- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Wj,
Quote Your theory about the definition of ginomai “is a coming into being in a 'completed sense', not an incompleted sense” is wrong! Well, obviously we disagree here.
Quote (Lightenup @ June 02 2010,08:33) Wj, Quote Your theory about the definition of ginomai “is a coming into being in a 'completed sense', not an incompleted sense” is wrong! Well, obviously we disagree here.
It does not matter Kathi. Hebrews 1:10 says that the Father credits the creation of the heavens to the Son's hands. It does not say that the Father started it and that the Son came in to complete the job.Where do you get this stuff? As I have said before you have an over active imagination.
the Roo
Well roo,
You are correct that creation was by the Son's hands…but by the Father's word. The Son was the master craftsman as the Outstretched Arm of the Lord. All things are from the Father, by the Son. It isn't that hard. As parents we give the word and our kids carry it out. It is not difficult. I bring the supplies for the project, my kid completes the project. Not difficult at all to understand.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 01 2010,15:39) God begets God! And not…
God begets demigod!
So the definition of the word “begotten” according to the Arian view is not a scriptural view at all is it, and isn't even consistent with the literal definition of the word?
WJ
God begats a son.
The Divine begats a divine being.
God begats a God. Well did you know that even that term is not meant to be taken that YHWH begats another YHWH. No it is that YHWH or the Divine begats another divine or being after his own nature and kind. It is not another Almighty.Look at the following:
Is not God a Spirit?
Is he not the Father of spirits?
Are not angels spirits?
Are Angels the Spirit? No.See that? It is simple when you haven't got a man-made doctrine to defend.
Again you fail to understand the difference between kind and identity. Until you can grasp that, you will continue to chase your own tail.
Finally a reminder of the situation:
For US there is one God the Father, and one Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ.
For YOU, there is one God the Father, the Son, and Spirit. And one LORD the LORD Jesus Christ, LORD Father, and LORD Spirit.We have to agree with Paul rather than yourself, Is, or KJ.
Sorry, but we have to choose the truth and not tradition in this case. I am sure you will agree in principle that choosing the truth is better than following tradition and false doctrine.
Quote (Lightenup @ June 01 2010,16:15) Mike,
The deep was there in its incomplete state as well as the earth being there in an incompleted state. It was day two and three that they were completed and called “heaven” and “earth:”Gen 1:6-10
6 Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.
8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.
10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.
NASU
Do we have a specific discussion about this because I think it would make an interesting one. If not, does someone want to set one up.I have something to say on this subject too.
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 01 2010,14:38) T8………The term “firstborn” still references a Position even if you apply it to a literial first born son. Jesus could not have (become) the First Born Son of GOD unless He recieved it after his berth through an adoption process, because he would already have been the First Born or Begotten right? and why would GOD say. “(THIS) day i have begotten you”, not some distant past before his berth on earth, as you seem to believe brother. IMO peace and love to you and yours…………………gene
Gene, you forget the most obvious.
That the term firstborn is made up of 2 words, 'first' and 'born'. As a descriptive, it is a no-brainer.And when we see firstborns in scripture, they are the first born and the Old Testament even says that the literal first-born son belongs to him. And with that comes privilege and a measure of preeminence dependent on your domain.
But those that are called first-born and are not the literal first born can be explained at least in this way; a literal first-born foregoing his privileged position and thereby allowing or giving it to another. Think of it as passing on his inheritance.
Jesus is called first-born of all creation. If he is not that, then please explain who is because surely the actual first one to exist must be special, and if you are right, then how come we never here about the actual first born of all creation? Surely he would have to be very special to be the first. He would have first place and he would have been with God before the worlds were created and had glory with the Father before the creation of the universe. Starting to sound a little familiar don't you think?
t8 said:
Quote Again you fail to understand the difference between kind and identity. Until you can grasp that, you will continue to chase your own tail.
t8,You have admitted before that Jesus is God “qualitatively.” That's “kind.” And Jesus is the Savior of the world. That's identity. Yet YHWH says “Besides Me there is no Savior.”
And don't give me the explanation that Jesus is a lesser Savior. 1 John 4:14 says that the Father sent the Son, the Savior of the world.” Would you like to talk about Christ's “identity” as Savior and also about the fact that besides YHWH THERE IS NO SAVIOR?
the Roo
Hi KJ,
You are so confused and still have to work from theory.
God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.There is no other name UNDER Heaven by which YOU can be saved.
Sorry Roo. That is a big blunder on your part.
YHWH is the Almighty and true God. Jesus is his son and the prototype son.You can't make Jesus YHWH by cleverly using nouns that are applied to others. Saviour is also used of others. You are trying to trick people. If I was to be that deceptive, I could say that God is Spirit and we are told that there is one Spirit just as there is one faith. Then I could say that Michael is an angel, and angels are spirits, and because there is one Spirit, that means that Michael is God or part of God. And then I could go further and say that God is one substance, (spirit) and is made up of millions or billions of members including all the angels. I could call it the Billionity.
See how circular reasoning can be used to deceive?
KJ, like WJ, you are chasing your own tail with this.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 02 2010,09:54) Hi KJ,
You are so confused and still have to work from theory.
God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.There is no other name UNDER Heaven by which YOU can be saved.
Yes Nick,Paul said that Jesus Christ is the indispensable agent in reconciliation.
KJ
Ask yourself this question Roo.
When Jesus died to save mankind, who's will was he doing?
His own, or the will of God?If it was the will of God, then is it not God who is saving us? And is it not Jesus who he sent to save us?
When it says that there is no other saviour it means that there is no one else outside of the will of God that can save us. There is no other God who is trying to save us. It is YHWH and he sent his son as the saviour.
