- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Lightenup said:
Quote GOD (the Father) is LIGHT
God (the Son) is the Light from LIGHTKathi,
It is ironic that you should say this because the Trinitarian Christmas hymn O Come all ye Faithful says the exact same thing,God of God, Light of light,
Lo, He abhors not the virgin's womb.
Very God begotten not created
O Come let us adore HimTrinitarians believe what you have said above and they call it “eternal generation.” I will go on record in saying that I do not think that Christ was eternally generated. I believe that the expression “begotten” in reference to Jesus is a title.
Nevertheless, Trinitarians would agree with your statement. So maybe you are an incipient Trinitarian like Nick. You referred to Jesus as “God (the Son)….” This is Trinitarian language. Watch out you don't say “God (the Son)” in your church. The Jehovah's Witnesses will think you're an apostate.
This discussion is now beginning to get beyond your volley game with Is.1:18 over the verb “was” and is delving into the context.Those who examine John 1 in its context will eventually speak like a Trinitarian though they would swear otherwise. I think this is so cool!
love you too,
thinkerHi TT,
Immanuel was God with us.
God has visited His people in the vessel of the suffering servant.
God is still here as Spirit within His people in them at work enabling us to will and to do.Quote (thethinker @ April 23 2009,15:12) Lightenup said: Quote GOD (the Father) is LIGHT
God (the Son) is the Light from LIGHTKathi,
It is ironic that you should say this because the Trinitarian Christmas hymn O Come all ye Faithful says the exact same thing,God of God, Light of light,
Lo, He abhors not the virgin's womb.
Very God begotten not created
O Come let us adore HimTrinitarians believe what you have said above and they call it “eternal generation.” I will go on record in saying that I do not think that Christ was eternally generated. I believe that the expression “begotten” in reference to Jesus is a title.
Nevertheless, Trinitarians would agree with your statement. So maybe you are an incipient Trinitarian like Nick. You referred to Jesus as “God (the Son)….” This is Trinitarian language. Watch out you don't say “God (the Son)” in your church. The Jehovah's Witnesses will think you're an apostate.
This discussion is now beginning to get beyond your volley game with Is.1:18 over the verb “was” and is delving into the context.Those who examine John 1 in its context will eventually speak like a Trinitarian though they would swear otherwise. I think this is so cool!
love you too,
thinker
Thinker,
I do not know where you got the idea that I am a Jehovah Witness or go to a JW church. I have never been inside one. I attend a large Baptist church of which Kay Arthur and Dr. Spiros Zodhiates are members. Kay Arthur is regularly on television and traveling around the world with Precepts Ministry and unfortunately Spiros health is not doing well but he is considered a Greek scholar by some and has even edited the Greek word study Bible.I'm glad that you are having fun, I hope we can learn something in the process.
I do not agree with the co-eternality or co-equality of the trinity doctrine but I like your song
(that little smilie face is singing the song I think).Later,
KathiLightenup said:
Quote I do not know where you got the idea that I am a Jehovah Witness or go to a JW church. I have never been inside one. I attend a large Baptist church of which Kay Arthur and Dr. Spiros Zodhiates are members. Kay Arthur is regularly on television and traveling around the world with Precepts Ministry and unfortunately Spiros health is not doing well but he is considered a Greek scholar by some and has even edited the Greek word study Bible. I'm glad that you are having fun, I hope we can learn something in the process.
Kathi,
I went back to the post and you did NOT say that you were Jehovah's Witness. It was my mistake.Lightenup said:
Quote I do not agree with the co-eternality or co-equality of the trinity doctrine…. But you said “God the Son” which is necessarily Trinitarian. So please explain how you could deny co-eternality and co-equality. You said “God the Son.” YOU SAID “GOD THE SON.” You are the FIRST non-trinitarian I have ever seen to say “God the Son.”
thinker
Quote (Lightenup @ April 24 2009,01:19) Is,
I don't agree that the term “was” is ever used in a continual sense like normal imperfect tense words because of what studylight said. I would like to study their source but they do not state one as far as I can see.
Okay, so you have studylight and I have Robertson et al, we're obviously not going to come to a concensus on lexical grounds by appealing to our favourite scholars. As I said the contrast between the imperfect “hn” in vs 1 and the aorist “egeneto” in vs 14 (which happened at a fixed point in time) adds weight to the continuous state of existence position in the minds of the grammarians I cited in any case. I wonder if this is not a moot argument anyway Kathi. Whether it's definition is 'continuous', or simply 'past tense', the point is the Logos was there in “the beginning”. He was also there when the act of Creation occurred -this being reinforced in vs 3 where we read that “all things came into being” through Him – thereby placing him before the advent of the time itself, since time is a physical property (i.e. a “thing”). In the beginning He existed outside of time and hence it cannot be argued on logical grounds that there was a succession of moments before He came into existence. Or, to put it another way, because He preceeded the advent of time (and space and matter) there was not a 'time' when the Logos did not exist. This is eternality or timelessness by definition is it not?Quote Never-the-less, if it can be used in a continuous sense, the term “continuous sense” does not mean an “eternally continuous sense” does it?
I would think it would, if we're adhereing to dictionary definitions anyway (without cessation). And this is especially true as two of the elements of the immediate context that the word was placed into are: “in the beginning” (vs 1) of “all things” (vs 3).Blessings
Quote (thethinker @ April 23 2009,19:14) Lightenup said: Quote I do not know where you got the idea that I am a Jehovah Witness or go to a JW church. I have never been inside one. I attend a large Baptist church of which Kay Arthur and Dr. Spiros Zodhiates are members. Kay Arthur is regularly on television and traveling around the world with Precepts Ministry and unfortunately Spiros health is not doing well but he is considered a Greek scholar by some and has even edited the Greek word study Bible. I'm glad that you are having fun, I hope we can learn something in the process.
Kathi,
I went back to the post and you did NOT say that you were Jehovah's Witness. It was my mistake.Lightenup said:
Quote I do not agree with the co-eternality or co-equality of the trinity doctrine…. But you said “God the Son” which is necessarily Trinitarian. So please explain how you could deny co-eternality and co-equality. You said “God the Son.” YOU SAID “GOD THE SON.” You are the FIRST non-trinitarian I have ever seen to say “God the Son.”
thinker
Thinker and all,
I believe that the Son of God is the only begotten Son of God in the fullest way-He actually was born from GOD and the very first to receive life out of all that has received life of any kind natural or eternal. Every thing else came into being through Him that has been made IN heaven an ON earth.The Son of God was the first to be a True Son of all creation, the first result of any reproduction. The Firstborn of all creation.
The Bible says that God has revealed His nature by what has been made:
Rom 1:20-21
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
NASUThrough nature we understand what being a son means but many exchange the natural for the unnatural understanding. Many claim that the Son of God is an exception to the rule. They say that firstborn doesn't mean firstborn as nature reveals it but that it means the unnatural firstborn. They say that the Christ is a son but not as nature reveals to us what a son is. They say that Christ, as a son is only a title or a position or eternally begotten.
I say that He is a son in the fullest sense as full as an actual Son of GOD could be. I say that He is the rule as to what nature reveals a son to be and not the exception. Most on here say He is the exception and not the rule. Trinitarians say that when these terms “Son” and “Firstborn” are applied to the second person in the Trinity, they do not mean what nature would reveal them to mean but they mean something else. They say that the Son eternally existed…well someone that is called a son of someone cannot have existed as long as who they were from. Therefore, if the Son of GOD is the true Son of GOD then there can be no co-eternality. Furthermore, if the Father existed always and His Son came from Him as His offspring there can be no co-equality. The one that always existed has a unique magnificence that cannot be matched no matter how mighty and great the Son is.
The Son is “God” because He was born of a GOD. You are man because you were born of a man. A cat is a cat because it was born of a cat. Like begets like…nature reveals this truth to us.
I believe that the Son is not happy (to say the least) at all with all of those that have elevated Him to the same position as His Father and applied to Him the most incredible uniqueness that belongs to the Father alone, that of eternal existence and have also made Him equal to the same.
I certainly know that IF and I say that for your sakes, the trinity son has been elevated to the same height as the Father in error you ought to look at what this passage says about a “son” that makes himself out to be GOD:
2 Thess 2:1-12
Man of Lawlessness
2 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. 5 Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? 6 And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. 8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; 9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, 10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.
NASUSo, there is a difference between me saying that the Son is God and you saying that the Son is GOD.
My belief is this:
There is One GOD (the Father who always existed)
There is One God (the Son of God is God by nature…GOD begat God)
There are many gods…who by nature are no gods at all.I am trying to use capitalizations now in my posts to designate a difference.
I think this is a serious topic and we need to know what it means that He is a Son. An incorrect definition is detrimental to us IMO.
I hope this explains my position to you.
Love,
KathiQuote (Is 1:18 @ April 24 2009,01:17) Quote (Lightenup @ April 24 2009,01:19) Is,
I don't agree that the term “was” is ever used in a continual sense like normal imperfect tense words because of what studylight said. I would like to study their source but they do not state one as far as I can see.
