- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He came in the flesh, sent by His Father, and at His baptism, the Spirit of God descended upon Him like a dove. Afterwards, He demonstrated many miracles, signs, and wonders. Jesus never uttered the words – I am God. He did say that He was the Son of God and that He was the Son of man.
As I study the scriptures I see that Jesus shared in something of the Divine, otherwise what would have been the purpose of His virgin birth? and how could He have remained without sin His entire life?
Many have elquently put forth what they believe to be the nature of Christ and from what I can decipher it falls in to one of two camps: 1) fully God and fully man or 2) only fully man.
Is it possible for the only begotten Son of the Most High God to share in the divinity of His father and also in the humanity of His mother without either of the above views in mind?
Quote (toteachachild @ Feb. 24 2007,11:04) Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He came in the flesh, sent by His Father, and at His baptism, the Spirit of God descended upon Him like a dove. Afterwards, He demonstrated many miracles, signs, and wonders. Jesus never uttered the words – I am God. He did say that He was the Son of God and that He was the Son of man. As I study the scriptures I see that Jesus shared in something of the Divine, otherwise what would have been the purpose of His virgin birth? and how could He have remained without sin His entire life?
Many have elquently put forth what they believe to be the nature of Christ and from what I can decipher it falls in to one of two camps: 1) fully God and fully man or 2) only fully man.
Is it possible for the only begotten Son of the Most High God to share in the divinity of His father and also in the humanity of His mother without either of the above views in mind?
the riddle is solved when the church once again looks back at how the early christians viewed the nature of Christ.Jesus was always a part of God. The Wisdom of God. Read Proverbs 8 & 9.
He was begotten uniquely and was the only begotten of the Father. For everything else was made by God through his Son. The Son was not made but was begotten from out of his Father. The Son shares the nature and substance of the Father and is from the Father but is a different sentient being with his own will, but he submits his will to his Father.
The Son therefore shares in the nature of the Father but is not himself the Father. The Son has always represented the father. He was the one who said I AM as the messenger in the bush. He is the one who rained down fire from heaven on Sodom from his Father in heaven. He is the messenger who led the israelites out of captivity. He is who Jacob wrestled. He is Moses saw.
Both, the Father and the Son share the same name YHWH.
Later, the Son took on flesh and was born of the virgin.
This view was the view of Justin Martyr, Iraenus, Polycarp and Ignatius. It also agrees with what we read in the scriptures.
So yes i agree with what you are saying essentially.
Hi ms,
It is not right to try and resolve RIDDLES by adding assumptions and speculations
“Jesus was always a part of God. The Wisdom of God. Read Proverbs 8 & 9.”
Not stated
“He was the one who said I AM as the messenger in the bush.”
Not stated
” He is the one who rained down fire from heaven on Sodom from his Father in heaven.”
Not stated
“He is the messenger who led the israelites out of captivity.”
Not stated
“He is who Jacob wrestled.:
Not stated
“He is Moses saw.”
Not stated.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 24 2007,18:41) Hi ms,
It is not right to try and resolve RIDDLES by adding assumptions and speculations
“Jesus was always a part of God. The Wisdom of God. Read Proverbs 8 & 9.”
Not stated
“He was the one who said I AM as the messenger in the bush.”
Not stated
” He is the one who rained down fire from heaven on Sodom from his Father in heaven.”
Not stated
“He is the messenger who led the israelites out of captivity.”
Not stated
“He is who Jacob wrestled.:
Not stated
“He is Moses saw.”
Not stated.
They are stated. You probably know by heart many of the verses I would quote. It is a matter of interpretation, not an issue of whether these things are scripturally discussed.Hi MS,
Scripture is proven truth by making statements and by comparison with witnessing scriptures[that say the same thing-1Cor 13] to avoid men making a stand on one verse. Can you show us proofs?Quote (Morning Star @ Feb. 25 2007,13:14) Jesus was always a part of God. The Wisdom of God. Read Proverbs 8 & 9.
Hi Morning Star.Thanks for your post.
I do not understand how you can say that Jesus was always a part of God as the wisdom of God.
It is written that wisdom was the first to be begotten and he was the craftsman at God's side when God created all things.
Therefore if taken at face value, is it not saying that wisdom as an attribute of God was expressed/begotten.
At this point of being begotten, Christ/Logos existed as another with God.
And because God begat wisdom as another to himself, it still must be understood that God still has wisdom as one of his attributes, in other words he didn't lose that attribute in expressing it in another.
Similarly if I have the attribute of wisdom in my character, it by no means means that I have always been a part of God. Rather I share in the attribute.
