- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (karmarie @ June 08 2010,21:11) ok im done:)
Hi Karmarie,Thanks for putting that up…I'm finding that I have a lot of agreement with Ignatius.
Quote (karmarie @ June 09 2010,12:41) I loved Ignatius.
Hi KarmarieAnd I love you for these posts!
Mainly for this part: 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.
Hey WJ and Roo,
Since “monogenes” meant “unique”, do you think this “unbegotten” means the Father is “un-unique”? Are there many like Him?
Or do you think that it means that the Father is the only being who was NOT “caused to exist”, while Jesus was indeed “caused to exist” by the Father before time began, but who AFTERWARDS became also man?
Man, there are so many forms of “genao” interlinked with “mongenes” in these letters. We have a “begotten”, a “begetter” and even an “unbegotten”! Are you SURE it only means “unique”?
But wait, there's more!
in one faith of God the Father, and of Jesus Christ His only-begotten Son, and “the first-born of every creature,” but of the seed of David according to the flesh.
So Ignatius also seems to think that in the genealogy of ALL CREATION, Jesus was the one born first. And it is only “according to the flesh”, that he is the seed of David.
Hmmm……Just like the scriptures teach. And exactly what the Greek words mean.
ps I might not be done with this Ignatius fellow yet. There are many more juicy tidbits like:
I have learned that certain of the ministers of Satan have wished to disturb you, some of them asserting…..that He is Himself God over all.
And that He Himself is not God over all, and the Father, but His Son, He says, “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God. And again, “When all things shall be subjected unto Him, then shall He also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” Wherefore it is One [God] who put all things under, and who is all in all, and another [His Son] to whom they were subdued, who also Himself, along with all other things, becomes subject [to the former].
Hey Roo! Who places Jesus' enemies as a footstool for him again?
Seriously, Ignatius is not scripture, and should not be taken as such, no matter how he believes. But the fact that he takes “prototokos pasa ktisis” and “monogenes” to mean the same things that Eusebius, the KJV translators, Strong, and many, many more experts through the years should be enough for you guys to stop the “it has nothing to do with Jesus' beginning” crap. Agreed?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (karmarie @ June 09 2010,13:59) Hi WJ, you took writings and misquoted them.
Hi Karmarie,I didn't actually read his post, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did. He's been learning lots of nasty behaviors from his friend.
Thanks again for setting matters straight!
peace and love,
mikeQuote (WorshippingJesus @ June 08 2010,17:23) Kathi Quote (Lightenup @ June 08 2010,16:05) Your claiming that Adam was 'virgin born' has no Biblical basis either.
This is a bold face lie and you know it!WJ
WJ,
I'm not sure what you are saying is a lie. By your response here, I'm thinking that you aren't claiming that Adam was virgin born, I hope that you aren't claiming that anyway but I really did read your post and to me it seemed like you were trying to make that claim by comparing how both Jesus and Adam came directly from God (i.e.virgin birth). Sorry if I misunderstood this statement of yours:Quote Its interesting that before the “New Covenant” no man was called a Son of God except Adam and Jesus. Therefore both Adam and Jesus were “Unique”.
So Jesus is apoointed all that Adam lost being that he is the second Son of God or “Second Adam” that came directly from God IE, the virgin birth!
If you are saying that Jesus came directly from God by means of the virgin birth, then are you suggesting that Mary was not involved. It seems to me that Jesus did not come to us directly from God but from God through Mary.
Adam came from God through the Son.
The Son came from God directly before time.You said:
Quote Procreation is also an “extra Biblical” term and it seems that that is your interpretation because the word first born in scriptures does not always mean “the firstborn” does it? Why do you say that procreate is an extra-Biblical term?
Deu 21:17 NET
Rather, he must acknowledge the son of the less loved 1 wife as firstborn and give him the double portion 2 of all he has, for that son is the beginning of his father’s procreative power 3 – to him should go the right of the firstborn.I never said that 'firstborn' always meant first born but it is the NATURAL meaning of the term and is the default understanding unless the meaning in context is clearly an exception to the rule instead of the rule (norm).
[/QUOTE]Jesus is the second Adam, so tell us how that does not fit with what I said?
When did Jesus become the “Second Adam”?
