- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (thethinker @ April 26 2009,08:11) Lightenup 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
Hi ThinkerYou are correct. They do not realize or understand what it means for Jesus to be “the exact representation of his being” and that he does not just have the nature of God but is “in very nature God”. The Father is in very nature God and the Spirit is in very nature God. When Jesus came in the flesh he became the “Image of the invisible God”. He said so himself in John 14 to Philip.
To have an image of Jesus as less than the Father is to create a false image of God and is giving less honor to the Father when Jesus said we should honor him “even as” we honor the Father, IMO. Truly our fellowship is with One God, the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.
Blessings WJ
Lightenup said:
Quote Did you intentionally misrepresent my words? Kathi,
You did not use the exact wording I used. And I will be more careful to quote you verbatim. However, I still maintain that you said that Isaac was the chosen firstborn. Here is what you actually said:Quote 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.
Isaac always was the firstborn “promised”[/b] 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[/b] firstborn to Abraham. A firstborn is the first to come out of the womb. Isaac was Abraham and Sarah's firstborn in every way.
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.
Please tell us the difference between Isaac's being the “chosen” firstborn from the his being the firstborn by “promise”? In Romans 9 Paul said that Isaac was “chosen” (or elect) and therefore, the child of promise. I will be careful not to paraphrase you from now on. At the same time you must learn to own up to what you infer in your speech. You said several times that Isaac was the “promised” firstborn. This means that he was the “chosen” firstborn. Please own up to what you infer.
The wierd thing about your post is that you said this:
Quote 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. Then you contradict yourself saying this:
Quote 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.
First you said that Isaac did not inherit the name firstborn in some other way that is natural. Then you blow your argument by saying that he inherited the name by “promise.” You said it SEVERAL times! If it was by promise then it was by a way that was not natural. And you missed my point that Isaac was NOT literally Abraham's “only begotten.” Abraham had TWO sons and Isaac did not become the “ONLY begotten” UNTIL Ishmael was KICKED out of the covenant. Isaac PRE-EXISTED the name “only begotten”, that is “firstborn.”
Isaac PRE-EXISTED the name “only begotten.” These are the HISTORICAL facts!
thinker
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 25 2009,16:24) Quote (thethinker @ April 26 2009,08:11) Lightenup 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
Hi ThinkerYou are correct. They do not realize or understand what it means for Jesus to be “the exact representation of his being” and that he does not just have the nature of God but is “in very nature God”. The Father is in very nature God and the Spirit is in very nature God. When Jesus came in the flesh he became the “Image of the invisible God”. He said so himself in John 14 to Philip.
To have an image of Jesus as less than the Father is to create a false image of God and is giving less honor to the Father when Jesus said we should honor him “even as” we honor the Father, IMO. Truly our fellowship is with One God, the Father, Son and th Holy Spirit.
Blessings WJ
Way to go Keith, a short post
You said this:
Quote When Jesus came in the flesh he became the “Image of the invisible God”. He said so himself in John 14 to Philip. Keith, where does it say that he “became” the image. That seems to imply that He wasn't beforehand but became it. That contradicts this:
Gen 1:26-2726 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him;
NASUYou don't think that the Son was in the image of God from the start?
Quote They do not realize or understand what it means for Jesus to be “the exact representation of his being” and that he does not just have the nature of God but is “in very nature God”. My son has the nature of man and is in the very nature man. So is his father but my son isn't his own father nor is he the same age as his own father yet, they are both equally man but my son is not equally the man that his father is. I think this is simple why make it so complicated?
Kathi
Hi Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,09:22)
Way to go Keith, a short postYou said this:
Quote When Jesus came in the flesh he became the “Image of the invisible God”. He said so himself in John 14 to Philip. Keith, where does it say that he “became” the image. That seems to imply that He wasn't beforehand but became it. That contradicts this:
Gen 1:26-27
No Kathi it doesn’t contradict Gen 1:26, 27Man is made in the image of God. Jesus is “The image of God” for he is in very nature God and always was. Just as the Father is in very nature God and the Spirit is in very nature God.
My Statement he became “the Image of the invisible God” after he came in the flesh is a true statement because until then the invisible God had not been seen in physical form.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,09:22)
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him;
NASUYou don't think that the Son was in the image of God from the start?