Quote (toteachachild @ Feb. 24 2007,11:04) Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He came in the flesh, sent by His Father, and at His baptism, the Spirit of God descended upon Him like a dove. Afterwards, He demonstrated many miracles, signs, and wonders. Jesus never uttered the words – I am God. He did say that He was the Son of God and that He was the Son of man. As I study the scriptures I see that Jesus shared in something of the Divine, otherwise what would have been the purpose of His virgin birth? and how could He have remained without sin His entire life?
Many have elquently put forth what they believe to be the nature of Christ and from what I can decipher it falls in to one of two camps: 1) fully God and fully man or 2) only fully man.
Is it possible for the only begotten Son of the Most High God to share in the divinity of His father and also in the humanity of His mother without either of the above views in mind?
Hi tt,
Phil 2 tells us he emptied himself. Something about him changed from his origins with God to when he came to earth as a man.
What is also plain is that he brought no powers with him and that it was in the anointed powers of God from the Jordan that he did all those works.
He was just like us so since men do not have divine powers of their own nature neither would he. That fits with the scripture in Acts 10.38Quote (t8 @ Feb. 25 2007,20:40) Quote (Morning Star @ Feb. 25 2007,13:14) Jesus was always a part of God. The Wisdom of God. Read Proverbs 8 & 9.
Hi Morning Star.Thanks for your post.
I do not understand how you can say that Jesus was always a part of God as the wisdom of God.
It is written that wisdom was the first to be begotten and he was the craftsman at God's side when God created all things.
Therefore if taken at face value, is it not saying that wisdom as an attribute of God was expressed/begotten.
At this point of being begotten, Christ/Logos existed as another with God.
And because God begat wisdom as another to himself, it still must be understood that God still has wisdom as one of his attributes, in other words he didn't lose that attribute in expressing it in another.
Similarly if I have the attribute of wisdom in my character, it by no means means that I have always been a part of God. Rather I share in the attribute.
I agree with everything you said, I think. I do not think Jesus was a seperate sentient being before being begotten. Rather God took part of himself in begetting his son.Though he did not diminish in the process. Like the flame of a candle being passed on to another candle.
Therefore Jesus is not the Father, but is of the substance / nature of the Father.
He is not a trinity or binity, rather God of God, one in nature and in unity but not in person or being.
There is some of this recorded in the book of Enoch, which I think you are familuar with.
Quote (Morning Star @ Feb. 26 2007,03:17) I agree with everything you said, I think. I do not think Jesus was a seperate sentient being before being begotten. Rather God took part of himself in begetting his son. Though he did not diminish in the process. Like the flame of a candle being passed on to another candle.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 26 2007,03:38) That is pretty much how I see it too.
Hello MS and t8,
Well since you both see this the same way I wonder if either of you could show me a verse in the Bible that teaches that:“God took part of himself in begetting his son”
Is this taught in scripture?
Quote (Morning Star @ Feb. 26 2007,03:17) I do not think Jesus was a seperate sentient being before being begotten. Rather God took part of himself in begetting his son. Though he did not diminish in the process. Like the flame of a candle being passed on to another candle.
Therefore Jesus is not the Father, but is of the substance / nature of the Father.
He is not a trinity or binity, rather God of God, one in nature and in unity but not in person or being.
There is some of this recorded in the book of Enoch, which I think you are familuar with.
To be honest with you MS, I can't see how this couldn't be construed as anything other than bitheism…..Quote (Is 1:18 @ Feb. 26 2007,04:08) Quote (Morning Star @ Feb. 26 2007,03:17) I agree with everything you said, I think. I do not think Jesus was a seperate sentient being before being begotten. Rather God took part of himself in begetting his son. Though he did not diminish in the process. Like the flame of a candle being passed on to another candle.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 26 2007,03:38) That is pretty much how I see it too.
Hello MS and t8,
Well since you both see this the same way I wonder if either of you could show me a verse in the Bible that teaches that:“God took part of himself in begetting his son”
Is this taught in scripture?
Yes, I believe it is. However, if I proceed to list out the various scriptures that teach this, I know in advance you already know these scriptures, and you have a different understanding of them.What I am teaching is what the early christians taught, disciples of Paul and John.
What is taught today is different than what the early church believed.
Galatians 1:8
8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!Ponder this a moment. If there is no historical record of the teachings that modern “churchianity” teachings to be found amongst ancient Christians then are not these “new” teachings.
If we cannot find a coherent teaching on the trinity from Christ until Athanasius, don't you see a problem here?