Trying to make Jesus God because he is a saviour is deceptive. You might as well make Moses God too.
t8 said:
Quote You can't make Jesus YHWH by cleverly using nouns that are applied to others. Saviour is also used of others.
I am still waiting for you to show me. You have said that Moses was a “savior.” Yet Moses included himself among the delivered saying that it was the Messenger of YHWH who delivered them out of Egypt (Numbers 20:16). You guys have frequently invoked Moses as a “savior.” Explain why Moses included Himself among the delivered? Jude 5 says that it was Jesus who saved them out of Egypt (oldest manuscripts).Is Jesus among us the delivered? If not, then He is truly and properly the Savior. Think man think!
You can't make others a “savior” by cleverly using nouns that are applied to Jesus alone.
btw, YHWH Himself calls His Messenger “the LORD your God” (Exodus 23:20-25).
Roo
t8,
Can Jehovah have an offspring begotten by Him before time and give Him His name, Jehovah. That doesn't make the offspring Jehovah the same Jehovah that gave Him life. I think this is possible and Gen 18 speaks of a Jehovah that is seen walking and talking with Abraham. This same offspring Jehovah becomes Jehovah Saves as the name Jesus represents and will be called Jehovah Our Righteousness. The Father gives His name to His Son…a tradition that the Jews followed as you can see when Zacharias named his son 'John' and freaked everyone out because he was not given his father's name or the name of a relative.Luke 1:58-63
58 Her neighbors and her relatives heard that the Lord had displayed His great mercy toward her; and they were rejoicing with her.
59 And it happened that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they were going to call him Zacharias, after his father.
60 But his mother answered and said, “No indeed; but he shall be called John.”
61 And they said to her, “There is no one among your relatives who is called by that name.”
62 And they made signs to his father, as to what he wanted him called.
63 And he asked for a tablet and wrote as follows, “His name is John.” And they were all astonished.
NASUt8 said:
Quote Trying to make Jesus God because he is a saviour is deceptive. You might as well make Moses God too. Duplicate:
I am still waiting for you to show me. You have said that Moses was a “savior.” Yet Moses included himself among the delivered saying that it was the Messenger of YHWH who delivered them out of Egypt (Numbers 20:16). You guys have frequently invoked Moses as a “savior.” Explain why Moses included Himself among the delivered? Jude 5 says that it was Jesus who saved them out of Egypt (oldest manuscripts).
Is Jesus among us the delivered? If not, then He is truly and properly the Savior. Think man think!
You can't make others a “savior” by cleverly using nouns that are applied to Jesus alone.
btw, YHWH Himself calls His Messenger “the LORD your God” (Exodus 23:20-25).
Roo
Hi KJ,
A little adjustment here and there and choosing manuscripts gives you your own dogmas. But we prefer the anointed word.Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 02 2010,10:14) I am still waiting for you to show me. You have said that Moses was a “savior.” Yet Moses included himself among the delivered saying that it was the Messenger of YHWH who delivered them out of Egypt (Numbers 20:16).
Hi Roo,We are told explicitly that King Saul saved Israel from the Philistines. Not to mention Gideon, Caleb, Johsua and many more who saved others. Doesn't saving someone make you a savior? God promised a Messiah THROUGH whom HE would save us. God is the ultimate savior. Did Jesus teach that he came on his own to do his own will and save us? Or did his God SEND him to do his God's will which was to save us?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (Lightenup @ June 02 2010,10:15) Can Jehovah have an offspring begotten by Him before time and give Him His name, Jehovah. That doesn't make the offspring Jehovah the same Jehovah that gave Him life.
Hi Kathi,But they didn't name him Zacharias. Can you find one person in the entire Bible who DOES have the same name as their father?
peace and love,
mikeBump for WJ and Roo.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 31 2010,15:27) The problem that the ATs have is there is no “unambiguous” scripture anywhere in the Bible that proves Jesus had a beginning! In the beginning before time, matter and space, Jesus who is the Word who was God always existed with the Father!
Hi All,Keith, your claim above was the whole reason for me posting the Eusebius letter. According to info Nick posted:
“Eusebius, the greatest Greek teacher of the Church and most learned theologian of his time…This great Greek teacher and learned theologian wrote:
We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father,I don't ask anyone to interpret scripture the way Eusebius did. But from his letter we can see that he took Col 1:15 to literally mean that Christ was the “firstborn of all creation”, not “preeminant over mankind” as Roo asserts. Eusebius thought that Jesus was the “first-born of every creature, before all the ages“. That eliminates the possibility that Eusebius thought it to mean “preeminant over mankind”.
Can we at least agree on how Eusebius understood Col 1:15?
Roo says that in NT times, “prototokos pasa ktisis” ALWAYS meant “preeminant over mankind” because they used the phrase loosely or as an “exaggeration” sometimes, but he has produced no 4th or 5th century evidence of this, only more recent trinitarian scholar's conjecture.
Roo says: It's clear! The word “firstborn” in reference to Christ means that He is the CHIEF Son. It means that He is PREEMINENT. Paul said so!
Mike erroneously concludes that the phrase “fisrtborn of all creation” means that He is the first creature. But the Greek “pasa ktisis” in the context means “all mankind” which I proved to Mike beyond all doubt.
But I have now produced a document from the same 4th century time period as the LXX MSS that Roo says back his theory. This document is from “the most learned theologian of his time” – the 4th century.
This document makes it crystal clear that even if you dispute Eusebius' interpretation of the scriptures, you can NOT deny that he understood “prototokos pasa ktisis” in Col 1:15 to literally mean “first-born of every creature”.
And if a man who actually spoke the language of the oldest LXX MSS we have took it literally, then why wouldn't we?
So WJ, Jack and Paul…you guys are mistaken. There is for sure at least one “unambiguous” scripture that clearly states that Jesus had a beginning.
peace and love,
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