Of course he was in the image of the Father and the Spirit he was in very nature God like the Father and the Spirit. He was invisible. But the term “Image of the invisible God” IMO happened when God came in the flesh and revealed himself and became visible in a physical way. We have hints of Jesus doing this in the OT (taking on the form of man) and so he actually became one with us. Phil 2:6-8. How else do you explain Heb 1:2, Col 1:15, John 1:1 and John 14:7…If you really knew me, “YOU WOULD KNOW MY FATHER AS WELL. FROM NOW ON, YOU DO KNOW HIM AND HAVE SEEN HIM. John 14:7
Quote They do not realize or understand what it means for Jesus to be “the exact representation of his being” and that he does not just have the nature of God but is “in very nature God”. Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,09:22)
My son has the nature of man and is in the very nature man. So is his father but my son isn't his own father nor is he the same age as his own father yet, they are both equally man but my son is not equally the man that his father is. I think this is simple why make it so complicated? KathiI think it is you that is making it complicated. No way around it. Your son’s Father is not greater than his son in nature; if he was he would not be human. His Father may be greater than he is but that does not touch his ontology.
Blessings WJ
Hi Kathy,
It is necessary for other dogmas to be set in concrete for them to bolster the sagging trinity folly.WJ said:
Quote To have an image of Jesus as less than the Father is to create a false image of God and is giving less honor to the Father when Jesus said we should honor him “even as” we honor the Father, IMO. Truly our fellowship is with One God, the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. WJ,
I marvel that they do not understand. The Jesus who said “I do not honor Myself” also said,Quote For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, that ALL should honor the Son JUST AS they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does NOT honor the Son who sent Him (John 5:22-23) Yet Kathi tells us that the Son is not happy if we exalt Him. The truth is that the Father is not happy if we don't.
thinker
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 26 2009,08:30) Hi WJ,
God the son is not spoken of in scripture.
Do you mean the son of God?
Nick,
You must be fair and ask this question of Kathi too. For she has said more than once that the Word is “God the Son.” Why haven't you pick up on this seeing that I have pointed it out a zillion times?thinker
Worshiping Jesus said:
Quote My Statement he became “the Image of the invisible God” after he came in the flesh is a true statement because until then the invisible God had not been seen in physical form. Yes indeed! Amen!
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ April 26 2009,06:19) Worshiping Jesus said: Quote My Statement he became “the Image of the invisible God” after he came in the flesh is a true statement because until then the invisible God had not been seen in physical form. Yes indeed! Amen!
thinker
So do you and Worshipping Jesus believe God is an invisible human being or at least would look like a human being if he was visible?Quote (thethinker @ April 25 2009,19:03) WJ said: Quote To have an image of Jesus as less than the Father is to create a false image of God and is giving less honor to the Father when Jesus said we should honor him “even as” we honor the Father, IMO. Truly our fellowship is with One God, the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. WJ,
I marvel that they do not understand. The Jesus who said “I do not honor Myself” also said,Quote For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, that ALL should honor the Son JUST AS they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does NOT honor the Son who sent Him (John 5:22-23) Yet Kathi tells us that the Son is not happy if we exalt Him. The truth is that the Father is not happy if we don't.
thinker
Thinker,My quote:
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. Your misrepresentation of my quote:
Quote Yet Kathi tells us that the Son is not happy if we exalt Him. The truth is that the Father is not happy if we don't. I do believe that the Son is to be exalted just not to the level which He is equal to the Father. When you equate the Son to the Father when the Son even says that the Father is greater than Him you in essence lower the Father to a level where someone is His equal and take away His uniqueness. The Son should be exalted.
Think about this…if He was “exalted” to a position then He had been in a lower position beforehand. It is never said of the Father that He (the Father) had to be raised to a higher position, therefore they are not equal.
Thinker, you misrepresent me right and left. It would be better if you quoted my entire posts than cropping them.
Isaac can be the promised only begotten Son AS WELL as the natural firstborn of Abraham AND Sarah. He was promised when Abraham was told that He would have descendants. He was the firstborn of Sarah and Abraham when Sarah gave birth. Nothing was given to Isaac that he didn't have from birth. Ishmael was NEVER part of the covenant and so he couldn't be taken out of the covenant. Ishmael was never Sarah's firstborn son therefore he was never Abraham and Sarah's firstborn son. Ishmael was Abraham and Hagar's firstborn son who was never part of the covenant that God made with Abraham.
LU
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 25 2009,18:00) Hi Kathi Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,09:22)
Way to go Keith, a short postYou said this:
Quote When Jesus came in the flesh he became the “Image of the invisible God”. He said so himself in John 14 to Philip. Keith, where does it say that he “became” the image. That seems to imply that He wasn't beforehand but became it. That contradicts this:
Gen 1:26-27
No Kathi it doesn’t contradict Gen 1:26, 27Man is made in the image of God. Jesus is “The image of God” for he is in very nature God and always was. Just as the Father is in very nature God and the Spirit is in very nature God.
My Statement he became “the Image of the invisible God” after he came in the flesh is a true statement because until then the invisible God had not been seen in physical form.
Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,09:22)
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him;
NASUYou don't think that the Son was in the image of God from the start?
