- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (thethinker @ April 20 2009,09:05) Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 20 2009,08:55) Hi TT,
What is it about yes that confuses you?
My appointed Lord is Jesus.All authority has been given to him.
Lk7
6Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof:7Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed.
8For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
9When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
Nick said:Quote What is it about yes that confuses you?
My appointed Lord is Jesus.Nick,
Revelation 4 says that God is the Lord. Ephesians 4 says that there is only ONE Lord. So how can you say that Jesus is your Lord if there is only one Lord?Are you an incipient trinitarian after all?
thinker
Hi thethinker:Ephesians 4 also states that the is “ONE GOD who is above all…”
We as Christians are subjected to God through our Lord who is the head of the church.
Quote 1Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. When we obey the commandments that came from God through Jesus, we are obeying God.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (Lightenup @ April 20 2009,11:02) Thinker,
There is one LORD,
one Lord,
and many lordsThe distinction is in the context as to whether it is speaking of the Most High, or the Son, or other so-called lords who are not lords at all.
I hope that helps,
Kathi
Kathi,
Christ is either “Lord” or He is not.thinker
942767 said:
Quote Hi thethinker: Ephesians 4 also states that the is “ONE GOD who is above all…”
We as Christians are subjected to God through our Lord who is the head of the church.
Marty,
Trinitarians have no problem with your statement. The problem is that you can't see that you apply the “one” Lord concept the same way that trinitarians apply the “one” God concept. The Father and the Son constitute “one” Lord. So They also constitute “one” God.Non-trinitarianism has been disproven.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ April 20 2009,04:45) Quote (Lightenup @ April 20 2009,11:02) Thinker,
There is one LORD,
one Lord,
and many lordsThe distinction is in the context as to whether it is speaking of the Most High, or the Son, or other so-called lords who are not lords at all.
I hope that helps,
Kathi
Kathi,
Christ is either “Lord” or He is not.thinker
Hi Thinker,
Christ is Lord, I agree. His Father is greater than Him(the Son) and He (the Father) is LORD.
Christ is God, I agree with that also. His Father is greater than Him(the Son) and He (the Father) is GOD. There is a distinction between the two, notice the capital letters and see it in the different contexts throughout the NT.Here is a huge thing that the Father GAVE to the Son. Think about it thinker, how can part of the triune God have immortal life before the other part of the triune God?
The Father gave life to the Son, the Son did not always have immortal life if He was given it.
John 5:26
26 “For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;
NASUWas your triune God always immortal or not?
Think about it,
KathiLU…………Good point. Thinker if GOD gave the son Life then He obviously did not have it in himself until he recieved it. We also know the LORD GOD had no beginning or ending of days, and it is impossible for the LORD GOD to Die. If He were to die all life would cease to exist, because it says HE upholds (ALL) things by the POWER of HIS MIGHT, (SPIRIT).
peace and love to you and yours………………………………gene
Lightenup said:
Quote The Father gave life to the Son, the Son did not always have immortal life if He was given it. Kathi,
The Father could not “give” self existence. Come on! It means that the Father ascribed self-existence to the Son. It means that the Father confesses that the Son is self-existent. In the Psalms men are commanded to give power to God,Quote Give unto the LORD, O you mighty ones, Give unto the LORD glory and power (Psalm 29:1) In what sense do men “give” power to God? They can't give give God any power that He didn't already have.
As the song goes,
OZ NEVER DID GIVE NOTHING TO THE TIN MAN,
THAT HE DIDN'T, DIDN'T ALREADY HAVE.Self-existence cannot be given in the sense you suggest. This would be an oxymoron.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ April 20 2009,12:52) Lightenup said: Quote The Father gave life to the Son, the Son did not always have immortal life if He was given it. Kathi,
The Father could not “give” self existence. Come on! It means that the Father ascribed self-existence to the Son. It means that the Father confesses that the Son is self-existent. In the Psalms men are commanded to give power to God,Quote Give unto the LORD, O you mighty ones, Give unto the LORD glory and power (Psalm 29:1) In what sense do men “give” power to God? They can't give give God any power that He didn't already have.
