- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 10 2010,01:31) Thats 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!
Yes WJ,We all get it. You think the God is a schitzophrenic and is one being with three different persons living inside him. But we were created in God's image. Why do none of us consist of three separate, yet equal persons? Why are none of our sons the same being as us?
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 10 2010,02:05) 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!
Really WJ?First, he says we have ALSO as physician….. Therefore, one is God, the other is Jesus. Get it? Two beings, not one.
Second, kindly explain how God is “unbegotten” but He is “the Father and Begettor of the only begotten Son”.
Again, what did “genao” mean in NT times?
Come on, man! Can't you see that if only one is unbegotten and the other is begotten by the former, there is a difference not only in personality, but in being too?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 10 2010,02:07) 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
Someone who knew the truth did!
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 10 2010,02:11) 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
WJ,You told me alot about yourself through this Eusebius thing. I can understand that you don't want “prototokos pasa ktisis” to literally mean “firstborn of every creature”. But when shown proof that Eusebius clearly read it that way, you didn't say, “Well, I don't agree with him.” Instead, you have gone into Jack's “smoke and mirror” land and have said everything you can about Eusebius EXCEPT admitting the clear honest fact that he took “prototokos pasa ktisis” to mean “firstborn of every creature”.
You support Jack, who's only defenses are,
1. OH NO IT DIDN'T MEANT THAT!!!!!! YOU'RE AN IDIOT MIKE!!! HERE'S THE POST OF THAT STUPID THING YOU SAID 6 MONTHS AGO THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS AT ALL!!!!! (Insert insulting/ridiculing graphic and a part of what I said taken out of context here)
and
2. Here's the proof where the other trinitarians CHANGED Eusebius' words to make it sound like his beliefs were more in line with theirs.
What kind of defense for the trinitarians is that?
Proving that they are willing to “fudge the books” a little to fake more support of their man-made doctrine?Anyway, there was a time when I thought differently about you than I do about Jack. While I have never mistaken Jack for an honest man, I thought you were an honest, but mistaken man. But when shown the clear truth in that Eusebius letter, you had the choice to cease being honest, or cease being mistaken. I regret the choice you made, and hope you someday will too.
It is for that reason that I wouldn't put “fudging the books” past you.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 10 2010,06:38) Eusebius obviously did not take “only begotten” to mean that Jesus had a beginning.
Hey Jack,First you show proof of how the trinitarian “council” changed what Eusebius wrote so it would fit in more with their beliefs.
Second, I took this new fabricated Eusebius letter apart piece by piece and showed you that it doesn't come close to saying Jesus is God Almighty or even equal to Him.
Third, what did “genao” mean in NT times?
Fourth, how do you figure Eusebius thought “prototokos pasa ktisis” meant “preeminent over mankind” when he clearly thinks it happened BEFORE ALL THE AGES?
Straight forward answers only, please.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 10 2010,06:59) The word “exact representation” is the Greek “charakter” and it means that in His substance Jesus is indistinguishable from God.
It also means the indented image of the “engraving” tool that they stamped into metal.Jesus showed visibly the qualities of the invisible one he still calls “my God”.
mike
Quote (karmarie @ June 10 2010,11:07) I cheaked it and your right Authentic letters:
To the Ephesians
To the Magnesians
Letter to the Trallians
To the Romans
To the Philadelphians
To the Smyrnaeans
To Polycarp, Bishop of SmyrnaEpistles attributed to Saint Ignatius but of spurious origin:
Epistle to the Tarsians
Epistle to the Antiochians
Epistle to Hero, a Deacon of Antioch
Epistle to the Philippians
The Epistle of Maria the Proselyte to Ignatius
Epistle to Mary at Neapolis,
Zarbus First Epistle to St. John
Second Epistle to St. John
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Virgin Mary
Reply of the Blessed Virgin to this Letter
Hi Karmarie,I know you dislike the debating. But thank you for your research and posts. You gave me the final nail for Jack's coffin.
I guess he'll have to change the name of this thread to “the death of Kangaroo Jack” thanks to you. 