Of course he was in the image of the Father and the Spirit he was in very nature God like the Father and the Spirit. He was invisible. But the term “Image of the invisible God” IMO happened when God came in the flesh and revealed himself and became visible in a physical way. We have hints of Jesus doing this in the OT (taking on the form of man) and so he actually became one with us. Phil 2:6-8. How else do you explain Heb 1:2, Col 1:15, John 1:1 and John 14:7…If you really knew me, “YOU WOULD KNOW MY FATHER AS WELL. FROM NOW ON, YOU DO KNOW HIM AND HAVE SEEN HIM. John 14:7
Quote They do not realize or understand what it means for Jesus to be “the exact representation of his being” and that he does not just have the nature of God but is “in very nature God”. Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,09:22)
My son has the nature of man and is in the very nature man. So is his father but my son isn't his own father nor is he the same age as his own father yet, they are both equally man but my son is not equally the man that his father is. I think this is simple why make it so complicated? KathiI think it is you that is making it complicated. No way around it. Your son’s Father is not greater than his son in nature; if he was he would not be human. His Father may be greater than he is but that does not touch his ontology.
Blessings WJ
Oh Keith,
Now you are saying that the Father looked like Jesus, a person with brown hair, brown eyes probably. If that is the case why does He say this:John 6:46-47
“Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.
NASUThe above verse is talking about no one seeing His physical appearance.
Below Jesus is implying that the disciples have seen the Father BECAUSE He represents the Father's works and words perfectly. They could see the character of the Father…NOT His form.
John 14:9-12
aHe who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10 “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. 11 “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. NASUWhy is that so hard for you to see?
KathiKeith,
To think that the beginning of John 1:1 has to be before the Light was called forth is a narrower opinion than I believe God had in mind. Consider this verse:
Mark 10:6-7
6 “But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
NASU
Do you continue to insist that the beginning couldn't have included day one and the formless and void earth that was there on day one of creation. The Bible speaks of a formless and void earth in the beginning. That didn't change till AFTER day one. The Light was there in the beginning, during the earliest times of the earth. Please pray about this and open your heart.
KathiLightenup said:
Quote I do believe that the Son is to be exalted just not to the level which He is equal to the Father. When you equate the Son to the Father when the Son even says that the Father is greater than Him you in essence lower the Father to a level where someone is His equal and take away His uniqueness. The Son should be exalted. Kathi,
The Father was greater than Jesus only while He was present in the flesh. When He returned to the Father that would change for Him. He would then share again the glory He had with the Father before the world began (John 14:28; 17:5). Jesus said also that the disciples would do “greater” works when He returned to the Father (14:12). His returning to the Father changed a lot of things. So you're NOT giving us the whole story.Jesus said that the Father wants us to honor Him JUST AS they honor the Father. Those who do not honor the Son just as the Father do not please the Father and they are kidding themselves if they think they are.
thinker
WorshipingJesus said to LU:
Quote I think it is you that is making it complicated. No way around it. Your son’s Father is not greater than his son in nature; if he was he would not be human. His Father may be greater than he is but that does not touch his ontology. Yes WJ!
Non-trinitarians fail to distinguish the ontological Trinity from the economical Trinity. Example, ontologically the wife is the same in nature as her husband. She is fully human. But under the law of Moses she was economically under her husband's headship and under man's authority in the church.When Christ returned in AD70 the whole law of Moses was fulfilled and all the economical distinctions between husband and wife and man and woman were abolished. Woman is now on equal ground with men in ALL things. The husband is no longer the head of the wife.
Christ was made under the law (Gal. 4). It was under the law that He was under the headship of God. He remained under the law and under God until He returned in AD70. The law of Moses was completely fulfilled at that time and the economical distinction between the Father and the Son was abolished.
All are under a new economy now including the Trinity.
thinker
Hi TT,
So not only did we miss one version of this trinity in scripture but two?
What a full time job it is patching the leaks in this condemned vessel.thinker: Here are some thoughts. Christ is,”Christos” the annointing of God. God cannot be separate from his own power. God is everywhere, at least there is no place I've heard of where he is not. God does not come and go nor does the Christos. Only in our minds can there ever be a separation from God and that's not Truth its a lie. Another thought, Jesus did leave the physical world but just as he said he would he came again at the resurrection and at least five more times he returned to the earth physically to show himself to all his disciples as victorious over death. This was all before 70AD–Actually, Jesus still returns just like he said he would to each individual that accepts him as Lord of their Truth. Each time that happens the Word of God is made flesh in a man. Thanks, TK
Hey Nick: Who does the Bible say is the condemning, accusor of the bretherin? We can question each other to learn but lets not condemn one another or that same condemnation will come to us. Peace, TK
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
