before he came in the flesh.

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2010,20:55)

Therefore, he also understands things differently than you two and would add you to the 'dull of understanding' group.  So, I don't know why you set yourselves up?

Not at all.

He says…
“But the first two together are two men, the Latter together is BUT ONE GOD; this is a divine miracle”.

Is that what you believe Kathi, because that is what we believe?

Let’s uses some common sense here.

You believe that a divine being called God who is infinite gave literal birth to a God from his own substance and this God is another being but has the same substance and is equal to this infinite God.

Can Gods substance be divided and yet be one? If God took a part of himself and procreated a separate being then that would mean that part of God is with another being which would mean that God is no longer fully God but part God, because part of God is another being now called a Son.

This is why the Forefathers wrote against the Arians…

“that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, NOR DIVIDING THE SUBSTANCE. for there is one person of the father, another of the son, and another of the holy ghost.

Ah but you will say, in the natural part of the man goes to being his Son but the man is still fully man. True, but now you have 2 Equal Men and not one which means you have double strength, power and ability, right? After all there is power in numbers, right?

It is your contention that the Father and the Son is equal, right?

So if God took a part of himself and procreated another being that is equal to himself yet remained fully God then that would mean that God could reproduce himself and become even more powerful. So if that is true then why stop at only one Son of his substance?

But of course we know that an infinite God does not reproduce an infinite God, don’t we? So that would mean that the Son would have to be less than the Father who is infinite meaning the substance of the Father would have to become less because it is no longer part of the whole. Which means God brings birth to “a god” meaning you have two Gods and not one, one “Infinite” God and one “finite” god, right?

True reproduction is not even close to what you and Mike propose the Father has done, does it? So how in the world can you guys make the case scripturally that the word “begotten” in relation to Jesus has the same meaning as a “Father literally begetting a son”?

How can one being bring birth to another being and yet they are the same being?

Attention Kathi and Mike. The Trinitarian Fathers believed that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are “One God”, one being!

But how can this be if he was “literally born” from the Father?

Once again Kathi and Mike. The words “begotten” or Monogenes has other meanings than literally being born. Kathi monogenes is used in the scripture speaking of Isaac as the “Only begotten Son” of the promise in Hebrews 11:17, and we know that he was not the “Only Son” nor was he the “firstborn” Son.

So whenever you guys say you have proof Jesus had a beginning, it is only conjecture based on “Your own private interpretation” of certain words that can be interpreted in other ways, and not based on the facts.

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2010,20:55)

It is clear that earlier Christians believed the words were 'only begotten' and not 'the one and only.'

What is the difference Kathi? Isaac was the “One and only” Son of the promise, right? Are you saying that there are or will be other “Only begotten Sons”?

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2010,20:55)

That is what I am showing you mainly with all these earlier Christians info…

No Kathi, what you and Mike are doing is taking the words of Trinitarian Fathers (since you can't prove it from scriptures) and misrepresenting them to fit your views when in fact your views contradict them.

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2010,20:55)

Can you and Jack admit that the earlier Christians use the term 'only begotten Son'?  They define monogenes as 'only begotten.'  That is what I am showing that I agree with, not necessarily the non-scriptural ideas of the trinity.

First of all how do you know they are using the word “monogenes” or “gennaō”? Can you post some proof? Secondly both words can mean “literally born” or begotten as in adoption without procreation. Heb 11:17 – 1 Cor 4:15 – Phm 1:10

Question…

Does the words “monogenes” or “gennaō” have different meanings than being literally born or procreated?

Its a simple yes or no question.

WJ

[Lightenup]

Keith,
Do you believe that the SON always existed before Mary? If not, then you do not agree with the trinity doctrine which states that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are co-eternal. I don't believe you do. In fact you believe that the the second person of the trinity took on a role as a son in Mary and that is not at all what the trinity doctrine says.

Btw, the Father did not divide to have a son. Reproduction is multiplication, not division. Surely you have heard “be fruitful and multiply.”

The words “monogenes” or “gennao” have different meanings and the one that the early Christians use is begotten and only begotten. You must be kidding to say that you question that by now. Are you really suggesting that the Son of God was adopted? If that is so, you are farther from the trinity doctrine than we thought.