Btw, isn't the word “spurious” the same word used in association with Matt 28:19?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (karmarie @ June 09 2010,19:07) Hi WJ, this is really the last thing I have to say here (on this thread) because I cant be bothered with these debates, but just to clear up this matter on the Saint Ignatius.. I cheaked it and your right
Authentic letters:
To the Ephesians
To the Magnesians
Letter to the Trallians
To the Romans
To the Philadelphians
To the Smyrnaeans
To Polycarp, Bishop of SmyrnaEpistles attributed to Saint Ignatius but of spurious origin:
Epistle to the Tarsians
Epistle to the Antiochians
Epistle to Hero, a Deacon of Antioch
Epistle to the Philippians
The Epistle of Maria the Proselyte to Ignatius
Epistle to Mary at Neapolis,
Zarbus First Epistle to St. John
Second Epistle to St. John
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Virgin Mary
Reply of the Blessed Virgin to this LetterBut WJ, that leaves these Authentic parts of Saint Ignatius…
(Ignatius) To the Smyrneans
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church of God the Father, and of the beloved Jesus Christ.
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church of God the most high Father and His beloved Son Jesus Christ.
Glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who by Him has given you such wisdom, that He was the Son of God, “the first-born of every creature,” God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and was of the seed of David according to the flesh, by the Virgin Mary; was baptized by John, that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him; that He lived a life of holiness without sin, and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh. (I).
To the Ephesians
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus… being united and elected through the true passion by the will of God the Father, and of our Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
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. For “the Word was made flesh.” Being incorporeal, He was in the body, being impassible, He was in a passible body, being immortal, He was in a mortal body, being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts. (VII).
For the Son of God, who was begotten before time began, and established all things according to the will of the Father, He was conceived in the womb of Mary, according to the appointment of God, of the seed of David, and by the Holy Ghost. For [it]says, “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and He shall be called Immanuel.” He was born and was baptized by John, that He might ratify the institution committed to that prophet. (XVIII).
Jesus Christ, in His faith and in His love, in His suffering and in His resurrection. Especially if the Lord make known to me that ye come together man by man in common through grace, individually, in one faith, and in Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David according to the flesh, being both the Son of man and the Son of God. (XX).
The faith of Jesus Christ, and in His love, in His passion, and in His resurrection. Do ye all come together in common, and individually, through grace, 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. (XX).
To the Magnesians
The ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. (VI).
The ministry of Jesus Christ. He, being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time, was God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and remains the same for ever; for “of His kingdom there shall be no end. (VI).
Do ye therefore all run together as into one temple of God, as to one altar, as to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father, and is with and has gone to one.(VII).
Do ye all, as one man, run together into the temple of God, as unto one altar, to one Jesus Christ, the High Priest of the unbegotten God. (VII).
There is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word. (VIII).
There is one God, the Almighty, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word. (VIII).
Fare ye well in the harmony of God, ye who have obtained the inseparable Spirit, who is Jesus Christ. (XV).
Fare ye well in harmony, ye who have obtained the inseparable Spirit, in Christ Jesus, by the will of God. (XV).
To the Romans
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God….I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father…abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who formed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour….I also salute in the name of Almighty God, and of Jesus Christ His Son… abundance of happiness unblameably, in God, even the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
“For the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” For our God, Jesus Christ, now that He is with the Father, is all the more revealed [in His glory]. (III).
Thanks Karmarie,I still like this guy Ignatius!
Quote 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. For “the Word was made flesh.” No surprise to me.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 09 2010,20:06) Quote (Lightenup @ June 09 2010,15:11) 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.
Hi Kathi,I have slowly come to terms with Jesus being a god, even though the word in Biblical times was used for men and angels too. Even the fallen angel, Satan.
I agree that he must be divine if he came directly from the Father God.
But you must know that we are only told to worship ONE GOD in scripture. He is a jealous God and will not tolerate anyone thinking He should share His glory with another.
So, you must decide for yourself: Either Jesus is part of the same being as the Father, and therefore you worship a “binity” with no scriptural support. Or Jesus is truly the Son that the Father begat, in which case he is a separate being and therefore you are forbidden by God to worship him as God.
I want to also get past this with you. Your a big girl, make up your own mind. As for me and my house, we will worship Jehovah only.
peace and love,
mike
Hi Mike,
pfewwww! We have gotten somewhere, I'm glad Now tell me who/what is Jesus God/god over.
Please realize that the angels and men that might be referred to as theos do not have the nature of deity, but Jesus does and that is a tremendous difference.
I'm looking forward to your response on the 'nonsense' thread in regards to Zech 2.