Jesus isn't the second Adam because both are from God directly. Both are not from God as sons in the same sense of the word 'son.' The only begotten Son was begotten, Adam was created. A begotten son has the same nature as the one who beget him. Adam did not have the nature of deity, the only begotten Son did.
Jesus became the second Adam when He came in the flesh.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 08 2010,22:38) Quote (karmarie @ June 09 2010,12:41) I loved Ignatius.
Hi KarmarieAnd I love you for these posts!
Mainly for this part: 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.
Hey WJ and Roo,
Since “monogenes” meant “unique”, do you think this “unbegotten” means the Father is “un-unique”? Are there many like Him?
Or do you think that it means that the Father is the only being who was NOT “caused to exist”, while Jesus was indeed “caused to exist” by the Father before time began, but who AFTERWARDS became also man?
Man, there are so many forms of “genao” interlinked with “mongenes” in these letters. We have a “begotten”, a “begetter” and even an “unbegotten”! Are you SURE it only means “unique”?
But wait, there's more!
in one faith of God the Father, and of Jesus Christ His only-begotten Son, and “the first-born of every creature,” but of the seed of David according to the flesh.
So Ignatius also seems to think that in the genealogy of ALL CREATION, Jesus was the one born first. And it is only “according to the flesh”, that he is the seed of David.
Hmmm……Just like the scriptures teach. And exactly what the Greek words mean.
ps I might not be done with this Ignatius fellow yet. There are many more juicy tidbits like:
I have learned that certain of the ministers of Satan have wished to disturb you, some of them asserting…..that He is Himself God over all.
And that He Himself is not God over all, and the Father, but His Son, He says, “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God. And again, “When all things shall be subjected unto Him, then shall He also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” Wherefore it is One [God] who put all things under, and who is all in all, and another [His Son] to whom they were subdued, who also Himself, along with all other things, becomes subject [to the former].
Hey Roo! Who places Jesus' enemies as a footstool for him again?
Seriously, Ignatius is not scripture, and should not be taken as such, no matter how he believes. But the fact that he takes “prototokos pasa ktisis” and “monogenes” to mean the same things that Eusebius, the KJV translators, Strong, and many, many more experts through the years should be enough for you guys to stop the “it has nothing to do with Jesus' beginning” crap. Agreed?
peace and love,
mike
Hi Mike,
I just wanted to make sure you saw these words of Ignatius: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.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 08 2010,18:21) Quote (Lightenup @ June 09 2010,07:06) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 08 2010,14:43) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 09 2010,01:45) mikeboll64,June wrote:Can you understand that in every instance you give, someone who is not the firstborn (the one born first) is APPOINTED with the rights of the firstborn (the one born first). Jesus wasn't ever APPOINTED with firstborn rights because the real “firstborn of all creation” messed up. He has firstborn rights simply because he is the one born first.
MikeNot true!
Jesus is the Second Adam, the Lord from heaven, because the first Adam did mess up!
WJ
Keith,
Your reply is PERFECTION my brother! Jesus was appointed the firstborn because the literal firstborn of men (the first Adam) messed up!
ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL!
btw, Paul explicitly said that Jesus was “born of the seed of David and decreed (appointed) to be the Son of God.” It was as the seed of David that Jesus was appointed the firstborn Son in the spiritual kingdom just as His father David was appointed God's firstborn son in the old covenant theocracy (Ps. 89).
Jack
Kathi said:Quote Roo,
Can you show us the passage where God designates the Son as the Firstborn specifically…Kathi,
The word “firstborn” means “eldest son” or “chief” (Strong's# 1060 Hebrew Concordance). Jesus was not the literal firstborn son of God.
Exodus 4:22: “Israel (Jacob) is my son, even my firstborn.”
Psalm 89:20, 26-27: 20I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him….
26He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. 27Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.
David was appointed God's “firstborn” and consequently he said to God, “You are My Father“. Therefore, David was God's firstborn son.
Jesus was appointed to be God's firstborn son just as His father David.
Kathi:
Quote …or the passage that calls Adam the firstborn?