Okay, so you have studylight and I have Robertson et al, we're obviously not going to come to a concensus on lexical grounds by appealing to our favourite scholars. As I said the contrast between the imperfect “hn” in vs 1 and the aorist “egeneto” in vs 14 (which happened at a fixed point in time) adds weight to the continuous state of existence position in the minds of the grammarians I cited in any case. I wonder if this is not a moot argument anyway Kathi. Whether it's definition is 'continuous', or simply 'past tense', the point is the Logos was there in “the beginning”. He was also there when the act of Creation occurred -this being reinforced in vs 3 where we read that “all things came into being” through Him – thereby placing him before the advent of the time itself, since time is a physical property (i.e. a “thing”). In the beginning He existed outside of time and hence it cannot be argued on logical grounds that there was a succession of moments before He came into existence. Or, to put it another way, because He preceeded the advent of time (and space and matter) there was not a 'time' when the Logos did not exist. This is eternality or timelessness by definition is it not?Quote Never-the-less, if it can be used in a continuous sense, the term “continuous sense” does not mean an “eternally continuous sense” does it?
I would think it would, if we're adhereing to dictionary definitions anyway (without cessation). And this is especially true as two of the elements of the immediate context that the word was placed into are: “in the beginning” (vs 1) of “all things” (vs 3).Blessings
Hi Is,
I know what you mean by us probably not getting past this by pitting our scholars words against the other. I would like to point out one thing that I noticed when I was forming my post to Keith yesterday and that is about what Strong's concordance says about the word “in” from the phrase “In the beginning.”NT:1722
e)n
en (en); a primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest (intermediate between NT:1519 and NT:1537); “in,” at, (up-) on, by, etc.:Did you note in the above definition that the preposition used “en” is denoting a “fixed” position in place, “time” or state and the word “at” can also be used for this Greek word? So therefore, a fixed time would not lend itself to an eternally continuous time as James White suggests. That is not merely shaky ground but the suggestion that “In the beginning was” means “always was” has no foundation except in the bias of someone with a predetermined belief in an always existent son. I sure would like to move on from debating this idea…it is unfounded and taking way too much of our time IMO
Quote I wonder if this is not a moot argument anyway Kathi. Whether it's definition is 'continuous', or simply 'past tense', the point is the Logos was there in “the beginning”. He was also there when the act of Creation occurred -this being reinforced in vs 3 where we read that “all things came into being” through Him – thereby placing him before the advent of the time itself, since time is a physical property (i.e. a “thing”). In the beginning He existed outside of time and hence it cannot be argued on logical grounds that there was a succession of moments before He came into existence. Or, to put it another way, because He preceeded the advent of time (and space and matter) there was not a 'time' when the Logos did not exist. This is eternality or timelessness by definition is it not? Is, when you think about creation I was wondering if you would consider my theory that the Son began and was introduced when GOD said “Let there be Light…and there was Light.” This Light was there before time was declared to be even one day, yet it had a beginning…it was after those words were spoken that evening and morning had a beginning.
The Light of day one was also there before the seas were set apart from the dry land hence it was there before the foundations of the earth were established. See here:
Prov 8:22-30
22 “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old.
23 “From everlasting I was established,
From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth.
24 “When there were no depths I was brought forth,
When there were no springs abounding with water.
25 “Before the mountains were settled,
Before the hills I was brought forth;
26 While He had not yet made the earth and the fields,
Nor the first dust of the world.
27 “When He established the heavens, I was there,
When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,
28 When He made firm the skies above,
When the springs of the deep became fixed,
29 When He set for the sea its boundary
So that the water would not transgress His command,
When He marked out the foundations of the earth;
30 Then I was beside Him, as a master workman;
And I was daily His delight,
Rejoicing always before Him,
NASUThe Light of day one was also there before anything was IN heaven or ON earth (remember that the earth was formless and VOID before God said “Let there be Light”).
Col 1:16-20
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19 For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.
NASUHoping you will consider the “all things” that He was used to make are the things “in” heaven and the things “on” earth.
Have a good day Is,
KathiLightenup said:
Quote Thinker and all,
I believe that the Son of God is the only begotten Son of God in the fullest way-He actually was born from GOD and the very first to receive life out of all that has received life of any kind natural or eternal. Every thing else came into being through Him that has been made IN heaven an ON earth.My Dear Kathi,
Jesus was NOT born from God. The idea that gods reproduced goes back to Greek mythology. Ishmael was the “firstborn” or the “only begotten.” Then Sarah spoke a word which changed it all. She cast Ishmael out of the covenant. God replied and named Isaac as the “only begotten.” Isaac INHERITED the name. Isaac existed BEFORE the name was attributed to him. So Isaac's name as the “only begotten son” of Abraham had absolutely no reference at all to his beginning. Isaac was a type of Christ. Ergo….You asked me if I want to pull out your hair. I do NOT want to pull out your hair. I am pulling out my own hair and beating my head against the wall.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ April 24 2009,11:42) Lightenup said: Quote Thinker and all,
I believe that the Son of God is the only begotten Son of God in the fullest way-He actually was born from GOD and the very first to receive life out of all that has received life of any kind natural or eternal. Every thing else came into being through Him that has been made IN heaven an ON earth.My Dear Kathi,
Jesus was NOT born from God. The idea that gods reproduced goes back to Greek mythology. Ishmael was the “firstborn” or the “only begotten.” Then Sarah spoke a word which changed it all. She cast Ishmael out of the covenant. God replied and named Isaac as the “only begotten.” Isaac INHERITED the name. Isaac existed BEFORE the name was attributed to him. So Isaac's name as the “only begotten son” of Abraham had absolutely no reference at all to his beginning. Isaac was a type of Christ. Ergo….You asked me if I want to pull out your hair. I do NOT want to pull out your hair.
thinker
Thinker,
You say that Isaac was a type of Christ. Since Isaac had a half brother that was born before him yet Isaac was chosen as the firstborn did Christ have a half brother that existed before him yet Christ was chosen as the firstborn? See how that doesn't play out too well. Isaac was a type of Christ in that He was a promised son to whom many will become sons through, he was also an example of a son that was to be sacrificed by the father. Isaac was not a type of Christ because he was chosen over another brother. The example of Isaac is more limited than what you imply. BTW, Isaac did not inherit the name “son” in some other than a natural way and I do not see in the scriptures that Isaac “inherited” the position of firstborn in a way that it was “given” to him. Isaac always was the firstborn “promised” son and the only begotten “promised” son to Abraham. Abraham did not have any other “promised” sons for Isaac to take the title from.You also say that Jesus was NOT born from God. I agree, “Jesus” was born from Mary. The Son of GOD wasn't “Jesus” until his conception within Mary and that is when He became the Son of Man also. Before that He was the Holy One of GOD born from GOD the Father, Himself.
Quote Jesus was NOT born from God. The idea that gods reproduced goes back to Greek mythology .
So that is your defense??? Satan has been busy putting stumbling blocks up throughtout history to deter man from simple truth so that man believes the unnatural over the natural. IMO
Quote I am pulling out my own hair and beating my head against the wall. Be careful with self-torture there, I wouldn't want the chimp to go bald on your avatar. He needs all the hair he can get
Blessings,
KathiHi Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ April 24 2009,02:56)
He was used to make the one we stand on, He made it go from formless and void to formed and inhabited. In that sense I believe He made this world. I don't believe that He was used to make the formless world but He began after the formless world existed.
Kathi, you say that James White is putting a whole lot of theology on very shaky ground. I think that is exactly what you are doing.For instance when you read John 1:1c you read it as the Word was a begotten god.
The context of John gives us no reason that John believed what you believe when he could have chose to use another word rather than “Theos”. Not to mention the whole prologue of Johns Gospel is full of statements and events that clearly show his deity, and then climax’s with Thomas saying to Jesus “My Lord and My God (Theos) without any explanation or rebuke by Jesus or John and in fact Jesus receiving his word and in fact blessed him for saying them.
Therefore your theology places more inference on John 1:1c than James White or the Trinitarian.
Also, your interpretation of John 1:3 is putting a lot of theology on the verse in my opinion because John statement is very clear “apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being” and contextually with his statement “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God” lines up beautifully with Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning”.
Therefore your theology places more inference on John 1:3 than James White or the Trinitarian.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 24 2009,02:56)
No, I am not changing my theology as I go, you just aren't fully comprehending it and I will try to clarify for you. I believe that the Son WAS used to make the worlds (which could mean this world AND the new world or this world and the planets); He was used to make the one we stand on, He made it go from formless and void to formed and inhabited. In that sense I believe He made this world. I don't believe that He was used to make the formless world but He began after the formless world existed.
Again, it seems to me that you are the one placing a lot of theology on a shaky foundation.You say…
Quote (Lightenup @ April 24 2009,02:56) “I don't believe that He was used to make the formless world but He began after the formless world existed.”
Yet the scriptures say… In the beginning God created “the heavens and the earth”.Gen 1:1And
He also says, “In the beginning, O Lord, “you laid the foundations of the earth”, and the “HEAVENS” are the work of your hands. Heb 1:10
Notice that Gen 1:1 says the heavens and earth were created ‘before’ the earth was without form and void in Gen 1:2. Heb 10 says he created the ‘heavens’ and the earth. In no way Gen 1:2 implies the ‘heavens’ are without form and void and that is where Jesus began. Again that is inference and truly is stretching the text.
