- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 13 2010,21:06) Quote (Lightenup @ June 14 2010,09:59) Can you just come to terms that the Son is YOUR Mighty god/God who has a God?
Sorry Kathi,My God doesn't have a God He answers to. Give it up, girl.
mike
Mike,
I beg to differ…Heb 1 something
But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 13 2010,22:49) Hi LU,
The Spirit of Christ was.
Nick,That is what my grammar book calls a sentence fragment
Ok, So God has enlightened me more as to what can help us all to come to an understanding of what 'firstborn' in Col 1 means.
Here is the context:
1:15 27 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation,
1:16 for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him – all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers – all things were created through him and for him.
1:17 He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him.
1:18 He is the head of the body, the church, as well as the beginning, the firstborn from among the dead, so that he himself may become first in all things.
1:19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in the Son
1:20 and through him to reconcile all things to himself by making peace through the blood of his cross – through him, whether things on earth or things in heaven.Just substitute the word 'firstborn' with 'firstfruit' and that could paint a clearer picture for you.
1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn (first fruit) over all creation,
1:16 for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him – all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers – all things were created through him and for him.
1:17 He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him.
1:18 He is the head of the body, the church, as well as the beginning, the firstborn (first fruit)from among the dead, so that he himself may become first in all things.
1:19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in the Son
1:20 and through him to reconcile all things to himself by making peace through the blood of his cross – through him, whether things on earth or things in heaven.Here are scriptures that speak of first fruits as a firstborn and first raised:
Psalm 105:36 NASB
36 He also struck down all the firstborn in their land,
The first fruits of all their vigor.This carries the notion of the beginning of the procreative strength of the father, btw.
Here is a passage that will help us understand the phrase “firstborn from among the dead.”
1 Cor 15:20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.
I really hope this helps…it was an 'ah ha' moment for me when I got this.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 13 2010,10:03) Oh brother, Roo! Again? I would like to invite Dennison to “judge” this debate we're having so maybe someone would FORCE you to answer the questions that have been asked of you. Are you willing to have a “judge”? Let's take it back to our debate thread where I already bumped this discussion. The reason I originally started our debate was so you couldn't do what you are doing here. You avoid simple straight forward questions, and keep “proclaiming” to everyone who can read the same tired non-answers. Here we go again.
I don't care if Eusebius later joined the “God is a tinkerbell fairy” cult. He was a Greek man, who was learned in theology and spoke the language that the NT was written in.
AND HE THOUGHT THAT “PROTOTOKOS PASA KTISIS” MEANT “FIRSTBORN OF EVERY CREATURE” AND THAT “MONOGENES” MEANT “ONLY BEGOTTEN”!
That debunks your new trinitarian scholars who say those words had nothing to do with God's Son's beginning.
It is hilarious to me that WJ is the one who originally posted this “fragment” of Eusebius' writings and it actually disproves the trinity. And it's even more hilarious that you guys brought out the big guns of Ignatious which FURTHER disproves the trinity!
I can't wait for your next “big gun”!
Just answer the questions, Roo. You are not fooling anyone with all this rhetoric. They can also see that you cannot not answer the questions honestly without admitting you are wrong about the Greek usage of certain words. We can ALL see that all these ranting posts are smoke and mirrors designed to distract people from the issue at hand. It's actually an insult to the intelligence of the HN members that you think they are dumb enough to fall for it.
peace and love,
mike
MikeWhy are you denying the fact that Eusebius had changed his position?
Its hillarious that you call on Trinitarians like Eusebius who spoke of the Trinity and you have yet to show us where he says Jesus had a beginning!
Its also hillarious that you talk about Ignatious disproving the Trinity when you haven't read his writings obviously and its especially hillarious that he calls Jesus his God yet we know they were strict Monotheist!
Here is what is really hillarious, that you say Jesus is “a god” but he is not “your god” and you can't even say he is a god over anyone, yet you say satan is the god of this world and is a mighty god over the people of the world!
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 13 2010,10:48) Quote (JustAskin @ June 14 2010,02:02) KJ, Why don't you ask for a moderator to mediate between you two?
Hey Mike,
I hear tell that you are a moderator now.
Are you up for this? (Craig David)
It's funny that we were posting the same idea at the same time again. I would LOVE to continue my debate with Roo with a judge to keep things on track. I just don't think Roo is up to it – maybe I'm wrong. What do you say, Roo?I think WE could use a judge to keep things on track in the born or begotten thread.