As the song goes,
OZ NEVER DID GIVE NOTHING TO THE TIN MAN,
THAT HE DIDN'T, DIDN'T ALREADY HAVE.Self-existence cannot be given in the sense you suggest. This would be an oxymoron.
thinker
Thinker,
I never suggested that the Son was given self-existence, in fact I have made that a point of why the Father is greater than the Son. The Father has always possessed immortality which does not mean self-existence btw. The Father has always existed, the Son has not.I think that you have confused the concept of immortality with the concept of eternal past existence.
Not only was the Son GIVEN immortal life from the Father, so shall those who have placed their trust in Him. The Father gave it to the Son, the Son gives that life to those who believe in the Father and the Son. The Son did not always possess immortal life, it was GIVEN to Him.
1 Cor 15:51-56
51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this
mortal must put on immortality. 54 But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory. 55 “O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?”
NASU
Blessings,
KathiLightenup said:
Quote Thinker,
I never suggested that the Son was given self-existence,If self existence was not given (imparted) to the Son, then the Father “gave” (ascribed, or confessed) to the Son what He already had.
OZ NEVER DID GIVE NOTHING TO THE TIN MAN,
THAT HE DIDN'T, DIDN'T ALREADY HAVE.Right?
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ April 20 2009,13:49) Lightenup said: Quote Thinker,
I never suggested that the Son was given self-existence,If self existence was not given (imparted) to the Son, then the Father “gave” (ascribed, or confessed) to the Son what He already had.
OZ NEVER DID GIVE NOTHING TO THE TIN MAN,
THAT HE DIDN'T, DIDN'T ALREADY HAVE.Right?
thinker
Thinker,
A Son cannot have always existed nor be self-existent otherwise he would not be a son. If he were not a son but always existed in the past, then he would have no father. If He always existed, He would not have a father and would not be a son. Therefore you are the one with the oxymoron when you claim a son to be eternally existent in the past and you claim that son to have a father. Do you not see this?You said:
Quote If self existence was not given (imparted) to the Son, then the Father “gave” (ascribed, or confessed) to the Son what He already had. The Son did not have self-existence, only the Father did. The Father did not give self-existence which would be impossible to give, nor did he confess to the Son that He already had self-existence. The verse I quoted you has nothing to do with self-existence, it has to do with eternal/immortal life. Read it again, the context is about eternal life not self-existent life:
John 5:25-29
25 “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 “For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; 27 and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man. 28 “Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, 29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.
NASUBTW, Don't confuse OZ with God for God CAN give things to His Son that He didn't already have, He can also give things to us that we don't already have.
Blessings to you,
KathiYes LU.
We can do all things through Him, Who strengthens us.
We follow the servant Son sharing the grace and power he was given.Lightenup said:
Quote A Son cannot have always existed nor be self-existent otherwise he would not be a son. If he were not a son but always existed in the past, then he would have no father. If He always existed, He would not have a father and would not be a son. Therefore you are the one with the oxymoron when you claim a son to be eternally existent in the past and you claim that son to have a father. Do you not see this? Kathi,
SELF-EXISTENCE CANNOT BE GIVEN! The Father says that His Son is self-existent. This necessarily means that the Son IS. Are you saying that the Father is mistaken? You err in making Jesus a “son” in the manner of men. Jesus is a “son” in the sense that He is the same kind as God. His sonship is analogous only.That the Father ascribes self-existence to His Son proves that Jesus could not have been created. The Father could never say to a creature, “You are self-existent.” You need to start from scratch and re-think it all.
The Father gave self-existence to Jesus in the sense that Oz gave a heart to the tin man. Oz gave (or ascribed) to the tin man that which he truly and properly possessed on his own.
thinker
Hi TT,
Scripture says Jesus had life in himself.