So it seems to me that again you are doing exactly what you accuse James White of, by placing too much theology on a shaky foundation. It’s obvious you are placing more inference on these scriptures than the Trinitarian.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 24 2009,02:56)
Like I said, I believe that He was used to lay the foundations of the earth. Did you realize that the foundations of the earth were still considered to be in process while the seas were being seperated from the dry land?
I think you need to read Prov 8 again. Did you miss the first few verses that set the mood.22 “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, “BEFORE HIS WORKS OF OLD. 23 “FROM EVERLASTING” I WAS ESTABLISHED, FROM THE BEGINNING
I am not a believer that wisdom here is Jesus personified, for I believe that “In” Jesus is hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col 2:3). But your own proof text disagrees with your premise.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 24 2009,02:56)
Also, realize that the sun and moon and stars are works in the heavens and they were created after day one and not before.
No the ‘Heavens’ were created before day one in Gen 1:1, and the heavens contain the sun and the moon and the stars which were created later. The Universe is greater than the stars for It contains all things which include the expanse of time and space and matter. Scriptures attribute the ‘Universe’ to the works of Jesus hands, and “without him was not anything made that was made”.Quote (Lightenup @ April 24 2009,02:56)
Please note that the Son was involved in creating things that will perish in this passage, time doesn't perish or we wouldn't have a future eternity.
I disagree. Time started in the beginning from the first day until the end when there will be no more time but only eternity. For there will be no Sun nor moon but the Lord will be the light of our eternal home. Time is measured by day and night. We are not going to have stop watches neither will we need them. Eternal life has no need for time. I think Isa 1:18 brought up the point as well as James White, since Jesus was before the begining of time then he would be eternal. In fact he would be the creator of time since all things that came into existence came after the begining.Blessings WJ
Hi Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ April 24 2009,02:56)
The things that will perish are the earth which He made (He was used to form it) and apparently the sun and moon (it says we will have no need for them).
The heavens also will pass away and melt with fervent heat. 2 Peter 3:10-12 The heavens were created in Gen 1:1. Jesus was there.Quote (Lightenup @ April 24 2009,02:56)
The word “zwh” means life, it is used to refer to both this temporary life and eternal life.
Not in the book of John or any of his writings. I think John knew exactly what he meant in John 1:4 for in every other case in his Gospel and 1 John, the Greek word ‘Zoe’ refers to Eternal life.8tn John uses ζωή (zwh) 37 times: 17 times it occurs with αἰώνιος (aiwnios), and in the remaining occurrences outside the prologue it is clear from context that “eternal” life is meant. The two uses in 1:4, if they do not refer to “eternal” life, would be the only exceptions. (Also 1 John uses ζωή 13 times, always of “eternal” life.)
Quote (Lightenup @ April 24 2009,02:56)
We hope to have eternal life and the term eternal life doesn't necessarily mean eternal past and eternal future…so if the Son has life and light in Him, so can we and we weren't eternally existent. The argument that you use that life and light is in Him somehow implies that He always existed is without merit since we have light and life in us.
Eternal life means eternal future. I disagree with you because we know that God has Life and that life is eternal is it not? Of course it is obvious that if we have eternal life it does not mean that we eternally existed because we had a begining, but when we are saved we now have the life of God which is Eternal. So we have light and life in us. My point is that we are not “The light of all men” or the “Eternal life” or the “Resurrection and the life”. Jesus is the life and the source of all that we are. In fact he is the source of all of creation for by him all things consist and are upheld by the word of his power. John calls him “God” in John 1:1 and 1:18 and 1 John 5:20, and we know God is Eternal. Why not believe his words as he says without all the inference.Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, “hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:54
His flesh is the body of God, (Acts 20:28) that was broken for us, and his blood is his Spirit which he has poured out for us. The Bread that we eat which is a type of his body that was broken is the Word of God for Jesus said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Jesus is the Word. The Spirit we drink represents his blood that was poured out for us for the life of the flesh is in the blood.
Therefore Jesus said…
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. John 6:56 and he also said…
This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, “AND NOT DIE”. John 6:50
This goes along with what he had said later when he said…
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall “NEVER DIE”. Believest thou this? John 11:26
The point is when we have received his Word and his Spirit into our lives then we are born again from above and have Eternal life, our hope is the resurrection of our bodies which will also put on immortality. Jesus said if you do not eat his flesh and blood you have no life in you. (John 6:53)
If you do not have “Eternal life” in you then you are not saved.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 24 2009,02:56) I certainly would like to think that I agree with a certain group of believers and that would be the ones that know truth. The arians believe that the Son was created, I don't. The term “create” implies making something of a different kind, not like “reproduction” which implies making something of the same kind.
But I think your statement lacks in facts. You say reproduction implies making something of the same kind, yet you do not believe that Jesus is the same kind but in fact you believe he is less in nature than the Father.True reproduction is genetically the same in nature. Your doctrine has contrived not only a diffence in the Father and Jesus in nature, but you also have reinvented the word reproduction.
Kathi, the Arian controversy was over the Deity of Christ and his Eternal existence.
The most controversial of his teachings dealt with the relationship between God the Father and the person of Jesus, saying that Jesus was not of one substance with the Father and that there had been a time before he existed. This teaching of Arius conflicts with other christological positions held by Church theologians (and subsequently maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches and most Protestant Churches). Source
You only have a variation of Aryanism by claiming Jesus was born and not created, which has no scriptural validity at all because everything that was born was also created.
There is no unambiguous scripture that says Jesus had a beginning or that he was born. Surly something as important as this there would be some proof in 66 books of the Bible. Like I said, the Trinitarians view places less theolgy on this than you, for the scriptures say he is God, and we know God is Eternal. Our view of Jesus is more in line with the nature of God for this reason. So in my opinion you are in the Arian campQuote (Lightenup @ April 24 2009,02:56)
The henotheist believe in more than one GOD, I don't.
As I have said many times here, I believe there is
One GOD, (the Father)
One God, the begotten
and many gods who are not Gods or GODS at alYou say “The henotheist believe in more than one GOD, I don't.”
Then you say…”, I believe there is One GOD, (the Father) One God, the begotten.
No matter how you slice it you believe in 2 Gods, a big GOD and a little God. Trinitarians believe in One Divine Being. This also makes you a Henotheist. You yourself have claimed to agree with most all of what t8 believes. T8 has a Henotheistic view. I don't care about labels either, but for the sake of classifying ones stance or belief I do not mind being called a Trinitarian because my over all Christology though not exactly lines up with the Trinitarian.
The good thing I suppose is we all call ourselves Christians.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 24 2009,02:56)
Keith, I appreciate your posts because I know that you have spent a ton of time on them just as I have here. If we agreed on everything what would we do with all that free time we would gain?
Enjoy this pretty spring day,
Yes but what is more important than teaching God’s word, the truth?Blessings WJ
Lightenup said:
Quote Isaac was chosen as the firstborn…. Kathi,
Yes indeed! Isaac was CHOSEN as the firstborn. The word “chosen” is the key. But Isaac was NOT the firstborn literally. Though Isaac had always had been the firstborn in the counsel of God it was needed in human history that God come to Abraham and declare it. Ishmael remained the firstborn until that time.
And when God declared that Isaac was the firsborn he became that without any reproduction occurring. Isaac was the firstborn BY NAME ALONE and not by any revision of family history or reproduction or anything like that. He was the firstborn by God's choice as you yourself have said! God did not erase the physical history. Physically and literally speaking Ishmael remained the firstborn. But Sarah kicked Ishmael out of the covenant. So covenantally speaking Isaac was now the firstborn or “only begotten.”The name “firstborn” or “only begotten” is the name Jesus possesses in terms of the covenant of redemption. Jesus pre-existed the name just as Isaac pre-existed the name he inherited. Hebrews 1:1-5 explicitly says that Jesus INHERITED the name “only begotten” and “firstborn.” So I exhort you to abandon the pagan notion that God reproduces.
Lightenup said:
Quote Be careful with self-torture there, I wouldn't want the chimp to go bald on your avatar. He needs all the hair he can get LOL
Yesterday my barber said, “Why are you here?” 
p.s. Let's not forget that YOU said that the Word is “God the Son.”
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ April 24 2009,14:46) Lightenup said: Quote Isaac was chosen as the firstborn…. Kathi,
Yes indeed! Isaac was CHOSEN as the firstborn. The word “chosen” is the key. But Isaac was NOT the firstborn literally. Though Isaac had always had been the firstborn in the counsel of God it was needed in human history that God come to Abraham and declare it. Ishmael remained the firstborn until that time.
And when God declared that Isaac was the firsborn he became that without any reproduction occurring. Isaac was the firstborn BY NAME ALONE and not by any revision of family history or reproduction or anything like that. He was the firstborn by God's choice as you yourself have said! God did not erase the physical history. Physically and literally speaking Ishmael remained the firstborn. But Sarah kicked Ishmael out of the covenant. So covenantally speaking Isaac was now the firstborn or “only begotten.”The name “firstborn” or “only begotten” is the name Jesus possesses in terms of the covenant of redemption. Jesus pre-existed the name just as Isaac pre-existed the name he inherited. Hebrews 1:1-5 explicitly says that Jesus INHERITED the name “only begotten” and “firstborn.” So I exhort you to abandon the pagan notion that God reproduces.