As far as being moderator, I think it means that I am always right now, and my adversary is always wrong. Is that correct?
I don't know who (Craig David) is.
peace and love,
mike
Mike and JAWhy should Jack agree to JA being a judge between the two who is obviously biased towards Mike and even calls him his “begotten brother”?
Thats funny that you guys would even request such.
Tell you what Mike, how about if someone who doesn't post here that much like Paul (Isa 1:18) be the judge, how about that?
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ June 13 2010,13:27) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 13 2010,09:15) TO ALL:
There is a point that I have been wanting to make so I will make it now. Mikeboll has tried to prove from fragment quotes that Eusebuis believed that Jesus had a beginning. These fragments are inadmissable because in the end Eusebius submitted to and signed the Nicean creed which denied that Jesus had a beginning.About 10 years ago there was an elder at my church who had been teaching and writing that Jesus the man was not God in the flesh. I had tried to correct him on this but he would not be corrected. So I wrote the Session of my church and gave them documentation showing the elder's errors. The Session in turn submitted it to a higher governing body in the denomination. The elder was called in to be examined by them.
The elder recanted the things that he had written and spoken and the governing body cleared Him of all things. But I had still held his errors against him until finally another elder in my church who is a wise and spiritual man said to me, “In the end the elder got it right.”
It is evident from the documentation I provide below that in the end Eusebius got it right. The wise elder taught me that anything the errant elder wrote or said before his change was inadmissable.
So all the broken fragments Mikeboll has offered about Eusebius is inadmissable because in the end Eusebius got it right.
Mikeboll said:
Quote After you have STILL not answered my two simple questions about Eusebius' quote? I replied:
You give fragments from Eusebius out of their historical context. There was a progressive development in the Christology of Eusebius. It has been noted that THREE STAGES occurred in the development of the Christology of Eusebius. Note the three stages carefully especially the last stage which shows that Eusebius came to agree with the Council of Nicea and signed it and remained a supporter from that time and onward:
Quote To understand his conduct, it is necessary to look briefly at his theological position. By many he has been called an Arian, by many his orthodoxy has been defended. The truth is, three stages are to be distinguished in his theological development. The first preceded the outbreak of the Arian controversy, when, as might be expected in a follower of Origen, his interest was anti-Sabellian and his emphasis chiefly upon the subordination of the Son of God. In his works written during this period (for instance, the Praeparatio evangelica and Demonstratio evangelica), as in the works of Origen himself and other anteNicene fathers, expressions occur looking in the direction of Arianism, and others looking in the opposite direction. The second stage began with the outbreak of the controversy in 318, and continued until the Nicene Council. During this period he took the side of Arius in the dispute with Alexander of Alexandria, and accepted what he understood to be the position of Arius and his supporters, who, as he supposed, taught both the divinity and subordination of the Son. It was natural that he should take this side, for in his traditional fear of Sabellianism, in which he was one with the followers of Origen in general, he found it difficult to approve the position of Alexander, who seemed to be doing away altogether with the subordination of the Son. And, moreover, he believed that Alexander was misrepresenting the teaching of Arius and doing him great injustice (cf. his letters to Alexander and Euphration preserved in the proceedings of the second council of Nicaea, Act. vi. tom. 5: see Mansi's Concilia, xiii. 316 sq.; English translation in McGiffert, op. cit. p. 70). Meanwhile at the council of Nicaea he seems to have discovered that the Alexandrians were right in claiming that Arius was carrying his subordinationism so far as to deny all real divinity to Christ. To this length Eusebius himself was unwilling to go, and so, convinced that he had misunderstood Arius, and that the teaching of the latter was imperilling the historic belief in the divinity of Christ, he gave his support to the opposition, and voted for the Nicene Creed, in which the teachings of the Arians were repudiated. From this time on he was a supporter of Nicene orthodoxy over against Arianism (cf., e.g., his Contra Marcellum, De ecclesiastica theologia, and Theophania).
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Eusebius_of_CaesareaSo you will need to do better than provide fragments from Eusebius. Eusebius SIGNED the revised creed. Let's see how many ways I can put this:
* Eusebius SIGNED revised creed.
* Eusebius AFFIXED HIS SIGNATURE to the revised creed.
* Eusebius PUT HIS “JOHN HANCOCK” on the revised creed.
* Eusebius SUBMITTED to the revised creed and SIGNED it.