Quote (Lightenup @ June 09 2010,16:16) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 09 2010,09:13) 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
Oh! I don't think that the church father's agree with you on that…isn't the general trinitarian consensus that the Son was eternally generated and creator of all creation and always preeminent over His creation? I find it strange that the creator of creation wouldn't have preeminence over it until thousands of years later when He was resurrected and that He would have to be appointed over His own creation.Since you believe that He wasn't preeminent over all creation before He was resurrected, who do you believe was preeminent over creation before the resurrection? Any references?
KathiDid you forget Phil 2:6-8?
Jesus became poor that we might become rich!
When did he leave it all and then when was it all given back to him?
As far as the Forefathers.
I believe they could be saying Jesus is the same being but it is like when President Obama moved from Illinois to the Whitehouse!
He wasn't the President before the election when he still lived in Illinois, but he was Barak Obama wasn't he?
Jesus wasn't a Son that was born a Son was he?
Thats just the way I see it.
But even so, if he was eternally generated meaning eternally he has always been with the Father in his bosom, then he must be God and exactly like the Father in every way, and of the same essence and being with the Father!
They are inseperable, and so is the Holy Spirit who also has always been proceeding from the Father and Jesus!
Blessings Keith
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 10 2010,12:21) Quote (Lightenup @ June 09 2010,16:16) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 09 2010,09:13) 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
Oh! I don't think that the church father's agree with you on that…isn't the general trinitarian consensus that the Son was eternally generated and creator of all creation and always preeminent over His creation? I find it strange that the creator of creation wouldn't have preeminence over it until thousands of years later when He was resurrected and that He would have to be appointed over His own creation.Since you believe that He wasn't preeminent over all creation before He was resurrected, who do you believe was preeminent over creation before the resurrection? Any references?
KathiDid you forget Phil 2:6-8?
Jesus became poor that we might become rich!
When did he leave it all and then when was it all given back to him?
As far as the Forefathers.
I believe they could be saying Jesus is the same being but it is like when President Obama moved from Illinois to the Whitehouse!
He wasn't the President before the election when he still lived in Illinois, but he was Barak Obama wasn't he?
Jesus wasn't a Son that was born a Son was he?
Thats just the way I see it.
But even so, if he was eternally generated meaning eternally he has always been with the Father in his bosom, then he must be God and exactly like the Father in every way, and of the same essence and being with the Father!
They are inseperable, and so is the Holy Spirit who also has always been proceeding from the Father and Jesus!
Blessings Keith
WJ
WJ,
No, I didn't forget Phil 2. I do believe that the 'he' you mention in Phil 2 is not an 'it' and I understand the 'he' in Phil 2 as a different person than the one that sends Him. I also believe that the 'he' in Phil 2 was from God and shared God's nature and was in every way a true Son of God and like God in every way that a son could possibly be. A Son could not possible be exactly like His Father in every way. The Son did not have a son of His own, coming forth from Himself that had the same nature of deity that He had, for instance. A Son could not possibly be the same age as His Father either. That doesn't make Him imperfect but it does make Him different and not exactly like His Father.The Son left behind whatever He left behind in order to become flesh when He became flesh, and all that could be restored to Him was restored to Him and more at His resurrection.
Quote He wasn't the President before the election when he still lived in Illinois, but he was Barak Obama wasn't he? Barak didn't stop being a father when he became a 'father' to our nation. The Son didn't stop being a son to become a son in the flesh.
A son cannot deny his past, or his origin even when he becomes someone else's son. He was a son in one way and became a son in another way while still being the son he originated as. A person can take on a new identity but they still carry the history of their past. The Son of God was able to lay down stuff to take on His role in the flesh but He never laid down His history, maybe he relinguished His memories for a time though.
Quote Jesus wasn't a Son that was born a Son was he? First of all, the Son as the 'root of David' wasn't named Jesus. It wasn't until He became the offspring (the Branch) of David that He was called Jesus. The Son of God was the Son as the Root before He became the Son as the Branch. When He became the Branch, He was still the Root.
And that is the way I see it.
The only way that I can see the Son as being considered as eternal (past) is as a 'seed in the loins' of His Father, but not as an independent living being, until sometime before creation when He was begotten.
Lu,
At last someone else has demonstrated something I have been doing for quite a while… Did anyone take note that I often quote the name 'Jesus' or write 'pre-Jesus' or 'He who would be called Jesus'
However, it's only to be noted rather than made a burden or stumbling block. It matters not as long as it is understood that the name was given for a reason AND that there were other people called 'Jesus', there is even an Apostle called 'Jesus' and a 'BarJesus'.