Indeed he did, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of eternal life.
he became for us the source of the life that had been poured into him.Quote (thethinker @ April 20 2009,18:25) Lightenup said: Quote A Son cannot have always existed nor be self-existent otherwise he would not be a son. If he were not a son but always existed in the past, then he would have no father. If He always existed, He would not have a father and would not be a son. Therefore you are the one with the oxymoron when you claim a son to be eternally existent in the past and you claim that son to have a father. Do you not see this? Kathi,
SELF-EXISTENCE CANNOT BE GIVEN! The Father says that His Son is self-existent. This necessarily means that the Son IS. Are you saying that the Father is mistaken? You err in making Jesus a “son” in the manner of men. Jesus is a “son” in the sense that He is the same kind as God. His sonship is analogous only.That the Father ascribes self-existence to His Son proves that Jesus could not have been created. The Father could never say to a creature, “You are self-existent.” You need to start from scratch and re-think it all.
The Father gave self-existence to Jesus in the sense that Oz gave a heart to the tin man. Oz gave (or ascribed) to the tin man that which he truly and properly possessed on his own.
thinker
Thinker,
Where does it say that the Father says His Son is self-existent?
KathiLightenup asked:
Quote Thinker,
Where does it say that the Father says His Son is self-existent?Hi Kathi,
The Father ascribes self-existence to the Son,Quote For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has given the Son to have life in Himself (John 5:26) Self-existence cannot be given in the sense that it is imparted. If it was imparted it could not be self-existence. The Father gave self-existence to the Son in the sense that He ascribes it to the Son. We are commanded to give the Lord glory and power. We cannot impart power to an all powerful God. We ascribe power to God. So the Father ascribes self-existence to the Son.
OZ NEVER DID GIVE NOTHING TO THE TIN MAN,
THAT HE DIDN'T, DIDN'T ALREADY HAVE.thinker
This may shed some light on that text.
John 5:26
As the Father hath life – God is the source of all life. He is thence called the living God, in opposition to idols which have no life. Acts 14:15; “we preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities (idols) ' unto the living God,' ” Joshua 3:10; I Samuel 17:26; Jeremiah 10:10. See also Isaiah 40:18-31.
In himself – This means that life in God, or existence, is not derived from any other being. Our life is derived from God. Genesis 2:7; God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul” – that is, a living being. All other creatures derive their life from him. Psalms 104:30, Psalms 104:29; “thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created; thou takest away their breath, they die and return to their dust.” But God is underived. He always existed as he is. Psalms 90:2; “from everlasting to everlasting thou art God.” He is unchangeably the same, James 1:17. It cannot be said that he is “self-existent,” because that is an absurdity; no being can originate or create himself; but he is not dependent on any other for “life.” Of course, no being can take away his existence; and of course, also, no being can take away his happiness. He has “in himself” infinite sources of happiness, and no other being, no change in his universe can destroy that happiness.
So – In a manner like his. It corresponds to the first “as,” implying that one is the same as the other; life in the one is the “same,” and possessed in the same manner, as in the other.
Hath he given – This shows that the power or authority here spoken of was “given” or committed to the Lord Jesus. This evidently does not refer to the manner in which the second person of the Trinity exists, for the power and authority of which Christ here speaks is that which he exercises as “Mediator.” It is the power of raising the dead and judging the world. In regard to his divine nature, it is not affirmed here that it is in any manner derived; nor does the fact that God is said to have “given” him this power Proverbs that he was inferior in his nature or that his existence was derived. For:
1. It has reference merely “to office.” As Mediator, he may be said to have been appointed by the Father.
2. Appointment to office does not Proverbs that the one who is appointed is inferior in nature to him who appoints him. A son may be appointed to a particular work by a parent, and yet, in regard to talents and every other qualification, may be equal or superior to the father. He sustains the relation of a son, and in this relation there is an official inferiority. General Washington was not inferior in nature and talents to the men who commissioned him. He simply derived authority from them to do what he was otherwise fully “able” to do. So the Son, “as Mediator,” is subject to the Father; yet this proves nothing about his nature.