* Eusebuis RETRACTED His former support position and SIGNED the revised creed.THEREFORE, any fragmented quotes you provide from Eusebius before the final stage in the development of His Christology is inadmissable! I repeat: Fragmented quotes before the final stage of the development in Eusebius' thinking IS INADMISSABLE!
the Roo
Hi Roo,Let us look at the Nicene Creed that he signed. From what I can tell, Roo, you don't agree with the Nicene Creed. You don't believe that the Son was begotten “before all worlds.”
Quote Nicene Creed NICENE CREED
325 A.D.
EARLY CHURCH FATHERS
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
(from Creeds of the Church, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
Re-read this section:
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds;
So that is kinda like rubbing you the wrong way about now, huh Roo?
You couldn't sign the Nicene Creed or the doctrine of the trinity either.
1. the Nicene Creed specifically says that the Son was begotten by the Father before all worlds. You say He was begotten when He was resurrected.2. The doctrine of the trinity says that the Son is co-eternal, you say that the Son began being the Son after the resurrection.
Why are you masquerading around like you are a supporter of the Nicene Creed and the trinity doctrine? Are you trying to blend in with your church. Should the elder report you? I bet he would be interested in your posts on here.
Just saying is all…
KathiThe problem you have is the Fathers did not believe that “Begotten” or “firstborn” meant that Jesus had a beginning!
This is what the Creed of the first Council of Nicea (325) read (emphasis mine)…
“But those who say: THERE WAS A TIME WHEN HE WAS NOT“; and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.
WJ
WorshippingJesus said to Mikeboll:
Quote Here is what is really hillarious, that you say Jesus is “a god” but he is not “your god” and you can't even say he is a god over anyone, yet you say satan is the god of this world and is a mighty god over the people of the world!
What is sad is that Mike believes that Jesus is a god in the “same sense” as satan. Yet Hebrews says that He has inherited a name that is “so much better” than the angels.I have been reading on JW forums and Mike doesn't hold a candle to them. Our JW friend David seems to keep his distance from Mike.
the Roo
Worshippingjesus said to Mikeboll:
Quote Why are you denying the fact that Eusebius had changed his position?
Keith,Mike must continue his filibuster. He can't admit that Eusebius changed his position.
Did you read the true story I told about an elder at my church who wrote essays which said that Christ was not God in the flesh? This was ten years ago. I submitted a letter of complaint to the governing body at my church and they referred my complaint to a higher governing body in the denomination. That higher governing body called the elder in to examine him and he recanted of his errors.
For a while I continued to hold the elder's former errors against him. Then finally a wise elder corrected me saying, “In the end he got it right.” This inferred that the writings of the errant elder before he recanted didn't count. In the end the elder got it right.
Anything Eusebius said or wrote before he submitted to and signed the Nicean creed doesn't count. In the end Eusebius got it right. Even sometime before Eusebius must have changed because he submitted his own creed to the council of Nicea and they accepted it as “orthodox.” Then they revised it and Eusebius signed it.
So in the end all 300 plus church fathers including Eusebius spoke with ONE voice saying that the word “begotten” in reference to Jesus meant that He is “of ONE substance with the Father.”
This goes right along with our view on the word “begotten.” So you and I have ALL the church fathers including Eusebius on our side.
Jack
Kathi said:
Quote First of all, I do not agree that firstborn means preeminent.
Kathi,That's too bad for you because your disagreement that firstborn [may] mean “preeminent” puts you out of accord with the scripture. The word “firstborn” and “chief” are used interchangeably in 1 Chronicles 16:10:
Also Hosah, of the children of Merari, had sons; Simri the CHIEF, (for though he was not the firstborn, yet his father made him the CHIEF;)”
David was appointed to be God's firstborn which meant that he was preeminent over the kings of the earth:
20I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him… 27Also I will appoint him my firstborn, HIGHER than the kings of the earth” (Psalm 89:20, 27).
Even an anti-trinitarian JW can see that the title “firstborn” in reference to David meant that he prefigured the supremacy of Christ's kingship:
“Also, King David prefigures Jesus in the PREEMINENCE of his Kingship as regards to Jehovah God. David was neither the first King in Israel, nor was he even the first male born in his family ( I think he was actually the last). Yet Jehovah covenanted to David that he would have a kingship that would last forever. Even more than that he stated at Psalms 89:20,27“
uot” target=”_blank”>http://e-jehovahs-witnesses.com/forum….on-quot
Finally, Paul CLEARLY said that Christ is the “firstborn” from the dead in order that in all things He might have the “PREEMINENCE” (Colossians 1:18).