Lightenup said:
Quote Be careful with self-torture there, I wouldn't want the chimp to go bald on your avatar. He needs all the hair he can get LOL
Yesterday my barber said, “Why are you here?” p.s. Let's not forget that YOU said that the Word is “God the Son.”
thinker
Wow Thinker,
Did you intentionally misrepresent my words? Talk about cropping part of a sentence and totally giving the wrong impression…geesh!Quote Thinker,
You say that Isaac was a type of Christ. Since Isaac had a half brother that was born before him yet Isaac was chosen as the firstborn did Christ have a half brother that existed before him yet Christ was chosen as the firstborn? See how that doesn't play out too well. Isaac was a type of Christ in that He was a promised son to whom many will become sons through, he was also an example of a son that was to be sacrificed by the father. Isaac was not a type of Christ because he was chosen over another brother. The example of Isaac is more limited than what you imply. BTW, Isaac did not inherit the name “son” in some other than a natural way and I do not see in the scriptures that Isaac “inherited” the position of firstborn in a way that it was “given” to him. Isaac always was the firstborn “promised” son and the only begotten “promised” son to Abraham. Abraham did not have any other “promised” sons for Isaac to take the title from.You also say that Jesus was NOT born from God. I agree, “Jesus” was born from Mary. The Son of GOD wasn't “Jesus” until his conception within Mary and that is when He became the Son of Man also. Before that He was the Holy One of GOD born from GOD the Father, Himself.
You have misrepresented my words.
This is how you chose to represent what I said above:Quote Lightenup said: Quote Isaac was chosen as the firstborn…. I was stating what you believe and telling you that what you believe didn't play out too well.
Read this part:
Isaac did not inherit the name “son” in some other than a natural way and I do not see in the scriptures that Isaac “inherited” the position of firstborn in a way that it was “given” to him. Isaac always was the firstborn “promised” son and the only begotten “promised” son to Abraham. Abraham did not have any other “promised” sons for Isaac to take the title from.Isaac was the only promised firstborn to Abraham. A firstborn is the first to come out of the womb. Isaac was Abraham and Sarah's firstborn in every way.
Be careful to not crop people's words to suit your purpose because it leads to suspicion.
Kathi
Hi WJ,
If Jesus is a deity in your eyes then polytheism is your problem, not that of others.
God is one. God has a son.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 24 2009,14:25) Hi Kathi Quote (Lightenup @ April 24 2009,02:56)
He was used to make the one we stand on, He made it go from formless and void to formed and inhabited. In that sense I believe He made this world. I don't believe that He was used to make the formless world but He began after the formless world existed.
Kathi, you say that James White is putting a whole lot of theology on very shaky ground. I think that is exactly what you are doing.For instance when you read John 1:1c you read it as the Word was a begotten god.
The context of John gives us no reason that John believed what you believe when he could have chose to use another word rather than “Theos”. Not to mention the whole prologue of Johns Gospel is full of statements and events that clearly show his deity, and then climax’s with Thomas saying to Jesus “My Lord and My God (Theos) without any explanation or rebuke by Jesus or John and in fact Jesus receiving his word and in fact blessed him for saying them.
Therefore your theology places more inference on John 1:1c than James White or the Trinitarian.
Also, your interpretation of John 1:3 is putting a lot of theology on the verse in my opinion because John statement is very clear “apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being” and contextually with his statement “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God” lines up beautifully with Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning”.
Therefore your theology places more inference on John 1:3 than James White or the Trinitarian.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 24 2009,02:56)
No, I am not changing my theology as I go, you just aren't fully comprehending it and I will try to clarify for you. I believe that the Son WAS used to make the worlds (which could mean this world AND the new world or this world and the planets); He was used to make the one we stand on, He made it go from formless and void to formed and inhabited. In that sense I believe He made this world. I don't believe that He was used to make the formless world but He began after the formless world existed.
Again, it seems to me that you are the one placing a lot of theology on a shaky foundation.You say…
Quote (Lightenup @ April 24 2009,02:56) “I don't believe that He was used to make the formless world but He began after the formless world existed.”
Yet the scriptures say… In the beginning God created “the heavens and the earth”.Gen 1:1And
He also says, “In the beginning, O Lord, “you laid the foundations of the earth”, and the “HEAVENS” are the work of your hands. Heb 1:10
Notice that Gen 1:1 says the heavens and earth were created ‘before’ the earth was without form and void in Gen 1:2. Heb 10 says he created the ‘heavens’ and the earth. In no way Gen 1:2 implies the ‘heavens’ are without form and void and that is where Jesus began. Again that is inference and truly is stretching the text.
So it seems to me that again you are doing exactly what you accuse James White of, by placing too much theology on a shaky foundation. It’s obvious you are placing more inference on these scriptures than the Trinitarian.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 24 2009,02:56)
Like I said, I believe that He was used to lay the foundations of the earth. Did you realize that the foundations of the earth were still considered to be in process while the seas were being seperated from the dry land?
I think you need to read Prov 8 again. Did you miss the first few verses that set the mood.22 “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, “BEFORE HIS WORKS OF OLD. 23 “FROM EVERLASTING” I WAS ESTABLISHED, FROM THE BEGINNING
I am not a believer that wisdom here is Jesus personified, for I believe that “In” Jesus is hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col 2:3). But your own proof text disagrees with your premise.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 24 2009,02:56)
Also, realize that the sun and moon and stars are works in the heavens and they were created after day one and not before.
No the ‘Heavens’ were created before day one in Gen 1:1, and the heavens contain the sun and the moon and the stars which were created later. The Universe is greater than the stars for It contains all things which include the expanse of time and space and matter. Scriptures attribute the ‘Universe’ to the works of Jesus hands, and “without him was not anything made that was made”.Quote (Lightenup @ April 24 2009,02:56)
Please note that the Son was involved in creating things that will perish in this passage, time doesn't perish or we wouldn't have a future eternity.
I disagree. Time started in the beginning from the first day until the end when there will be no more time but only eternity. For there will be no Sun nor moon but the Lord will be the light of our eternal home. Time is measured by day and night. We are not going to have stop watches neither will we need them. Eternal life has no need for time. I think Isa 1:18 brought up the point as well as James White, since Jesus was before the begining of time then he would be eternal. In fact he would be the creator of time since all things that came into existence came after the begining.Blessings WJ
Hi Keith,
I had to pack a lunch to get through those last two posts. Thanks for all that time. I can see that we are not getting anywhere. I have presented my view to you and you have presented yours. I haven't gobs of time to spend on this but I did want to point out a few things.you wrote:
Quote Kathi, you say that James White is putting a whole lot of theology on very shaky ground. I think that is exactly what you are doing. For instance when you read John 1:1c you read it as the Word was a begotten god.
The context of John gives us no reason that John believed what you believe when he could have chose to use another word rather than “
Theos”. Not to mention the whole prologue of Johns Gospel is full of statements and events that clearly show his deity, and then climax’s with Thomas saying to Jesus “My Lord and My God (Theos) without any explanation or rebuke by Jesus or John and in fact Jesus receiving his word and in fact blessed him for saying them.Therefore your theology places more inference on John 1:1c than James White or the Trinitarian.
Also, your interpretation of John 1:3 is putting a lot of theology on the verse in my opinion because John statement is very clear “apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being” and contextually with his statement “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God” lines up beautifully with Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning”.
Therefore your theology places more inference on John 1:3 than James White or the Trinitarian.
I wasn't as much explaining my theology from the first few verses of John as I was refuting the notion of your theology of “eternal existence” of the “Word.” My emphasis was to refute James White's exclamatory remarks, not to lay a foundation for my theology.
If you see that the Son existed before Gen 1:1 happened and in fact always existed then you don't believe in a “son” IMO. What you believe contradicts the definition of “son.”
I noticed whether you did this intentionally or not, probably not because I choose to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you quoted Prov. 8 just short of what Solomon wrote regarding the beginning that he was referring to. Notice the difference between putting in the next verse and leaving it out:
Quote I think you need to read Prov 8 again. Did you miss the first few verses that set the mood. 22 “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, “BEFORE HIS WORKS OF OLD. 23 “FROM EVERLASTING” I WAS ESTABLISHED, FROM THE BEGINNING
Compare what a difference it makes by adding the next few words:
22 “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old.
23 “From everlasting I was established,
From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth.BTW, Light was there from the earliest times of the earth. It was there before the heavens were established, also light was there before there were depths (there was the deep but not depths-plural), light was there before there were mountains, or seas or dust from dry land and also the foundations of the earth were established. I realize that you will not see the inference of the Son in this passage, I do, but regardless, you can compare this account to the Gen 1 account of creation and verify that Light of day one was in place before the heavens were established and before the foundations of the earth were completed.
Prov 8:22-30
22 “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old.
23 “From everlasting I was established,
From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth.
24 “When there were no depths I was brought forth,
When there were no springs abounding with water.