To have life – That is, the right or authority of imparting life to others, whether dead in their graves or in their sins.
In himself – There is much that is remarkable in this expression. It is in Him as it is in God. He has the control of it, and can exercise it as he will. The prophets and apostles are never represented as having such power in themselves. They were dependent; they performed miracles in the name of God and of Jesus Christ Acts 3:6; Acts 4:30; Acts 16:18; but Jesus did it by his own name, authority, and power. He had but to speak, and it was done, Mark 5:41; Luke 7:14; John 11:43. This wonderful commission he bore from God to raise up the dead as he pleased; to convert sinners when and where he chose; and finally to raise up all the dead, and pronounce on them an eternal doom according to the deeds done in the body. None could do this but he who had the power of creation – equal in omnipotence to the Father, and the power of searching all hearts – equal in omniscience to God.
Barnes Notes
Source: http://bibletools.org/index.c….sQuote (thethinker @ April 20 2009,19:28) Lightenup asked: Quote Thinker,
Where does it say that the Father says His Son is self-existent?Hi Kathi,
The Father ascribes self-existence to the Son,Quote For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has given the Son to have life in Himself (John 5:26) Self-existence cannot be given in the sense that it is imparted. If it was imparted it could not be self-existence. The Father gave self-existence to the Son in the sense that He ascribes it to the Son. We are commanded to give the Lord glory and power. We cannot impart power to an all powerful God. We ascribe power to God. So the Father ascribes self-existence to the Son.
OZ NEVER DID GIVE NOTHING TO THE TIN MAN,
THAT HE DIDN'T, DIDN'T ALREADY HAVE.thinker
Hi Thinker,
You are forcing the text if you think that verse speaks of an always existent life IMO. We are seeing through different perspectives.
I believe in a literal Son of God and you don't. When I started seeing a literal Son of God who existed from before creation, I started to understand the message of the New Testament. It changed my life 16 years ago.The Son of God is not a true Son of God according to you, He is more like the Father's partner. It is very clear in the NT that knowing that the Christ is the Son of God is vital.
Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ April 21 2009,11:14) Quote (thethinker @ April 20 2009,18:25) Lightenup said: Quote A Son cannot have always existed nor be self-existent otherwise he would not be a son. If he were not a son but always existed in the past, then he would have no father. If He always existed, He would not have a father and would not be a son. Therefore you are the one with the oxymoron when you claim a son to be eternally existent in the past and you claim that son to have a father. Do you not see this? Kathi,
SELF-EXISTENCE CANNOT BE GIVEN! The Father says that His Son is self-existent. This necessarily means that the Son IS. Are you saying that the Father is mistaken? You err in making Jesus a “son” in the manner of men. Jesus is a “son” in the sense that He is the same kind as God. His sonship is analogous only.That the Father ascribes self-existence to His Son proves that Jesus could not have been created. The Father could never say to a creature, “You are self-existent.” You need to start from scratch and re-think it all.
The Father gave self-existence to Jesus in the sense that Oz gave a heart to the tin man. Oz gave (or ascribed) to the tin man that which he truly and properly possessed on his own.
thinker
Thinker,
Where does it say that the Father says His Son is self-existent?
Kathi
Hi thethinker:I would like to know this also. Thanks.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (Is 1:18 @ April 21 2009,11:38) This may shed some light on that text. John 5:26
As the Father hath life – God is the source of all life. He is thence called the living God, in opposition to idols which have no life. Acts 14:15; “we preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities (idols) ' unto the living God,' ” Joshua 3:10; I Samuel 17:26; Jeremiah 10:10. See also Isaiah 40:18-31.