Rather you see practically unanimously what I have been sharing found among the early christians.
The Gospel HAS been changed.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Feb. 26 2007,23:08) Quote (Morning Star @ Feb. 26 2007,03:17) I agree with everything you said, I think. I do not think Jesus was a seperate sentient being before being begotten. Rather God took part of himself in begetting his son. Though he did not diminish in the process. Like the flame of a candle being passed on to another candle.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 26 2007,03:38) That is pretty much how I see it too.
Hello MS and t8,
Well since you both see this the same way I wonder if either of you could show me a verse in the Bible that teaches that:“God took part of himself in begetting his son”
Is this taught in scripture?
A son has his source in his father. Such a thing is aptly demonstrated in humans who were created in his image. Our spirits come from God, just as a sons flesh comes from his Father.Hebrews 12:9
Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live!Our sons and daughters come from us and their spirits come from God. Our sons didn't exist before or at the same time as us, but after because they come from us.
Jesus is even called the image of God. So that alone is clear reference that God is his source.
We also know that the head of Christ is God and the head of the woman is the man and the head of man is Christ.
1 Corinthians 11:3
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.1 Corinthians 3:22-23
22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas {That is, Peter} or the world or life or death or the present or the future all are yours,
23 and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God…Ephesians 4:6
one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.John 15:1-2
1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.
2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.Romans 15:6
so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.John 8:42
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.If you have ears to hear then you will understand these scriptures. If you have your trinitarian glasses on, then you will not understand.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Feb. 26 2007,04:15) Quote (Morning Star @ Feb. 26 2007,03:17) I do not think Jesus was a seperate sentient being before being begotten. Rather God took part of himself in begetting his son. Though he did not diminish in the process. Like the flame of a candle being passed on to another candle.
Therefore Jesus is not the Father, but is of the substance / nature of the Father.
He is not a trinity or binity, rather God of God, one in nature and in unity but not in person or being.
There is some of this recorded in the book of Enoch, which I think you are familuar with.
To be honest with you MS, I can't see how this couldn't be construed as anything other than bitheism…..
yes, for many this is quite the “stumbling stone”.Quote (Is 1:18 @ Feb. 26 2007,23:15) To be honest with you MS, I can't see how this couldn't be construed as anything other than bitheism….. bitheism….. ?
Is 1:18, guess where the Trinity proceeded from? The answer is the Binity. It use to be a Binity and then later on they added a new member. So it is a root of your own belief, unless of course you believe that they were wrong, and they corrected themselves later on.
A theology of the Holy Spirit developed slowly, largely in response to controversies over the relation of Jesus Christ to God the Father. In 325, the Council of Nicaea condemned as heresy the Arian teaching that the Son was a creature, neither equal to, nor coeternal with, the Father. ………Later pronouncements brought only one important doctrinal change, the 9th-century addition of filioque to the creed of Constantinople. That addition, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the son, has been a source of discord between Eastern and Western Christianity ever since.
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Quote (Morning Star @ Feb. 26 2007,08:32) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Feb. 26 2007,04:08) Quote (Morning Star @ Feb. 26 2007,03:17) I agree with everything you said, I think. I do not think Jesus was a seperate sentient being before being begotten. Rather God took part of himself in begetting his son. Though he did not diminish in the process. Like the flame of a candle being passed on to another candle.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 26 2007,03:38) That is pretty much how I see it too.
Hello MS and t8,
Well since you both see this the same way I wonder if either of you could show me a verse in the Bible that teaches that:“God took part of himself in begetting his son”
Is this taught in scripture?
Yes, I believe it is. However, if I proceed to list out the various scriptures that teach this, I know in advance you already know these scriptures, and you have a different understanding of them.
Lets test that. Just list one scripture you think shows that “took part of himself in begetting his son” and we can go from there. We might even agree on it's interpretation….Quote What I am teaching is what the early christians taught, disciples of Paul and John. What is taught today is different than what the early church believed.
Galatians 1:8
8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!Ponder this a moment. If there is no historical record of the teachings that modern “churchianity” teachings to be found amongst ancient Christians then are not these “new” teachings.
If we cannot find a coherent teaching on the trinity from Christ until Athanasius, don't you see a problem here?
The early church fathers disagreed on doctrines as well, as you have already admitted….Quote Rather you see practically unanimously what I have been sharing found among the early christians. The Gospel HAS been changed.