Come on! Adam was the son of God and therefore the firstborn of the human family. Adam was our representative but he messed up just as WJ has said. Christ was appointed the eldest son in Adam''s place.WJ gave it to Mikeboll but good!
the Roo
Thanks for showing me that you do not understand that a requirement for the term 'firstborn' is to be actually born. Adam wasn't the firstborn of man, Cain was the firstborn of all men. Adam wasn't born at all, he was created.You have gone on and on about David and Israel being God's firstborn and they are but not in the sense of a firstborn that would be of the same substance as the father of the firstborn. You cannot compare how David and Israel are God's firstborn with how the only begotten Son of God is the firstborn because the Son of God actually has the same substance as the one who calls Him His Firstborn. David and Israel don't. There is no mention of any out of the ordinary firstborn 'designation' of the Son of God, but there is the fact that the Son of God, as the Firstborn created all things in heaven and on earth. The Firstborn could not have created all things in heaven and on the earth if He wasn't the Firstborn then.
I'd like to get past this.
Thanks Kathi and Mike,
I was reading what WJ put, quotes from Saint Ignatius, I knew something was wrong, id read it years ago, I knew Ignatius and all those early Bishops believed different than what WJ claimed, even WJ said..
Quote Mike, you want to incite the words of a man from the third century but why don't you listen to the words of the ones closest to the Original Apostles and in Ignatius case possibly seen Jesus with his own eyes? Thats correct.
But you need to read all around it.
Gah!
Firstborn… Why are you guys at odds with each other over simple concepts for so long?
One of you is arguing 'firstborn by birth, or creation' … And the other is arguing 'firstborn by Spiritual Rebirth, Raised in rank order, Given the preeminent position'
Neither of you will ever agree at this level of understanding.
Yes, Jesus was at the beginning, and therefore 'firstborn'…that is not what the issue is. No one in beluef of Scriptures should be arguing this 'firstborn…'.
'THE' firstborn in question is that given by Scriptures wherein it say 'I WILL make him my Firstborn psalm 89:26.
He, David, will become… Not only that but David was already existing, already living, had already been 'born' so this future begetting could only mean 'Raised in rank order over his brothers, his peers, his elders – to wit – all men!
Also, Spiritually reborn: All sinful men are not 'sons of God' therefore the Spiritual rebirth is required to make that one 'cleansed', Spiritually baptised (not fleshly baptism… David was still sinful in the flesh!!).
Jesus is born as man. He is nolonger a divine creature… don't forget this…!
Jesus was man in the flesh, and 'Son of God' because he was Sinless …remember this… He was also 'Son of Man' and when he faithfully fullfiled his commission, the last part being to die (And the last part to be thrown into the lake of fire is death, itself) he was raised again by the Holy Spirit into a Spirit body, unblemmished (Don't touch me, Mary…for i must ascend into heaven and present myself to my Father, but i will be back'. Imagine the glorious scene of a majestic one in pure white being presented to the Most High…would you want someone with dirty hands touching you? No, of course not, soiled before the Most High….?)
For this rwason, Jesus is then declared 'Spiritually begotten, firstborn over the dead, preeminent over his brethren (who are his brethren?)' and the angels (what is the difference between his brethren and the angels?) of heaven are told to 'do obesience' to him.Just sommat to be going on with.
Please, in disputes, take a second to DEFINE YOUR ELEMENTARY POINTS so you know whether or not you are disputing the same thing.
Water is wet!
NO, it is simple molecules of the water sorwading itself over and into and inbetween the molecules of the element that it had come into contact with.Whatcha mean, everyone know water is wet, here (,splashh.!.) doesn't That feel 'wet' to you ? Or is it 'just molecules….'
Both are right but both will never agree…!
Mercury can '…..' but no one says 'Mercury is wet'!
(Except by electrians with solder irons!)What is this that Ignatius says..'Jesus is our Lord God' and yet is held up as great theologian scholar?
I really see no point in following these threads, I did it again, got involved, like Irene said somewhere else, why even bother? 1000 or something posts later..
I agree Irene! You speak wise words.Quote (Lightenup @ June 08 2010,23:07) Jesus became the second Adam when He came in the flesh.
KathiAgreed, and thats when he became the “Monogenes' Son, and was “ginomai” (came into existence as man) made flesh, (John 1:14 – Phil 2:6-8) and after his ressurction is when he became the “firstborn”, (having the preeminence) over all creation. (Col 1:15).
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 08 2010,20:12) Let's see if you can be honest, WJ. Isn't it very clear from the Eusebius letter that YOU originally posted on HN that Eusebius truly took the word “monogenes” to mean “only begotten” and the words “prototokos pasa ktisis” to mean “firstborn of every creature”? Mike
No, because the definition of those words to the Forefathers do not mean that Jesus had a beginning.