Kathi:
Quote I believe that it means the first procreative strength of the Father.
Nonsense!Kathi:
Quote You only account for firstborn from the dead, not firstborn of all creation.
But I have accounted for the expression “all creation” (all mankind). You have not read my posts have you. The expression “pasa ktisis” in the new testament ALWAYS means “all mankind” including Colossians 1. The word “ktisis” by itself most often means “mankind.”Paul meant that Jesus is the firstborn of “all mankind.” Verse 23 says that the gospel was preached to “pasa ktisis” all mankind.”
So verse 15 indicates the relation of Christ's status as the firstborn. Verse 18 indicates the timing when He became the firstborn of all mankind.
Kathi:
Quote You only account for firstborn from the dead, not firstborn of all creation.
How can you speak such a bald faced misrepresentation? See the op to this thread. And note the quote from Arthur Custance below which I have posted SEVERAL times here.“It seems clear enough that the Great Commission of Mark's Gospel has reference to the human race alone. There is the familiar story of St. Francis of Assisi preaching to the birds, but I doubt if it is really the intent of the original that the Gospel is to be preached to animals as well as to man, commanding them all alike to believe and be saved. If it is, the command has certainly never been taken seriously by the overwhelming majority of Christian people. So at least in Mark the Greek phrase rendered “the whole creation” clearly refers only to humanity, to human society. Nor can one suppose that Paul was including the world of animals in Colossians 1:23. This must surely be equally true of Colossians 1:15, for it would be ABSURD to suppose that the Lord is to be called the firstborn of animals and plants.”
http://custance.org/old/seed/ch8s.html
If you have seen this quote then you know that I have accounted for Paul's statement that Christ is the firstborn of “pasa ktisis” (all mankind).
the Roo
Did someone miss a trick earlier….
If Mike and 'roo' are debating and Mike is also the Mediator? remind anyone of anything…
Lightenup said;
Quote Re-read this section:
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds;
So that is kinda like rubbing you the wrong way about now, huh Roo?
TO ALL:
Kathi is not paying attention to my posts. She is really slipping up big time lately. The excerpt she gives above is from the original creed that Eusebius drafted and submitted to the Council of Nicea.
The Council revised Eusebius' creed and omitted “begotten before all ages” and in its stead they inserted”, “that is, of one substance with the Father.”
Let's look at the excerpt before and after it was revised:
*Before it was revised: “And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the word of God, God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, begotten of the Father before all the ages….”
*After it was revised: “And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance1 of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father2….”
1 “from the innermost being of the Father,” inesparably one.”
2 “sharing one being with the Father, and therefore distinct in essence though essentially one.”Eusebius signed the REVISED creed which omitted “begotten of the Father before all the ages!
Kathi:
Quote So that is kinda like rubbing you the wrong way about now, huh Roo?
I am going to give you the beneift of the doubt for having poor reading comprehension skills. But if you continue to revise history like Mikeboll then I will be forced to think much less of you. Eusebius signed the REVISED form of the creed he submitted. Don't confuse the original with the revised which Eusebius signed.I repeat: Eusebius signed the REVISED creed which omitted “begotten before all the ages” and used “begotten” as an adjective defining it to mean “of the substance of the Father” and “of one substance with the Father.”
Please! One history revisionist is enough here!
the Roo
To All,
Please try to abide by this information that KJ has issued.
Discussion cannot move forward if inadmissable information is brought into play – whether by lack of understanding or for other reasons.
[JA – Moderator]
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 that’s 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 resurrection 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?
That’s 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 inseparable, and so is the Holy Spirit who also has always been proceeding from the Father and Jesus!
Blessings Keith
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ June 10 2010,13:51)
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.
Hi KathiAgreed, Jesus is the same “he” or person that existed with the Father before time, space and matter, and the same person that was “born” from a virgin and declared to be the “Monogenes” Son of God!
Quote (Lightenup @ June 10 2010,13:51) 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.
Really? And you also believe that a Son can never become like his Father in everyway! Tell us Kathi, besides your assumption that Jesus had a beginning, in what way is Jesus not like his Father, and please explain your theory according to scriptures and especially Heb 1:3.Quote (Lightenup @ June 10 2010,13:51) A Son could not possible be exactly like His Father in every way.
See what I mean! So when a Son grows up and becomes a Father and inherits all that his Father has, he is not like his Father in every way?It is real convenient how your logic only fits the way you want it to. If you are going to use examples then you should hold true to the entire principle.