In himself – This means that life in God, or existence, is not derived from any other being. Our life is derived from God. Genesis 2:7; God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul” – that is, a living being. All other creatures derive their life from him. Psalms 104:30, Psalms 104:29; “thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created; thou takest away their breath, they die and return to their dust.” But God is underived. He always existed as he is. Psalms 90:2; “from everlasting to everlasting thou art God.” He is unchangeably the same, James 1:17. It cannot be said that he is “self-existent,” because that is an absurdity; no being can originate or create himself; but he is not dependent on any other for “life.” Of course, no being can take away his existence; and of course, also, no being can take away his happiness. He has “in himself” infinite sources of happiness, and no other being, no change in his universe can destroy that happiness.
So – In a manner like his. It corresponds to the first “as,” implying that one is the same as the other; life in the one is the “same,” and possessed in the same manner, as in the other.
Hath he given – This shows that the power or authority here spoken of was “given” or committed to the Lord Jesus. This evidently does not refer to the manner in which the second person of the Trinity exists, for the power and authority of which Christ here speaks is that which he exercises as “Mediator.” It is the power of raising the dead and judging the world. In regard to his divine nature, it is not affirmed here that it is in any manner derived; nor does the fact that God is said to have “given” him this power Proverbs that he was inferior in his nature or that his existence was derived. For:
1. It has reference merely “to office.” As Mediator, he may be said to have been appointed by the Father.
2. Appointment to office does not Proverbs that the one who is appointed is inferior in nature to him who appoints him. A son may be appointed to a particular work by a parent, and yet, in regard to talents and every other qualification, may be equal or superior to the father. He sustains the relation of a son, and in this relation there is an official inferiority. General Washington was not inferior in nature and talents to the men who commissioned him. He simply derived authority from them to do what he was otherwise fully “able” to do. So the Son, “as Mediator,” is subject to the Father; yet this proves nothing about his nature.
To have life – That is, the right or authority of imparting life to others, whether dead in their graves or in their sins.
In himself – There is much that is remarkable in this expression. It is in Him as it is in God. He has the control of it, and can exercise it as he will. The prophets and apostles are never represented as having such power in themselves. They were dependent; they performed miracles in the name of God and of Jesus Christ Acts 3:6; Acts 4:30; Acts 16:18; but Jesus did it by his own name, authority, and power. He had but to speak, and it was done, Mark 5:41; Luke 7:14; John 11:43. This wonderful commission he bore from God to raise up the dead as he pleased; to convert sinners when and where he chose; and finally to raise up all the dead, and pronounce on them an eternal doom according to the deeds done in the body. None could do this but he who had the power of creation – equal in omnipotence to the Father, and the power of searching all hearts – equal in omniscience to God.
Barnes Notes
Source: http://bibletools.org/index.c….s
Hi Isa 1:18I agree. The context clearly shows Jesus speaking of his natural life in the flesh for the context speaks of the resurrection and Jesus having the power to raise the dead.
There is no mention of immortal life or Eteranl life that the Father has given Jesus for he was and is the ressurection and the Eternal life that was with the Father 1 John 1:1-3
Jesus came in the flesh according to Phil 2 and was given the power of his own natual life.
“No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father“. John 10:18
They did not understand this concept that Jesus had the power to raise up his own Body, temple from the dead.
The Father gave him life in himself and he had power to lay it down and he had power to take it again, this commandment he recieved from the Father post incarnation and has nothing to do with his origins.
The context is speaking of the resurrection of the bodies or “temples” in which man lives in, and not Eternal life for some had Eternal life before they left their fleshly tents.
WJ
That's right WJ. And if John's intention was to convey that Yeshua was somehow given life by the Father than this is in direct contradiction to what he wrote in the first four verses of the prologue of his gospel (Ch 1, vss 1-4). James White's exposition of this passage is very good, and brings out this point much clearer than I could, here's the link:
Go to http://www.biblecentre.net/
Click “Theology” (on the left of the page)
Scroll down to and click “The Forgotten Trinity”
Click and read the “A Masterpiece: The Prologue of John” sectionBlessings
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