And another thing…you say that Isaac was the one and only son of the promise and I agree. He was also the only begotten son of the promise. Ishmael was not at all a son of the promise, was he. That makes Isaac the only begotten son of the promise. Get it…it is really quite simple.
Here is a very good question that I would like Augustine to answer:

Quote

How can one being bring birth to another being and yet they are the same being?

Exactly, they can't. One begets, the other is begotten…two beings together in unity. Simple, read Ignatius to help you with that one, he was John's disciple and was martyred for worshipping the begotten God and the unbegotten God, btw.

Have you ever really wondered how 3 persons are all parts of 1 being. Augustine doesn't know what to say except…”its a miracle.” And we have no scripture that says that the 3 persons are only 1 being. Talk about division. geeesh!

I am glad that you admit that monogenes and gennao can mean literally born or procreated. That's a step

Augustine, the one that says God is uncomprehensible should have not continued to act like he could comprehend Him and there should have never been a doctrine written explaining God from the beliefs of a man that explained him yet admits He is uncomprehensible. Many Christians today are still wondering today how three persons can be only one being. And the answer…its a miracle? Who on here would just roll over and accept that? Oh yeah, you and Jack believe that.

Mike and I have scripture to show that the Son existed (obviously) before creating what He created. There are no scripture that says three persons are one being though.

[KangarooJack]

WorshippingJesus said to Kathi:

Quote

Can Gods substance be divided and yet be one?

Of course not and Kathi knows this. Jesus is the “indistinct representation of His substance” (Heb. 1).

Jack

[Lightenup]

And Kathi said to WorshippingJesus:

Quote

Btw, the Father did not divide to have a son. Reproduction is multiplication, not division. Surely you have heard “be fruitful and multiply.”

Jack, what Bible version uses the word “indistinct?”

I don't see anything that says 'indistinct' in these translations.
Hebrews 1:3

NET ©
The Son is 1 the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, and he sustains all things by his powerful word, 2 and so when he had accomplished cleansing for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. 3

NIV ©
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

NASB ©
And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

NLT ©
The Son reflects God’s own glory, and everything about him represents God exactly. He sustains the universe by the mighty power of his command. After he died to cleanse us from the stain of sin, he sat down in the place of honor at the right hand of the majestic God of heaven.

MSG ©
This Son perfectly mirrors God, and is stamped with God's nature. He holds everything together by what he says–powerful words! After he finished the sacrifice for sins, the Son took his honored place high in the heavens right alongside God,

BBE ©
Who, being the outshining of his glory, the true image of his substance, supporting all things by the word of his power, having given himself as an offering making clean from sins, took his seat at the right hand of God in heaven;

NRSV ©
He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

NKJV ©
who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

[KangarooJack]

Kathi said:

Quote

Have you ever really wondered how 3 persons are all parts of 1 being.  Augustine doesn't know what to say except…”its a miracle.”  And we have no scripture that says that the 3 persons are only 1 being.

Funk and Wagnalls Dictionary:

Being: Essential nature, substance.

“And God created the Adam in His own image. Male and female He created them.”

“Behold, “the Adam has become as one of Us to know good and evil.”

“And the Lord kicked the Adam out of the garden.”

Sure looks like God counted them as one being to me.

Let Kathi operate under the common definition of “being” and not super impose her own definition. The being (essential nature or substance) of the man and the woman was one being. God called them “the Adam.”

the Roo

[KangarooJack]

Worshippingjesus said:

Quote

No Kathi, what you and Mike are doing is taking the words of Trinitarian Fathers (since you can't prove it from scriptures) and misrepresenting them to fit your views when in fact your views contradict them.

Boom! You hit it square on the head Keith.

Jack

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 06 2010,07:56)

And Kathi said to WorshippingJesus: Quote Btw, the Father did not divide to have a son.  Reproduction is multiplication, not division. Surely you have heard “be fruitful and multiply.” Jack, what Bible version uses the word “indistinct?” I don't see anything that says 'indistinct' in these translations. Hebrews 1:3 NET © The Son is 1  the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, and he sustains all things by his powerful word, 2  and so when he had accomplished cleansing for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. 3 NIV © The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. NASB © And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, NLT © The Son reflects God’s own glory, and everything about him represents God exactly. He sustains the universe by the mighty power of his command. After he died to cleanse us from the stain of sin, he sat down in the place of honor at the right hand of the majestic God of heaven. MSG © This Son perfectly mirrors God, and is stamped with God's nature. He holds everything together by what he says–powerful words! After he finished the sacrifice for sins, the Son took his honored place high in the heavens right alongside God, BBE © Who, being the outshining of his glory, the true image of his substance, supporting all things by the word of his power, having given himself as an offering making clean from sins, took his seat at the right hand of God in heaven; NRSV © He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, NKJV © who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

See Vine's Expository Dictionary.