Quote (Lightenup @ June 10 2010,13:51) 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.
That’s assuming that God is asexual and brought birth to a smaller god! Do you see how the natural analogy of man cannot apply? You said…Quote (Lightenup @ June 10 2010,13:51) 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).
You say that the term “firstborn” always holds the natural meaning of the term and is the “default” meaning in context unless there is clearly an exception to the rule. Yet you are denying this by applying the term to Jesus because the natural meaning of the word is a man and a woman together brings birth to a Son and not a Father by himself! So clearly Jesus is an exception to the rule. The term firstborn therefore could be applied to Jesus natural birth more so than you’re remaking of the term by applying it to God literally bringing birth to a god son!Quote (Lightenup @ June 10 2010,13:51) 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.
Again, this is assuming that God brought birth to a god!Quote (Lightenup @ June 10 2010,13:51) 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.
Yet Paul didn’t say the “son” emptied himself and came in the likeness of sinful flesh, did he? No, but after he is found in fashion as a man he calls Jesus the “second Adam”, showing he to
ok place of the “first Adam” who also was a “Son of God” and was not “born”.Why is Adam the only human that the scriptures call “the son of God” before Jesus came and was called the second Adam?
Can you see it Kathi? Adam was not “born” yet he is the first “son of God”. So then the scriptures give us an example of one given the title “Son of God” without being born and then we have Jesus who also though he was born it was still not through the “norm” of procreation. But both Adam and Jesus after the flesh came into existence by a divine act!
Concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, “who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord“, Rom 1:3, 4
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 10 2010,12:21) He wasn't the President before the election when he still lived in Illinois, but he was Barak Obama wasn't he? Quote (Lightenup @ June 10 2010,13:51) 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.
And Barak didn’t preexist being his Fathers son either, did he? In what sense did Jesus being conceived by the Holy Spirit and overshadowed by the Father did Jesus not become the Son of God? The Angel declared him to be the Son of God after he was born!Quote (Lightenup @ June 10 2010,13:51) 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.
Really, and how so? And just where in the scriptures is Jesus referred to as being a Son of God in two different ways?Quote (Lightenup @ June 10 2010,13:51) A person can take on a new identity but they still carry the history of their past.
Exactly, just like the Angel declared Jesus to be the Son of God after he came in the flesh. But where is your scripture that says the Son came to be the Son of God in the past? Or is it that he as the Son of God now is referred to as the same person that was with the Father before time, meaning eternity?Quote (Lightenup @ June 10 2010,13:51) 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.
Nice modern day language, but the scripture says he “emptied himself” and took on the likeness of sinful flesh (ginomai) and was declared to be the Son of God. Luke 1:35 – Rom 1:4 Now where is that scripture that says Jesus was born before time, because time, space and matter is part of the “All things that came into existence” by or through him and without him nothing came into existence?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 10 2010,12:21)
Jesus wasn't a Son that was born a Son was he?Quote (Lightenup @ June 10 2010,13:51) 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.
Where is the scripture that says the “Son of God” was the “Son of God as the root”? Ah, that’s right you don’t have any until he was declared to be the Son of God by the Angel and with Power by the resurrection! Why didn’t John write… “In the beginning was the Begotten Son (or Begotten God) and the Begotten Son (Begotten God) was with God and was the Begotten Son (begotten God)?Quote (Lightenup @ June 10 2010,13:51) And that is the way I see it.
Exactly, the way “YOU SEE IT” and not the Church Fathers or the 100s of experts in Greek and Hebrew and the thousands of believers worldwide including your own Church and Pastor!Quote (Lightenup @ June 10 2010,13:51) 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.
An asexual God did not bring birth to a god.Kathi, you and Mike insist that the natural meaning of “begotten and firstborn” means to come into existence by procreation, and that unless it is shown otherwise the natural meaning should apply to Jesus. Yet, you and Mike have redefined the words, because as far as man is concerned as a Father and a Son, procreation involves the natural birth of a Son by a Father and a Mother.
Your theology of God bringing birth to “a god” is in line with Greek Mythology!
Thanks for listening!
WJ
Kathi said:
Quote The Son didn't stop being a son to become a son in the flesh.
It was by becoming flesh that Jesus became a Son. Paul said that he was “born according to the seed of David and decreed to be the Son of God” (Rom. 1).Jesus could not have neen God's Son before becoming flesh because ONLY MEN ARE SONS OF GOD.
the Roo
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