25 “Before the mountains were settled,
Before the hills I was brought forth;
26 While He had not yet made the earth and the fields,
Nor the first dust of the world.
27 “When He established the heavens, I was there,
When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,
28 When He made firm the skies above,
When the springs of the deep became fixed,
29 When He set for the sea its boundary
So that the water would not transgress His command,
When He marked out the foundations of the earth;
30 Then I was beside Him, as a master workman;
And I was daily His delight,
Rejoicing always before Him,
NASUSo you can see that the heavens and the earth were yet to be established till after day one when Light was called out. I believe that Light fits in with John 1:1 very nicely.
We can't forget that in one of the trusted Greek original texts John speaks of the “begotten God” here:
John 1:18
18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
NASUQuote But I think your statement lacks in facts. You say reproduction implies making something of the same kind, yet you do not believe that Jesus is the same kind but in fact you believe he is less in nature than the Father. True reproduction is genetically the same in nature. Your doctrine has contrived not only a diffence in the Father and Jesus in nature, but you also have reinvented the word reproduction.
As I have said before Keith, age has nothing to do with nature. One cannot reproduce and have someone with the same age as the one whom he is from. Those who believe that a son has the same nature and the same age, then it is they who reinvent the term “son.”
Quote You only have a variation of Aryanism by claiming Jesus was born and not created, which has no scriptural validity at all because everything that was born was also created. I have a variation of a lot of things and since they are a variation of something they are not the something they are varied from.
If you believe a “variation” of trinitarianism then you are not a trinitarian, almost, but you are not a trinitarian. So, I guess that makes you one of us heretics
A doctrine is either perfectly true or it is not perfectly true. If not completely reliable as a document it shouldn't be a foundation of all protestant churches because that is a shaky foundation. The doctrine, if found to be “almost perfectly true” should be destroyed.
I think that if we believe only in a variation of the “ism” we cannot claim to be a believer in the “ism.” By “ism” I refer to any religious group such as henothe”ism” or trinitarian”ism” or arian”ism” etc.
I don't think one should be leading people on that they are a trinitarian if they haven't believed in the doctrine in its entirety. They should clarify that the trinitarian belief is the closest to their personal beliefs but they shouldn't be making themself out to be a trinitarian. IMO
So, as you say “The good thing I suppose is we all call ourselves Christians.”
Have a good day Keith,
Hoping to be found in truth WITH you and not WITHOUT you,
KathiHi Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37) Hi Keith,
I had to pack a lunch to get through those last two posts. Thanks for all that time.
LOL that’s funny. I gues you better pack dinner You give me so much to respond to. I am gonna be gracious and leave my quotes out for the sake of shortening the post. Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37) I can see that we are not getting anywhere. I have presented my view to you and you have presented yours.
Kathi as far as you changing my mind or me changing yours I doubt that will happen. I have found since I have been here on HN that as far as major doctrine almost everyone has made up their mind. I post for the readers that probably will never post but are listening, so I wouldn’t say we aren’t getting anywhere.Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37) I haven't gobs of time to spend on this but I did want to point out a few things you wrote:
I know what you mean.Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37) I wasn't as much explaining my theology from the first few verses of John as I was refuting the notion of your theology of “eternal existence” of the “Word.” My emphasis was to refute James White's exclamatory remarks, not to lay a foundation for my theology.
My point was to show that James White bases his theology on John 1:-3 which shows the Word” as eternally existing because he was there at the beginning of time and that coupled with “nothing came into existence without him” would mean that he is God as John says he is in John 1:1c and we know God is eternal.Have you considered that Jesus “the Word” was in the Father and the Father was in him and the Spirit proceeds from both of them? Now consider this, “Is there ever a time the Father was without “the Word”?
Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37) If you see that the Son existed before Gen 1:1 happened and in fact always existed then you don't believe in a “son” IMO. What you believe contradicts the definition of “son.”
That is circular. The reason I believe he existed before Gen 1:1 is because he was there in the beginning with God and in fact was God. That is not contradicting to Jesus being a Son because the text does not use the term “Son” until later when he came in the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God by the Angel Gabriel.Now he can be referred to as the Only Unique Son of God. It can be implied that he was a Son before he came in the flesh because he is the same person, just like he was called the Lamb of God that was slain before the foundation of the world, yet we know this didn’t happen until he came in the flesh and became the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. In Phil 2 Paul doesn’t say that he was in the form of a Son but that he was in the form of God. So many would say “oh see he can’t be God because he had Gods form”, that also is circular because Jesus says the Father has form, so the Father is also in the “form of God”. Can you give me a scripture where Jesus is called “The Son of God” before the Angel Gabriel announced his Sonship?
Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37) I noticed whether you did this intentionally or not, probably not because I choose to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you quoted Prov. 8 just short of what Solomon wrote regarding the beginning that he was referring to. Notice the difference between putting in the next verse and leaving it out: Compare what a difference it makes by adding the next few words:
22 “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old.
23 “From everlasting I was established,
From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth.
I left it out because the part “AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS WAY, BEFORE HIS WORKS OF OLD. 23 “FROM EVERLASTING” negates your implication that “wisdom” came after Gen 1:1, which begs the question, “was there ever a time God did not have wisdom?” The Wisdom of God is an attribute of God that is “eternal”.The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old. “FROM EVERLASTING I WAS ESTABLISHED”, From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth. Prov 8:22, 23
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and “THE WISDOM OF GOD”. 1 Cor 1:24
There is another one of those pesky “eternal” attributes of God ascribed to Jesus the Word that was God and came in the likeness of sinful flesh.
Jesus is made unto us “Wisdom” because all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are found in him. Col 2:3
If any of you lack wisdom, “LET HIM ASK OF GOD“, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. James 1:5
Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37) BTW, Light was there from the earliest times of the earth. It was there before the heavens were established, also light was there before there were depths (there was the deep but not depths-plural), light was there before there were mountains, or seas or dust from dry land and also the foundations of the earth were established.
I don’t see the light mentioned in Prov 8:22-30. If you mean light of God because he is light I agree.Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37) I realize that you will not see the inference of the Son in this passage, I do, but regardless, you can compare this account to the Gen 1 account of creation and verify that Light of day one was in place before the heavens were established and before the foundations of the earth were completed
Am I missing something? Please show me how “the light of day” was in place before the Heavens and the Earth were established in Prov 8 or Genesis 1? The first verse of the Genesis creation is about the BEGINNING of all things including the natural light of day which came after the Heavens and the Earth, for the Ea
rth in verse 2 is without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep.”In the beginning” God created the “HEAVENS AND THE EARTH”. Gen 1:1
“When He established the HEAVENS, I WAS THERE”, when He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep, Prov 8:27
Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37) So you can see that the heavens and the earth were yet to be established till after day one when Light was called out. I believe that Light fits in with John 1:1 very nicely.
No I can’t see Kathi. Please show me step by step scripturally how on day one the light was called out before the heavens and the earth were created in Genesis 1:1? Genesis 1:1 lines up nicely with John 1:1 and the Word was there “IN THE BEGINNING”. The light didn’t come into existence until verse 3, the heavens and earth and the waters were already there.Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37)
We can't forget that in one of the trusted Greek original texts John speaks of the “begotten God” here:
John 1:18
18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. NASU
The NASU is the only version that I can find that interprets John 1:18 that way. I realize that it fits you but remember begotten (Monogenes) does not necessarily mean born. And begotten is a bad interpretation of the text.Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37) As I have said before Keith, age has nothing to do with nature. One cannot reproduce and have someone with the same age as the one whom he is from. Those who believe that a son has the same nature and the same age, then it is they who reinvent the term “son.”
I agree age has nothing to do with nature. But an Old Man is no more human in nature than a young man. They are equal in nature. You base you theology now on one word, “son”, which is relative as their are adopted sons, natural sons and declared firstborn sons. Sonship does not necesarrilly mean “to be born from”.It has already been shown to you more that once how Jesus sonship is based on his natural birth in the flesh. See above. How am I reinventing the Son? I think Jesus sonship began at his natural birth. But you think he was born a son from the Father and then he was born a son from the Father again. In essence you have to say Jesus was born again.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37)
I have a variation of a lot of things and since they are a variation of something they are not the something they are varied from.If you believe a “variation” of trinitarianism then you are not a trinitarian, almost, but you are not a trinitarian. So, I guess that makes you one of us heretics
Well basically you are correct because to non-trinitarians I am a heretic and to Trinitarians you are a heretic. But I disagree with you that my Trinitarian belief is different from mainstream Trinitarian’s. Trinitarians believe In One True God, The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, co-eternal, and co-equal in nature.Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37)
A doctrine is either perfectly true or it is not perfectly true. If not completely reliable as a document it shouldn't be a foundation of all protestant churches because that is a shaky foundation. The doctrine, if found to be “almost perfectly true” should be destroyed.