What is different is that this 'Jesus' is also labelled 'Christ', 'Jesus Christ', or 'Jesus the Christ', or 'Christ Jesus'.FROM PAGE 253 OF THE TRINITY 2 THREAD:
Lightenup said:
Quote Thinker,
The main thing in the Sonship of Christ is that throughout His existence, He has been the Son of GOD in every step whether it be as one who GOD created through or as the one who GOD revealed Himself to man through or as the one who calls us brethren because He was the first of many of the sons of the resurrection. His resurrection proved to man that He was the Son of GOD when He walked among them. His death was the reason He came to men so as to sanctify them unto redemption. His resurrection gave the sons of Abraham the fulfillment of GOD's promise to them that they would be able to be redeemed to sonship one day as sons of the resurrection.Kangaroo Jack (thethinker) replied:
Quote Kathi,
Hebrews 1 says that Christ was for a little while made lower [in rank] than the angels. So Christ's sonship before His exaltation was clearly a lesser position than what the angels enjoyed. Then it says that he was exalted and “begotten” as Son. It is as the “begotten Son” that Jesus has a name that is superior to that of the angels. If Jesus had always been “begotten” then He was never at any time lower than the angels.So Christ's exaltation was not merely about Jesus' sonship being demonstrated as you say. It was also about His acquiring a position that is ABOVE the angels. Jesus EARNED His rank as “begotten Son.” The term “begotten” does NOT mean that God reproduced Himself.
Then Lightenup replied again:
Quote Thinker,
The Son of GOD was never a lesser Son of GOD at any point.Think about this for instance,
If a king had a son, that son would be as much of a son to the king as a newborn baby as he would be as the ruler of the kingdom. As a ruler, he is the same son except he would then be a son with the power that was promised to him since his birth.Exactly! When Jesus was begotten AT HIS EXALTATION He became the Son of God WITH POWER.
So, the word “begotten” in reference to Jesus had nothing to do with His coming into being. It had to do with His becoming IN His existence as a man. It had to do with His becoming with power what He already was only by promise just as Kathi said!
Therefore, the word “begotten” as it applies to Jesus does not mean that God reproduced Himself (Mikeboll and Kathi) or that Jesus came into being before His incarnation.
It's just as WJ said that Jesus became the firstborn, that is, preeminent.
Kangaroo Jack
Roo,
Since when is power begotten?You haven't answered me as to who was preeminent over creation before Jesus.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 11 2010,10:33) So, the word “begotten” in reference to Jesus had nothing to do with His coming into being. It had to do with His becoming IN His existence as a man. It had to do with His becoming with power what He already was only by promise just as Kathi said! Therefore, the word “begotten” as it applies to Jesus does not mean that God reproduced Himself (Mikeboll and Kathi) or that Jesus came into being before His incarnation.
Hi Jack,I'm not sure what you're saying. You said, “It had to do with his becoming IN his existence as a man.” Are you saying that when Jesus was raised, he came into existence as a man?
And you have been shown ample proof that begotten had everything to do with Jesus' coming into being. Shouldn't you first refute the proof before continuing with you unfounded claims?
You have been shown proof that “monogenes” did mean “only begotten” and “prototokos pasa ktisis” did mean “firstborn of every creature”.
Soundly refute that proof, or accept it and move on to your next folly.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (Lightenup @ June 09 2010,21:41) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 09 2010,20:06) Quote (Lightenup @ June 09 2010,15:11) 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.
Hi Kathi,I have slowly come to terms with Jesus being a god, even though the word in Biblical times was used for men and angels too. Even the fallen angel, Satan.
I agree that he must be divine if he came directly from the Father God.
But you must know that we are only told to worship ONE GOD in scripture. He is a jealous God and will not tolerate anyone thinking He should share His glory with another.
So, you must decide for yourself: Either Jesus is part of the same being as the Father, and therefore you worship a “binity” with no scriptural support. Or Jesus is truly the Son that the Father begat, in which case he is a separate being and therefore you are forbidden by God to worship him as God.
I want to also get past this with you. Your a big girl, make up your own mind. As for me and my house, we will worship Jehovah only.
peace and love,
mike
Hi Mike,
pfewwww! We have gotten somewhere, I'm glad Now tell me who/what is Jesus God/god over.