The Greek “Charakter”

“The Son of God is not merely His image, He is the image or impress of His substance or essence. It is the fact of complete similarity which this word stresses” p. 247.

The word “charakter” is used in the LXX in Lev. 13:28. Leupold translates Lev. 13:28 using the word “indistinct.”

The ESV which you did not include translates it as “exact.”

Funk and Wagnalls on “exact”

“Perfectly clear and complete in every detail; precise”

the Roo

[Lightenup]

Oh thanks Roo,
So one person can be younger than another and be considered one with the other. So the Father can be one with the Son and they don't have to be the same age, just the same nature. God it!

So the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same nature. Is that really what the trinitarians claim. I can agree with that. They really don't have to be the same age to be the same nature.

I thought they meant that the three persons are one God but according to you, the three persons are one nature? Is that correct? Three in one means three persons in one nature?

As far as two becoming one 'being' in marriage, I thought the term was one flesh, anyway I am wondering if everyone with the same nature is considered one being? All of mankind is one being? Maybe there are other definitions? What do you think? Here is Webster's dictionary's definition:

be·ing (bē′iŋ)
noun
the state or fact of existing or living; existence or life
fundamental or essential nature
one who lives or exists, or is assumed to do so: a human being, a divine being
all the physical and mental qualities that make up a person; personality
PHILOS.
fulfillment of possibilities; essential completeness
that which exists, can exist, or can be logically conceived

I thought that the intended definition for being in this instance was:
“one who lives or exists, or is assumed to do so: a human being, a divine being”

I really do not think that Augustine was implying that being = nature. If he were, then it wouldn't need to be “a miracle” for the two to be one (nature) would it. Man can understand that many can be one nature.

This is what Augustine said about the two being one:

Quote

4. “But,” says he, “the Father commands, that the Son may execute.” Carnal indeed is thy conceit, but without prejudice to the truth, I grant it to you. Lo, the Father commands, the Son obeys; is the Son therefore not of the same Nature, because the One commands, and the Other obeys? Give me two men, father and son; they are two men: he that commands is a man; he that obeys is a man; he that commands and he that obeys have one and the same nature. Does not he that commands, beget a son of his own nature? Does he who obeys, by obeying lose his nature? Now take for the present, as you thus take two men, the Father commanding, the Son obeying, yet God and God. But the first two together are two men, the Latter together is but One God; this is a divine miracle. Meanwhile if you would that with you I acknowledge the obedience, do you first with me acknowledge the Nature. The Father begat That which Himself is. If the Father begat ought else than what Himself is, He did not beget a true Son. The Father saith to the Son, “From the womb before the day-star, I begat Thee.”8 What is, “before the day-star “? By the day-star times are signified. So then before times, before all that is called “before;” before all that is not, or before all that is. For the Gospel does not say, “In the beginning God made the Word;” as it is said, “In the beginning God made the Heaven and the earth;”9 or, “In the beginning was the Word born;” or, “In the beginning God begat the Word.” But what says it? “He was, He was, He was.” You hear, “He was;” believe. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”10 So often do ye hear, “Was:” seek not for thee, for that He always “was.” He then who always was, and was always with the Son, for that God is able to beget without thee; He said to the Son, “From the womb before the day-star I begat Thee.” What is from the womb? Had God a womb? Shall we imagine that God was fashioned with bodily members? God forbid! And why said He, “From the womb,” but that it might be understood that He begat Him of His Own Substance? So then froth the womb came forth That which Himself was who begat. For if He who begat was one thing, and another came forth out of the womb; it were a monster, not a Son.

from here: http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/b2a.htm

You see here that Augustine considers a human father and a human son as two men, but God the Father and the Son as one God and a miracle as to how that is. So I don't think he uses your definition of 'same nature, same substance' as one 'being'. That wouldn't take a miracle and wouldn't be different than the human father and human son.