Ok who is the one that we should look to for perfect doctrine? Who is the one that shall destroy all other doctrines that appose the one with the perfect doctrine? Is it you because you believe that God showed you the truth? I think we should look to the Lord and to the scriptures, isn't that the reason why we are having this discussion?Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37)
I think that if we believe only in a variation of the “ism” we cannot claim to be a believer in the “ism.” By “ism” I refer to any religious group such as henothe”ism” or trinitarian”ism” or arian”ism” etc.I don't think one should be leading people on that they are a trinitarian if they haven't believed in the doctrine in its entirety. They should clarify that the trinitarian belief is the closest to their personal beliefs but they shouldn't be making themself out to be a trinitarian. IMO
Like I said I don’t care about labels either, and I don’t push that I am a Trinitarian. But if you were to ask anybody on this sight if they think I am then I think you would get your answer.
I see what you are saying though, but if what you are saying is true then why do you call yourself a Christian?
I realize that it must bug you when you are labeled. But understand that when you align yourself with the “Henotheist” who believe the Word was “a god” or the “JWs” that believe that the Spirit of God is not God, or the Arian’s that do not believe in the co-eternally, co-equality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as God, then you have put yourself in their camp and for the moment you make their argument and are one with them in your faith.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37)
So, as you say “The good thing I suppose is we all call ourselves Christians.” BTW Kathi did you say you were going to a Baptist Church? I know you mentioned a Greek scholar there. Just out of curiosity, what does your Pastor and Theologian think about the Trinity and have you discussed this with them?Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37)
Have a good day Keith, Hoping to be found in truth WITH you and not WITHOUT you, Kathi
Jesus is the Truth and I am in him, and in being in him I am in God, I hope you are in him with me.Blessings WJ
Hi WJ,
If you wish to maintain your relationship with God and His son you should stay within what is written in your doctrines. He is not amused by men adding their own speculative ideas to His words2Jn.9
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 25 2009,02:21) Hi Kathi Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37) Hi Keith,
I had to pack a lunch to get through those last two posts. Thanks for all that time.
LOL that’s funny. I gues you better pack dinner You give me so much to respond to. I am gonna be gracious and leave my quotes out for the sake of shortening the post. Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37) I can see that we are not getting anywhere. I have presented my view to you and you have presented yours.
Kathi as far as you changing my mind or me changing yours I doubt that will happen. I have found since I have been here on HN that as far as major doctrine almost everyone has made up their mind. I post for the readers that probably will never post but are listening, so I wouldn’t say we aren’t getting anywhere.Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37) I haven't gobs of time to spend on this but I did want to point out a few things you wrote:
I know what you mean.Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37) I wasn't as much explaining my theology from the first few verses of John as I was refuting the notion of your theology of “eternal existence” of the “Word.” My emphasis was to refute James White's exclamatory remarks, not to lay a foundation for my theology.
My point was to show that James White bases his theology on John 1:-3 which shows the Word” as eternally existing because he was there at the beginning of time and that coupled with “nothing came into existence without him” would mean that he is God as John says he is in John 1:1c and we know God is eternal.Have you considered that Jesus “the Word” was in the Father and the Father was in him and the Spirit proceeds from both of them? Now consider this, “Is there ever a time the Father was without “the Word”?
Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37) If you see that the Son existed before Gen 1:1 happened and in fact always existed then you don't believe in a “son” IMO. What you believe contradicts the definition of “son.”
That is circular. The reason I believe he existed before Gen 1:1 is because he was there in the beginning with God and in fact was God. That is not contradicting to Jesus being a Son because the text does not use the term “Son” until later when he came in the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God by the Angel Gabriel.Now he can be referred to as the Only Unique Son of God. It can be implied that he was a Son before he came in the flesh because he is the same person, just like he was called the Lamb of God that was slain before the foundation of the world, yet we know this didn’t happen until he came in the flesh and became the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. In Phil 2 Paul doesn’t say that he was in the form of a Son but that he was in the form of God. So many would say “oh see he can’t be God because he had Gods form”, that also is circular because Jesus says the Father has form, so the Father is also in the “form of God”. Can you give me a scripture where Jesus is called “The Son of God” before the Angel Gabriel announced his Sonship?
Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37) I noticed whether you did this intentionally or not, probably not because I choose to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you quoted Prov. 8 just short of what Solomon wrote regarding the beginning that he was referring to. Notice the difference between putting in the next verse and leaving it out: Compare what a difference it makes by adding the next few words:
22 “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old.
23 “From everlasting I was established,
From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth.
I left it out because the part “AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS WAY, BEFORE HIS WORKS OF OLD. 23 “FROM EVERLASTING” negates your implication that “wisdom” came after Gen 1:1, which begs the question, “was there ever a time God did not have wisdom?” The Wisdom of God is an attribute of God that is “eternal”.The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old. “FROM EVERLASTING I WAS ESTABLISHED”, From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth. Prov 8:22, 23
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and “THE WISDOM OF GOD”. 1 Cor 1:24
There is another one of those pesky “eternal” attributes of God ascribed to Jesus the Word that was God and came in the likeness of sinful flesh.
Jesus is made unto us “Wisdom” because all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are found in him. Col 2:3
If any of you lack wisdom, “LET HIM ASK OF GOD“, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. James 1:5
Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37) BTW, Light was there from the earliest times of the earth. It was there before the heavens were established, also light was there before there were depths (there was the deep but not depths-plural), light was there before there were mountains, or seas or dust from dry land and also the foundations of the earth were established.
I don’t see the light mentioned in Prov 8:22-30. If you mean light of God because he is light I agree.Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37) I realize that you will not see the inference of the Son in this passage, I do, but regardless, you can compare this account to the Gen 1 account of creation and verify that Light of day one was in place before the heavens were established and before the foundations of the earth were completed
Am I missing something? Please show me how “the light of day” was in place
before the Heavens and the Earth were established in Prov 8 or Genesis 1? The first verse of the Genesis creation is about the BEGINNING of all things including the natural light of day which came after the Heavens and the Earth, for the Earth in verse 2 is without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep.”In the beginning” God created the “HEAVENS AND THE EARTH”. Gen 1:1
“When He established the HEAVENS, I WAS THERE”, when He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep, Prov 8:27
Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37) So you can see that the heavens and the earth were yet to be established till after day one when Light was called out. I believe that Light fits in with John 1:1 very nicely.
No I can’t see Kathi. Please show me step by step scripturally how on day one the light was called out before the heavens and the earth were created in Genesis 1:1? Genesis 1:1 lines up nicely with John 1:1 and the Word was there “IN THE BEGINNING”. The light didn’t come into existence until verse 3, the heavens and earth and the waters were already there.Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37)
We can't forget that in one of the trusted Greek original texts John speaks of the “begotten God” here:
John 1:18
18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. NASU
The NASU is the only version that I can find that interprets John 1:18 that way. I realize that it fits you but remember begotten (Monogenes) does not necessarily mean born. And begotten is a bad interpretation of the text.Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37) As I have said before Keith, age has nothing to do with nature. One cannot reproduce and have someone with the same age as the one whom he is from. Those who believe that a son has the same nature and the same age, then it is they who reinvent the term “son.”
I agree age has nothing to do with nature. But an Old Man is no more human in nature than a young man. They are equal in nature. You base you theology now on one word, “son”, which is relative as their are adopted sons, natural sons and declared firstborn sons. Sonship does not necesarrilly mean “to be born from”.It has already been shown to you more that once how Jesus sonship is based on his natural birth in the flesh. See above. How am I reinventing the Son? I think Jesus sonship began at his natural birth. But you think he was born a son from the Father and then he was born a son from the Father again. In essence you have to say Jesus was born again.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37)
I have a variation of a lot of things and since they are a variation of something they are not the something they are varied from.If you believe a “variation” of trinitarianism then you are not a trinitarian, almost, but you are not a trinitarian. So, I guess that makes you one of us heretics
Well basically you are correct because to non-trinitarians I am a heretic and to Trinitarians you are a heretic. But I disagree with you that my Trinitarian belief is different from mainstream Trinitarian’s. Trinitarians believe In One True God, The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, co-eternal, and co-equal in nature.Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37)
A doctrine is either perfectly true or it is not perfectly true. If not completely reliable as a document it shouldn't be a foundation of all protestant churches because that is a shaky foundation. The doctrine, if found to be “almost perfectly true” should be destroyed.
Ok who is the one that we should look to for perfect doctrine? Who is the one that shall destroy all other doctrines that appose the one with the perfect doctrine? Is it you because you believe that God showed you the truth? I think we should look to the Lord and to the scriptures, isn't that the reason why we are having this discussion?Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37)
I think that if we believe only in a variation of the “ism” we cannot claim to be a believer in the “ism.” By “ism” I refer to any religious group such as henothe”ism” or trinitarian”ism” or arian”ism” etc.I don't think one should be leading people on that they are a trinitarian if they haven't believed in the doctrine in its entirety. They should clarify that the trinitarian belief is the closest to their personal beliefs but they shouldn't be making themself out to be a trinitarian. IMO
Like I said I don’t care about labels either, and I don’t push that I am a Trinitarian. But if you were to ask anybody on this sight if they think I am then I think you would get your answer.