Now if you can show us where Eusebius says Jesus had a beginning then you have a point which wouldn't matter anyway.
Your denial of what Jack told you the original meanings of the words is without merrit, for now we have evidence that what Jack said concerning those words are true!
Are you just wanting to be right about something here so you can deny the facts about the words “begotten” and “firstborn” in relation to Jesus!
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 08 2010,20:30) You guys should look a little closer at what you post to “support” the trinity, because I get some of my best info AGAINST the trinity from stuff you post in support of it.
MikeThats because you still cannot understand the concept of plural unity. Trinitarians believe the Father and the Son are distinct in person, but not in nature or the very essence of what God is!
WJ
K
I don't mean to pop your bubble, but the following are not “Ignatius” writings but are spurios letters believed to be written around 400AD.
Quote (karmarie @ June 08 2010,21:10)
I have learned that certain of the ministers of Satan have wished to disturb you, some of them asserting that Jesus was born [only] in appearance, was crucified in appearance, and died in appearance, others that He is not the Son the Creator, and others that He is Himself God over all. (To the Tarsians, II)./And that He who was born of a woman was the Son of God, and He that was crucified was “the first-born of every creature,” and God the Word, who also created all things. For says the apostle, “There is one God, the Father, of whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things. And again, “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus (To the Tarsians, IV).
And that He Himself is not God over all, and the Father, but His Son, He says, “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God. And again, “When all things shall be subjected unto Him, then shall He also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” Wherefore it is One [God] who put all things under, and who is all in all, and another [His Son] to whom they were subdued, who also Himself, along with all other things, becomes subject [to the former]. (To the Tarsians, V; cf. 1 Cor 15:24-28).
How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” And in another place, “The Lord created Me, the beginning of His ways, for His ways, for His works. Before the world did He found Me, and before all the hills did He beget Me. (To the Tarsians, VI).
For Moses, the faithful servant of God, when he said, “The Lord thy God is one Lord,” and thus proclaimed that there was only one God, did also forthwith confess also our Lord [Jesus] when he said, “The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord.” And again, “And God said, Let us make man after our image: and so God made man, after the image of God made He him.” And further “In the image of God made He man.” And that [the Son] was to be made man, he says, “A prophet shall the Lord [YAHWEH] raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me.” (To the Antiochians, II).
The prophets also, when they speak as in the person of God, [saying, ] “I am God, the first [of beings], and I am also the last, and besides Me there is no God,” concerning the Father of the universe, do also speak of our Lord Jesus Christ. “A Son,” they say, has been given to us, on whose shoulder the government is from above; and His name is called the Angel of great counsel, Wonderful, Counsellor, the strong and mighty God.” And concerning His incarnation, “Behold, a virgin shall be with Child, and shall bring forth a Son; and they shall call his name Immanuel. (To the Antiochians, III).
The Evangelists, too, when they declared that the one Father was the only true God, did not omit what concerned our Lord, but wrote: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.” And concerning the incarnation: “The Word,” says, “became flesh, and dwelt among us.” And again: “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” And those very apostles, who said “that there is one God,” said also that “there is one Mediator between God and men.” Nor were they ashamed of the incarnation and the passion. For what says “The man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself” for the life and salvation of the world. Whosoever, therefore, declares that there is but one God, only so as to take away the divinity of Christ, is a devil, and an enemy of all righteousness. He also that confesseth Christ, yet not as the Son of the Maker of the world, but of some other unknown being, different from Him whom the law and the prophets have proclaimed, this man is an instrument of the devil. And he that rejects the incarnation, and is ashamed of the cross for which I am in bonds, this man is antichrist. Moreover, he who affirms Christ to be a mere man is accursed, according to the prophet, since he puts not his trust in God, but in man. (To the Antiochians, IV-V).
May He who is alone unbegotten, keep you stedfast both in the spirit and in the flesh, through him who was begotten before time began. (To the Antiochians, XIV).
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Hero, the deacon of Christ, and the servant of God, a man honoured by God, and most dearly loved as well as esteemed, who carries Christ and the Spirit within him, and who is mine own son in faith and love: Grace, mercy, and peace from Almighty God, and from Christ Jesus our Lord, His only-begotten Son. (To Hero).