Please realize that the angels and men that might be referred to as theos do not have the nature of deity, but Jesus does and that is a tremendous difference.
I'm looking forward to your response on the 'nonsense' thread in regards to Zech 2.
Hi Mike,I'm curious as to your answer to this:
Quote Now tell me who/what is Jesus God/god over. Quote (Lightenup @ June 12 2010,12:15) Hi Mike, I'm curious as to your answer to this:
Now tell me who/what is Jesus God/god over.
Hi Kathi,Nothing. He is god over the same things that the men and angels referred to as gods are god over. He is my King and my Lord, but not my god. There is only one who is my God, and that is Jehovah. The same one who is Jesus' God.
Think of the word “girlfriend”. When my 9 year old is playing with one of his friends who happens to be a girl, I cannot say, “Are you having fun with your girlfriend?” He will go ballistic!
It is in reality a girlfriend of his, but it takes on a whole other meaning when I say, “Is she your girlfriend?”Do you understand? Jesus is a god in the sense that he is a mighty one. But he is not a god in the sense that we should worship him in violation of God's command to only worship and serve Him as God. Jesus is divine, but not The Divine One.
peace and love,
mikeAs moderator, can it be agreed between parties what the definition of a disputed word means so as to avoid so many instances of misunderstanding where one person believes that the word means one thing and the other person thinks it means another.
No agreement will ever come between the two parties andndiscord persists everlasting.The capitalised word 'God' is only to be used for 'Almighty God'.
The uncapitalise word 'god' is used for any 'mighty one', a hero, a king, an angel, an man, anyone who is greater than the normal for their state.
And, softly, would posters refrsin from 'pretending' not to understand the context of their opposition just to cause discomfort?
If you genuinely find a probem with a definition, rather than impose your own, why not try asking what your opponent means.
If you don't agree then why not explain your view rather than just vehemently disagree without explaining what you are disagreeing about?
Kathi said:
Quote Roo,
Since when is power begotten?
Kathi,Isn't the word of the apostles good enough for ya?
32And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33God hath FULFILLED the same unto us their children, in that HE RAISED UP JESUS AGAIN; as it is also WRITTEN IN THE SECOND PSALM,
'You are my Son, TODAY have I begotten You.'
Paul unequivocally puts the begetting of Jesus at His resurrection. He said that God has fulfilled the promise “in that He raised up Jesus again from the dead; AS IT IS ALSO WRITTEN IN THE SECOND PSALM, 'You are My Son, TODAY I have begotten you.' “
Again in Colossians Paul said that Jesus was the firstborn “from the dead.” This refers to the time He became God's firstborn. Though He was anointed as God's Son at the Jordan He was not actually installed as God's firstborn Son until His exaltation. The order is the same as it was for his Father David. David was first anointed God's firstborn son and then he was installed as God's firstborn when he was EXALTED to the throne as king (Ps. 89).
Kathi:
Quote You haven't answered me as to who was preeminent over creation before Jesus.
I have not read any posts lately because I don't have that much time right now. I don't read them until I can reply. My daughter is getting married and I must take a lot of extra work so I will have the money to pay for her wedding when the time comes. My wife and I lost 17k in an investment that went bad so I have to work a lot to come up with the money to pay for her wedding.To answer your question: Did not Jesus refer to His Father as “Lord of heaven and earth?” Now that Jesus is God's fully investitured Son/Heir He has taken full possession of everything and reigns preeminent in His Father's place.
You seem to deny Hebrews 2 which says that Jesus was lower than the angels before His exaltation. Hebrews 1 clearly says that the name “begotten Son” and “firstborn” is a name that is far “so much better than the angels.” It says that as the begotten Son the angels are commanded to worship Him.
So how could Jesus have been the “begotten” and the ''firstborn” when He was lower than the angels?
Another anti-trinitarian here can see this. On page 254 of the Trinity 2 thread Bodhitharta said “Amen.”
Paul said that the heir though he is owner of all differs nothing from a servant UNTIL the appointed time of the Father. Jesus was a servant Son in the days of His flesh and was therefore under his Father and was lower than the angels. But at the appointed time of the Father Jesus became the fully investitured Son of God. This means that He has taken full possession of His inheritance and is no longer a servant to His Father and is now above the angels.
This is what it means for Him to be the “begotten Son.”
the Roo
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