I see what you are saying though, but if what you are saying is true then why do you call yourself a Christian? I realize that it must bug you when you are labeled. But understand that when you align yourself with the “Henotheist” who believe the Word was “a god” or the “JWs” that believe that the Spirit of God is not God, or the Arian’s that do not believe in the co-eternally, co-equality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as God, then you have put yourself in their camp and for the moment you make their argument and are one with them in your faith.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37)
So, as you say “The good thing I suppose is we all call ourselves Christians.” BTW Kathi did you say you were going to a Baptist Church? I know you mentioned a Greek scholar there. Just out of curiosity, what does your Pastor and Theologian think about the Trinity and have you discussed this with them?Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,08:37)
Have a good day Keith, Hoping to be found in truth WITH you and not WITHOUT you, Kathi
Jesus is the Truth and I am in him, and in being in him I am in God, I hope you are in him with me.Blessings WJ
Hi Keith,
This one will be a Saturday morning breakfast meetingYou wrote:
Quote My point was to show that James White bases his theology on John 1:-3 which shows the Word” as eternally existing because he was there at the beginning of time and that coupled with “nothing came into existence without him” would mean that he is God as John says he is in John 1:1c and we know God is eternal. Have you considered that Jesus “the Word” was in the Father and the Father was in him and the Spirit proceeds from both of them? Now consider this, “Is there ever a time the Father was without “the Word”?
I agree that James White bases his theology and you base the eternal existence of the second person of the trinity on John 1:1-3. I believe that I have given you enough reason to at least doubt that this theology can be found in John 1:1-3. Remember, “in” is a fixed point in time which can't denote a forever notion, also “was” is not a continuous past tense but simply past tense AND that “all things” that came into being could very well refer to the things IN heaven and ON earth and that the term “only begotten God” was chosen by the NASB scholars as the correct term to use. If they used it when nobody else used it tells you that they most likely gave it much thought since they wouldn't have gone against the others unless they found it more valid than the others. Also, the beginning could refer to the earliest times of the earth and also day one since day one is the beginning of the week of creation.
So you ask if I thought if there ever was a time when the Father was without the “word.” Well, obviously, yes when you are referring to the “word” in John 1:1.
I believe that I have established that the whole foundation of the “eternal” existence of the “word” is extremely shaky from John 1. Do you have any scripture that unambiguously declares the so-called “second person of the trinity” to be eternal in the past?
Quote That is circular. The reason I believe he existed before Gen 1:1 is because he was there in the beginning with God and in fact was God. That is not contradicting to Jesus being a Son because the text does not use the term “Son” until later when he came in the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God by the Angel Gabriel. Now he can be referred to as the Only Unique Son of God. It can be implied that he was a Son before he came in the flesh because he is the same person, just like he was called the Lamb of God that was slain before the foundation of the world, yet we know this didn’t happen until he came in the flesh and became the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. In Phil 2 Paul doesn’t say that he was in the form of a Son but that he was in the form of God. So many would say “oh see he can’t be God because he had Gods form”, that also is circular because Jesus says the Father has form, so the Father is also in the “form of God”. Can you give me a scripture where Jesus is called “The Son of God” before the Angel Gabriel announced his Sonship?
Regarding the verse about the “Lamb who was slain” the NET Bible has a more correct translation. Here is how they translate it and then following that is how they explain why:
13:8 and all those who live on the earth will worship the beast, 26 everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world 27 in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was killed.The prepositional phrase “since the foundation of the world” is traditionally translated as a modifier of the immediately preceding phrase in the Greek text, “the Lamb who was killed” (so also G. B. Caird, Revelation [HNTC], 168), but it is more likely that the phrase “since the foundation of the world” modifies the verb “written” (as translated above). Confirmation of this can be found in Rev 17:8 where the phrase “written in the book of life since the foundation of the world” occurs with no ambiguity.
You asked for a scripture where the Messiah is called the Son of God before He was announced by the angel Gabriel. That is a good question. I can show you where He is called the annointed one, “Your Holy One” as in God's Holy One, but the closest that I have come to the word “son” is here:
Prov 30:4
4 Who has ascended into heaven and descended?
Who has gathered the wind in His fists?
Who has wrapped the waters in His garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is His name or His son's name?
Surely you know!
NASUQuite possibly the fullness of Him being a son was to be revealed at the proper time. His birth as a man had the emphasis that it was Mary's firstborn and that “Mary will bear a son” and that the son will be born “to us.” It is interesting that the flesh son was not said to be born to God anywhere…born of God, yes. I believe that to be the Son of God in the fullest sense to receive the nature of God, a person of flesh would not have been involved in that birth.
Quote Am I missing something? Please show me how “the light of day” was in place before the Heavens and the Earth were established in Prov 8 or Genesis 1? Prov 8:22-30
22 “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old.
23 “From everlasting I was established,
From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth.(The beginning-the earliest times of the earth…I would say day one could be considered during the earliest times of the earth)
24 “When there were no depths I was brought forth,
When there were no springs abounding with water.(Light was there before the depths, before Light there was just the “deep” singular)
25 “Before the mountains were settled,
Before the hills I was brought forth;
26 While He had not yet made the earth and the fields,
Nor the first dust of the world.
27 “When He established the heavens, I was there,
When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,(v. 27 “establishing the heavens didn't happen until day two after Light came forth. The earth's circle wasn't inscribed till the waters were seperated between the earth and the heavens. Gen 1:6-8 I suggest it was like finding a marble in a chunk of cheese…you don't know it is there or circular till the cheese is seperated from the ball.
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. NASU Do you see how the heaven wasn't called heaven before this )
28 When He made firm the skies above,
When the springs of the deep became fixed,
29 When He set for the sea its bounda
ry
So that the water would not transgress His command,
When He marked out the foundations of the earth;(He marked out the foundations of the earth when seperating the water into seas which happened on day three:
Gen 1:9-13
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. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day. NASU)
30 Then I was beside Him, as a master workman;
And I was daily His delight,
Rejoicing always before Him,
NASUSo, there ya go. I believe that I have established that the heavens and earth were not yet established until day two and day three. Therefore Light was there since Light appeared on day one.
Your other questioned I answer here:
I call myself a Christian because the God gives those who believe in the Son and follow Him that title. The titles that you want to give people are not even mentioned in scriptures. The title “Christian” you can apply to me whenever you want.I have spoken to Baptist pastors privately in the past and have gotten different opinions, nothing consistent. I have not spoken to the Greek guy at my present church because the opportunity has not presented itself and now he is old and weak…living his last days.
You say that I line myself up with JW's when I say…or the henotheists when I say…
Well I can say the same about you in the sense you speak of. You line yourself up with the JW's when you speak as a witness for Jehovah. See how that works both ways.
Well, I have not made this into a luncheon yet, I came pretty close though.
Bye for now,
KathiLightenup said:
Quote My belief is this:
There is One GOD (the Father who always existed)
There is One God (the Son of God is God by nature…GOD begat God)
There are many gods…who by nature are no gods at all.Kathi,
That part of your statement I have put in bold is a trinitarian statement. When you say that the “Son of God is God by nature…God begat God” you agree with trinitarians. They call this “eternal generation.” You cannot say that the Word is God by nature and at the same time deny that He is co-eternal and co-equal with God.Lightenup said:
Quote “I believe that the Son is not happy (to say the least) at all with all of those that have elevated Him to the same position as His Father and applied to Him the most incredible uniqueness that belongs to the Father alone, that of eternal existence and have also made Him equal to the same. Kathi,
It is the Father who has “elevated” Christ. This is called His exaltation to the right hand of the Father. In Hebrew thought the position at the right hand amounted to equality. The Father is not happy with those who put Christ down.thinker
Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,03:37)
Hi Keith,
This one will be a Saturday morning breakfast meeting
Enjoy your breakfast! Bacon and eggs I hope.Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,03:37)
I agree that James White bases his theology and you base the eternal existence of the second person of the trinity on John 1:1-3. I believe that I have given you enough reason to at least doubt that this theology can be found in John 1:1-3.
No you haven’t given me reason to doubt. IMO all you have done is created confusion over the clear plain understanding of the context of John 1:1-3, just like all the other apologetics that seek to muddy the clear message of the word.. You apply a lot more inference on John 1:1-3 than James White or a Trinitarian.Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,03:37)
Remember, “in” is a fixed point in time which can't denote a forever notion,
The problem you have is the Word was already there in the beginning of all things. The context bears this out.”THE SAME WAS IN THE BEGINNING WITH GOD”. John 1:2
Don’t’ you think that John would have clarified whether the Word came after the beginning of all things? Oh, that’s right he did
”All things were made by him; and “WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS MADE””. John 1:2, 3
Kathi I think you are just closing your eyes to this. You even said in another thread (emphasis mine)…
Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,00:32) You are right Nick that we must be united with Jesus to be “begotten of God” but Jesus did not have to be united with Himself to be “begotten of God” so He was the only one that was begotten of God in a unique way…”I suggest the reproductive way before time”.
Before time is before the beginning! If Jesus was before the beginning then he is before time and therefore he is eternal. In fact that makes him the creator of time, space and matter.Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,03:37)
also “was” is not a continuous past tense but simply past tense AND that “all things” that came into being could very well refer to the things IN heaven and ON earth and that the term “only begotten God” was chosen by the NASB scholars as the correct term to use.