May I have joy of thee, my dear son, whose guardian may He be who is the only unbegotten God, and the Lord Jesus Christ! (To Hero, IV).
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to her who has obtained mercy through the grace of the Most High God the Father, and Jesus Christ the Lord, who died for us. (To Maria at Neapolis, Near Zarbus).
As Paul admonished you. For if there is one God of the universe, the Father of Christ, “of whom are all things; ” and one Lord Jesus Christ, our [Lord], “by whom are all things; ” and also one Holy Spirit…. For “there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is through all, and in all. (To the Philippians).
There is then One God and Father, and not two or three, One who is, and there is no other besides Him, the only true One. For “the Lord [YAHWEH] thy God,” saith, “is one Lord.” And again, “Hath not one God created us? Have we not all one Father? And there is also one Son, God the Word. For “the only-begotten Son,” saith, “who is in the bosom of the Father.” And again, “One Lord Jesus Christ.” And in another place, “What is His name, or what His Son's name, that we may know? ” And there is also one Paraclete. For “there is also,” saith, “one Spirit,” since “we have been called in one hope of our calling.” And again, “We have drunk of one Spirit,” with what follows. And it is manifest that all these gifts “worketh one and the self-same Spirit.” There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” not unto one having three names, nor into three who became incarnate, but into three [persons] possessed of equal honour [one name]. (To the Philippians, II).
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 08 2010,22:38) Quote (karmarie @ June 09 2010,12:41) I loved Ignatius.
Hi KarmarieAnd I love you for these posts!
Mainly for this part: 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.
MikeDon't get to excited because Ignatius is not contradicting himself is he?
Do you know what “Before time” means? It means “Eternity”, from everlasting!
If Jesus was born or came into existence then that would mean that there was a “Time” he came into existence, that would mean there was a “beginning”.
But we know Jesus was there with God in the beginning.
Jesus created Time, Space and Matter, not one thing came into existence without him!
Ignatius to the Ephesians:
There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, BORN AND UNBORN, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord. 7:2So ignatius calls Jesus “the only one physician” just as he calls the Father “the only one physician”.
So to Ignatius they are One God!
Here it also says Jesus is both born and unborn which can only mean that to him the word “begotten” does not mean that Jesus had a beginning but only that he is from the Father, from everlasting!
For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan . . .
Consequently all magic and every kind of spell were dissolved, the ignorance so characteristic of wickedness vanished, and the ancient kingdom was abolished, “when God appeared in human form to bring the newness of eternal life” . . .19:3
Being as you are imitators of God, once you took on new life through “the blood of God” you completed perfectly the task so natural to you. 1:1
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 08 2010,22:38) ps I might not be done with this Ignatius fellow yet. There are many more juicy tidbits like: I have learned that certain of the ministers of Satan have wished to disturb you, some of them asserting…..that He is Himself God over all.
MikeAgain, don't get to excited because Ignatius didn't write those words!
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 08 2010,22:45) Quote (karmarie @ June 09 2010,13:59) Hi WJ, you took writings and misquoted them.
Hi Karmarie,I didn't actually read his post, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did. He's been learning lots of nasty behaviors from his friend.
Thanks again for setting matters straight!
peace and love,
mike
MikeYou should check things out before you make such critical judgments.
Its the accuser of the brethren (satan, the false god) that makes false accusations!
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 08 2010,22:45) Quote (karmarie @ June 09 2010,13:59) Hi WJ, you took writings and misquoted them.
Hi Karmarie,I didn't actually read his post, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did. He's been learning lots of nasty behaviors from his friend.
Thanks again for setting matters straight!
peace and love,
mike
MikeIt is becoming more and more obvious that you are not interested in the truth, when you choose to not read a post because it may go against what you belief!
WJ
Quote (karmarie @ June 09 2010,02:58) Thanks Kathi and Mike, I was reading what WJ put, quotes from Saint Ignatius, I knew something was wrong, id read it years ago, I knew Ignatius and all those early Bishops believed different than what WJ claimed, even WJ said..
Quote Mike, you want to incite the words of a man from the third century but why don't you listen to the words of the ones closest to the Original Apostles and in Ignatius case possibly seen Jesus with his own eyes? Thats correct.
But you need to read all around it.
KAnd you have been reading writings that were not Ignatius writings but spurios letters fabricated by an imposter!
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