Roo, you didn't tell me what Bible version that you saw 'indistinct' in?

[Lightenup]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 05 2010,16:24)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 06 2010,07:56) And Kathi said to WorshippingJesus: Quote Btw, the Father did not divide to have a son.  Reproduction is multiplication, not division. Surely you have heard “be fruitful and multiply.” Jack, what Bible version uses the word “indistinct?” I don't see anything that says 'indistinct' in these translations. Hebrews 1:3 NET © The Son is 1  the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, and he sustains all things by his powerful word, 2  and so when he had accomplished cleansing for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. 3 NIV © The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. NASB © And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, NLT © The Son reflects God’s own glory, and everything about him represents God exactly. He sustains the universe by the mighty power of his command. After he died to cleanse us from the stain of sin, he sat down in the place of honor at the right hand of the majestic God of heaven. MSG © This Son perfectly mirrors God, and is stamped with God's nature. He holds everything together by what he says–powerful words! After he finished the sacrifice for sins, the Son took his honored place high in the heavens right alongside God, BBE © Who, being the outshining of his glory, the true image of his substance, supporting all things by the word of his power, having given himself as an offering making clean from sins, took his seat at the right hand of God in heaven; NRSV © He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, NKJV © who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, See Vine's Expository Dictionary. The Greek “Charakter” “The Son of God is not merely His image, He is the image or impress of His substance or essence. It is the fact of complete similarity which this word stresses” p. 247. The word “charakter” is used in the LXX in Lev. 13:28. Leupold translates Lev. 13:28 using the word “indistinct.” The ESV which you did not include translates it as “exact.” Funk and Wagnalls on “exact” “Perfectly clear and complete in every detail; precise” the Roo

So, 'indistinct' isn't found in any Bible version, it is just one of the ways that the Greek word is translated? Oh well, 'exact representation of His being' is a fine translation then, right?
And one that is begotten from another always is an exact representation of the nature of the one that begat him. But that comes from being actually 'born' and not by appointment. No one can be appointed a nature. A nature comes from a procreation not a declaration.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 06 2010,07:18)

I am glad that you admit that monogenes and gennao can mean literally born or procreated. That's a step

Hi Kathi,

They can whoop and holler about “monogenes” and “gennao” all they want.

But they can't do away with “yalad”. And in Psalm 2:7, Jehovah says He “yalad” a Son. There is no question that yalad means a literal begetting in Psalm 2:7.

peace and love,
mike

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 04 2010,17:08)

There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN**; GOD EXISTING IN FLESH; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible, –Jesus Christ our Lord (Letter to the Ephesians VII).[/b] **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN**   **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN**   **BOTH BORN AND UNBORN**[ What does “BORN AND UNBORN” mean Mikey? The Trinity doctrine teaches that God consist of three co-equal, co-eternal persons in One God Mikey? That’s what Jack and I believe according to the scriptures. You can continue with your misrepresentations and false claims all you like but the truth stands Mikey! WJ

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2010,23:33)

Hello there Mr. Worshipping (the man) Jesus (when God specifically said in Deut 4:15-19 not to)

Yet we see all of creation worshipping him, I wonder why, and the Father even commanding the Angels to worship him?

Nope, Jesus never said “Do not worship me”, did he Mike?

Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, “WORSHIPPING (proskyneō) HIM”, and desiring a certain thing of him. Matt 20:20

And, behold, there came a leper and “worshipped (proskyneō) him”, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. Matt 8:2

While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and “worshipped (proskyneō) him”, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live. Matt 9:18

Then they that were in the ship came and “worshipped (proskyneō) him”, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God. Matt 14:33

Then came she and “worshipped (proskyneō) him, saying, Lord, help me. Matt 15:25

The servant therefore fell down, and “worshipped (proskyneō) him”, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. Matt 18:26

And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and “worshipped (proskyneō) him”. Matt 28:9

And when they saw him, they “worshipped (proskyneō) him”: but some doubted. Matt 28:17

And they “worshipped (proskyneō) him”, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: Luke 24:52

And he said, Lord, I believe. And he “worshipped (proskyneō) him”. John 9:38

The Greek word for “worship” is (proskyneō) which means;

1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence
2) among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, “to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of PROFOUND REVERENCE

It is found 60 times in the NT and in every case is translated “Worship” in the AKJV.