If it is the correct interpretation for John 1:1 then why didn’t the NASU put it there? Also as far as the tense of “en”, even if you are right, the fact that John says the “Word was God” proves that the Word existed eternally with God before the begining because God is eternal. Non-Trintarians have the burden of proof that the word God in John 1:1c does not mean the “One True God” since John could have used another word but didn't.Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,03:37)
If they used it when nobody else used it tells you that they most likely gave it much thought since they wouldn't have gone against the others unless they found it more valid than the others.
This is circular because the argument can be made that the majority of the more than 600 scholars chose not to use the term “begotten God”. Your argument also has no weight because you cannot find the term “begotten God “translated anywhere else in the NASVQuote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,03:37)
Also, the beginning could refer to the earliest times of the earth and also day one since day one is the beginning of the week of creation.
This is your inference again. Gen 1:1 disagrees with you. The word beginning is not mentioned in the Genesis creation after Genesis 1:1.Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,03:37)
So you ask if I thought if there ever was a time when the Father was without the “word.” Well, obviously, yes when you are referring to the “word” in John 1:1.I believe that I have established that the whole foundation of the “eternal” existence of the “word” is extremely shaky from John 1. Do you have any scripture that unambiguously declares the so-called “second person of the trinity” to be eternal in the past?
Yep, John 1:1-3. He was with God before “the beginning” of time and he “was God” and ”All things were made by him; and “WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS MADE””. John 1:2, 3I agree that doesn’t in itself prove the Trinity. But the Trinitarian holds truer to the text by not inferring that the word was “a god” or a “begotten god” or “something less than God in nature”.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,03:37)
Regarding the verse about the “Lamb who was slain” the NET Bible has a more correct translation. Here is how they translate it and then following that is how they explain why:
13:8 and all those who live on the earth will worship the beast, 26 everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world 27 in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was killed.The prepositional phrase “since the foundation of the world” is traditionally translated as a modifier of the immediately preceding phrase in the Greek text, “the Lamb who was killed” (so also G. B. Caird, Revelation [HNTC], 168), but it is more likely that the phrase “since the foundation of the world” modifies the verb “written” (as translated above). Confirmation of this can be found in Rev 17:8 where the phrase “written in the book of life since the foundation of the world” occurs with no ambiguity.
I guess it depends on the translation and the commentators. But my point was you can imply that Jesus was a son before he was born because he is the same person. But his sonsh
ip didn’t happen until he was born in the flesh IMO.Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,03:37)
You asked for a scripture where the Messiah is called the Son of God before He was announced by the angel Gabriel. That is a good question. I can show you where He is called the annointed one, “Your Holy One” as in God's Holy One, but the closest that I have come to the word “son” is here:Prov 30:4
4 Who has ascended into heaven and descended?
Who has gathered the wind in His fists?
Who has wrapped the waters in His garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is His name or His son's name?
Surely you know!
NASU
These scriptures are ambiguous as to his Sonship or his eternality! That scripture could be prophetic. Ill let a non-Trinitarian explain for you…Concerning my statements that the OT does not mention the Son, let me say a few words. In certain OT passages YHWH does speak to, or of the Son (Psalm 2:7; 45:6; 110:1), but a few things should be noted. First, it is never said that the “Father” spoke to the Son. It only speaks of “YHWH” or “God,” never suggesting a Father-Son relationship prior to the incarnation. Secondly, these OT passages are clearly prophetic in nature, speaking of the future Messiah, and thus cannot be divorced from the incarnation which was yet future. The communication between YHWH and the Messiah (Son) was not a present transaction, but a future event. Source
But even if what you say is true, it is a mute point to say that he is not the “One True God” because he is a son. That could also be like saying that I am not “One True Human” because I am my Fathers son. For as it has already been shown you, sons can be “natural sons” adopted sons” and “declared firstborn sons”. Jesus being a Son is no proof that he is not eternal. In fact the evidence shows otherwise. You are yet to show me unambiguous scripture where he was born or had a beginning as a son before the beginning of all things.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,03:37)
Quite possibly the fullness of Him being a son was to be revealed at the proper time. His birth as a man had the emphasis that it was Mary's firstborn and that “Mary will bear a son” and that the son will be born “to us.”
I think you are reaching Kathi.Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,03:37) It is interesting that the flesh son was not said to be born to God anywhere…born of God, yes. I believe that to be the Son of God in the fullest sense to receive the nature of God, a person of flesh would not have been involved in that birth.
I think that when Jesus came in the flesh and was found in fashion as a man that he was the Son of God in the fullest sense. But again according to John 1:1, 1:18 and Phil 2:6-8 and others he did not diminish his nature as God for God is Spirit and the Word that was with God and was God was and is Spirit.Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,03:37) Prov 8:22-30
22 “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old.
23 “From everlasting I was established,
From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth.(The beginning-the earliest times of the earth…I would say day one could be considered during the earliest times of the earth)
How do you say that when it says “at the beginning of His way,Before His works of old.
23 “From everlasting I was established”,The earliest times of the earth would be the earth that was created In Genesis 1:1.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,03:37)
24 “When there were no depths I was brought forth, When there were no springs abounding with water.
(Light was there before the depths, before Light there was just the “deep” singular)
I don’t see the word light in this scripture. This still could refer to Genesis 1:1, and 2 which shows the Heavens and the earth already in existence before the light in Genesis 1:3Now the earth was formless and empty, “DARKNESS was over the surface of the deep”, and the Spirit of God was “HOVERING OVER THE WATERS. Genesis 1:2
Your text says that he was brought forth when there were no waters. Gen 1:2 said the waters were there before the light you speak of. How much clearer can it get?
Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,03:37)
25 “Before the mountains were settled,
Before the hills I was brought forth;
26 While He had not yet made the earth and the fields,
Nor the first dust of the world.
27 “When He established the heavens, I was there,
When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,Gen 1:1 he established the heavens.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,03:37)
(v. 27 “establishing the heavens didn't happen until day two after Light came forth.
First of all the word light is not mentioned in Prov 8, secondly you are trying to erase Gen 1:1 which states the Heavens and the earth were created before the light in Gen 1:3.Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,03:37)
The earth's circle wasn't inscribed till the waters were seperated between the earth and the heavens. Gen 1:6-8 I suggest it was like finding a marble in a chunk of cheese…you don't know it is there or circular till the cheese is seperated from the ball.
The heavens you speak of is the sky we look at with the clouds, the atmosphere that is above us.So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse “from the water above it”. And it was so. Gen 1:7
Do you think there is water above the Heavens or the Universe? The text from Gen 1:2 on is speaking of the earth and the Sun and the stars, the Universe or heavens was already created in Gen 1:1
Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,03:37)
Do you see how the heaven wasn't called heaven before this )
No, read Gen 1:1and 2.Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,03:37)
28 When He made firm the skies above,
When the springs of the deep became fixed,
29 When He set for the sea its boundary
So that the water would not transgress His command,
When He marked out the foundations of the earth;(He marked out the foundations of the earth when seperating the water into seas which happened on day three:
Yea and the foundation of the Heavens and the earth were already marked out in Genesis 1:1, 2
Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,03:37)
Gen 1:9-13
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. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day. NASU)30 Then I was beside Him, as a master workman;
And I was daily His delight,
Rejoicing always before Him,
NASUSo, there ya go. I believe that I have established that the heavens and earth were not yet established until day two and day three. Therefore Light was there since Light appeared on day one.
Yea, if you erase Genesis 1 and 2 which shows the Heavens and the earth existed before the light of day one. The word light is not in Prov 8 at all, so you have implied a lot of inference here. Why not just believe this…In the beginning God created the “heavens and the earth”. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. Gen 1:1,2
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; “WITHOUT HIM NOTHING WAS MADE THAT HAS BEEN MADE”. John 1:1-3
Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,03:37)
Your other questioned I answer here:
I call myself a Christian because the God gives those who believe in the Son and follow Him that title. The titles that you want to give people are not even mentioned in scriptures. The title “Christian” you can apply to me whenever you want.
OK. All I was saying is you are being critical about a Trinitarian or other isms and that they should not claim to be such if their doctrine is not 100% alike. Yet you call yourself a Christian and we know how many variations professing Christians have. What’s the big deal about labels anyway? Nationally; I am an American, Politically; I am an Independent conservative, Racially; I am a Caucasian white man, Religiously; I am a Hebrew\Judaic Christian, Doctrinally; I am a Trinitarian.Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,03:37)
I have spoken to Baptist pastors privately in the past and have gotten different opinions, nothing consistent. I have not spoken to the Greek guy at my present church because the opportunity has not presented itself and now he is old and weak…living his last days.
Why would you speak privately? What about your current church Pastor?Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,03:37)
You say that I line myself up with JW's when I say…or the henotheists when I say…Well I can say the same about you in the sense you speak of. You line yourself up with the JW's when you speak as a witness for Jehovah. See how that works both ways.
No one has all the truth, and all have some truth! Unlike most on this board I am quick to give a high five when the truth is spoken regardless of their theological affiliation.It seems that most do not do this when it comes to a Trinitarian, for fear they might be perceived as being accepting of them. What are they afraid of? The Truth!
Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,03:37)
Well, I have not made this into a luncheon yet, I came pretty close though.
Bye for now,
Kathi
Thanks Kathi for engaging and spending the time and effort that you have.Blessings Keith
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