Interestingly enough our Lord and God used the same word (proskyneō) in reference to the worship of the Father…

God is a Spirit: and they that “worship (proskyneō)” him must” worship (proskyneō”) him in spirit and in truth. John 4:24

Why would Jesus do that, knowing the same was practiced on him? Not to mention the fact that in “EVERY CASE” where the Saints in the NT (proskyneō) any other being other than Jesus or the Father it was discouraged by the recipient and they were told to worship (proskyneō) God only, yet Jesus not once discouraged those that worshipped (proskyneō) him or even hinted to not worship (proskyneō) him but only worship (proskyneō) the Father.

Tell me Mike, when is the last time that you “WORSHIPPED” (proskyneō) Jesus? When was the last time that you fell on your knees as a token of “Profound Reverence” to Jesus by shouting with a loud voice, WORTHY ARE YOU LORD JESUS TO RECEIVE POWER, AND RICHES, AND WISDOM, AND STRENGTH, AND HONOUR, AND GLORY, AND BLESSING?  

And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; “SAYING WITH A LOUD VOICE, WORTHY IS THE LAMB THAT WAS SLAIN TO RECEIVE POWER, AND RICHES, AND WISDOM, AND STRENGTH, AND HONOUR, AND GLORY, AND BLESSING”. Rev 5:12

Unless you can show me scripturally where I am not to worship (proskyneō) Jesus, then you might have a point, until then you are just blowing hot air.

Your scripture quote is about dead idols Mike that are formed by men’s hands and called things.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2010,23:33)

Is Jesus a man?

Yep. But the writers of the scriptures and the Forefathers call him their God too.  How about you Mike?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2010,23:33)

Have people ever seen his form?

Yep, and the Angels are worshipping him now.  

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2010,23:33)

Was God's Messiah “apportioned to all the nations under heaven” by his God?

Misuse of scripture, for the scripture is about “Idols” which are called things.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2010,23:33)

If you can answer “yes” to any of these questions……you are worshipping someone or something God specifically told us not to!

Then YHWH is a Hypocrite for commanding the Angels to worship him, right?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2010,23:33)

WJ, why DOES Ignatius say “born and unborn”?  I don't get it.

Of course you don’t get it because you don’t want to get it.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2010,23:33)

But more importantly, why do you think he said Jesus was “both OF Mary and OF God”?

Because he is both “God” and “Man”, remember “The Word/God came in the flesh”.  

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2010,23:33)

We know in what sense Jesus was “OF Mary” – he was BORN OF HER.  So the “BOTH of Mary AND of God” should tell you he thought Jesus was also BORN OF GOD.

But that is not what Ignatius said is it?

**BOTH BORN AND UNBORN; GOD EXISTING IN FLESH;**

God = Unborn – Flesh = Born!

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2010,23:33)

And when you add this letter to the mix….. But our Physician is the Only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. …..it seems pretty concrete that Ignatius didn't actually believe what you think he did.

No it’s obvious he didn’t believe what you believe about the words “begotten”.

**BOTH BORN AND UNBORN; GOD EXISTING IN FLESH;**

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2010,23:33)

And you can give any trinitarian sponsored definition of begotten that you want to.  Go ahead and try to fit your definition in this sentence in all the various forms of “beget”.  My definition of “procreated” works just fine…….does yours?  Try the “single of it's kind” one.  Try it in all three forms of “beget”.

I already have. Paul’s use of the word fits just fine.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2010,23:33)

If begotten doesn't mean “procreated” here, how is the Father the “unbegotten” and “Begettor”?  Ignatius says Jesus was begotten of God before time began, but afterwards was born of Mary as a man?

Again, before time is “eternity” that’s why your interpretation of Psalms 2:7 falls apart for he said “TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”, and we know that Jesus was there before “today”.

Notice how I said “Jesus was there before today”, yet we know that Jesus was not given the name until he was born from Mary. Get the point?

The Father is “unbegotten” because the Son never said “TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2010,23:33)

Too many holes, brother.  You'd do well to run from Ignatius like you do from Eusebius!

No doubt you create many rabbit holes.

WJ

[Author]

Posts