The gospel as defined by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4f is generally affirmed by christians today. Do you agree?Blessings MS
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 26 2007,08:37) A son has his source in his father. Such a thing is aptly demonstrated in humans who were created in his image. Our spirits come from God, just as a sons flesh comes from his Father. Hebrews 12:9
Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live!Our sons and daughters come from us and their spirits come from God. Our sons didn't exist before or at the same time as us, but after because they come from us.
Jesus is even called the image of God. So that alone is clear reference that God is his source.
We also know that the head of Christ is God and the head of the woman is the man and the head of man is Christ.
1 Corinthians 11:3
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.1 Corinthians 3:22-23
22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas {That is, Peter} or the world or life or death or the present or the future all are yours,
23 and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God…Ephesians 4:6
one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.John 15:1-2
1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.
2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.Romans 15:6
so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
t8,
These scriptures reference the post-incarnation Jesus, we're discussing a pre-incarnate origin. So I need you to produce evidence of a begettal before His earthly one….Quote John 8:42
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.
This is closer to the mark but I don't think John's words are an affirmation of this remark:“God took part of himself in begetting his son”
Earlier in his Gospel John wrote:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)
In the beginning (en arxh). Arxh is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be reshith in Genesis 1:1. But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing.
Was (hn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in verse John 1:14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in John 8:58 “before Abraham came (genesqai) I am” (eimi, timeless existence).
With God (prov ton qeon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Prov with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of prov: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklhton exomen prov ton patera). See proswpon prov proswpon (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12), a triple use of prov. There is a papyrus example of prov in this sense to gnwston thv prov allhlouv sunhqeiav, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of prov here and in Mark 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koin‚, not old Attic. In John 17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom.
Robertson's Word Pictures (NT)So the Logos “was” (perpetual, timeless existence) “in the beginning” (beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity) “with God” (face to face in intimate communion/relationship)……
The logos was then “sent” into the world (John 4:34, 5:23, 5:24, 5:30, 5:36, 5:37, 5:38….).
This very sentiment is emphasised in the verse you cited:
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me
He was with God and was sent. To me, that is what Yeshua meant when He said He “came from God”. So clearly, this is not a verse that could be used in support of a pre-incarnation begettal….
Can you point me to a verse that describes a God generating the Logos before the incarnation?
Blessings t8
HI Isaiah 1:18.
I have a question about Jesus. It's also in the trinity thread:
Quote
Jesus said: “do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?”I had been discussing this scripture with Is 1:18.
He stated:
Hello David,
You might miss the hebraic nuances in a lot of what Yahshua said about Himself in his exchanges with the Jews, but they did not. Also, it's just not feasible to assert that the pharisees (the religious professionals of their day) would compromise their own safety by illegitimately stoning someone. Their laws for executions were quite clear-cut and making a lunatic statement that fell completely outside of their conventional theological boundaries, like claiming to be the supernatural progeny or creation of YHWH, was not a stonable offense as far as i'm aware…..–Isiah 1:18, trinity thread, somewhere before page 540?Is 1:18 is completely absolutely without question wrong on this. In their attempt to do anything to have Jesus killed, they did not follow the laws at all. They broke numerous laws. Isiah 1:18 siad that claiming to be Yahweh “was not a stonable offence as far as I'm aware.” But is claiming to be God's Son a stonable offense? Which scripture says: “Anyone claiming to be God's son shall be stoned”? None that I am aware of.
So what is the difference whehter they charged him with being God's son, or being God?
The difference is clear:
Claiming to be God Almighty is a much greater charge.
The other difference is that they did not make that charge.Is it because these powerful ones were frightened of accidentally stoning someone that didn't deserve it? This is insane. And laughable.
As far as I can tell, there is only one REASONABLE explanation for this:
JESUS NEVER MADE THAT CLAIM. HIS DISCIPLES NEVER MADE THAT CLAIM. THE PHARISEES NEVER HEARD ANYONE EVER MAKE THAT CLAIM.
Nothing else explains this fact. Nothing.
Again, I think I have just disproven the trinity.
We are here arguing over what people back then believed based on what they said. But here we have a very clear indication of what they believed based on the actions of people who WOULD IN FACT do anything to have Jesus killed, including breaking the law.
I say this again: If the Jewish leaders had any reason, the slightest reason at all to believe that Jesus was in any way implying or directly saying that he himself was GOD ALMIGHTY, they would have charged him with this.
They wanted him dead, and were willing to do anything to accomplish this, including breaking the law.
They were not noble or “professional” as Is 1:18 once said in trying to actually…what, defend? the pharisees? They weren't professional, or honourable in their methods.
They would not have blinked at using whatever means necessary to have Jesus done away with.
And had Jesus in any way made people of that day believe that he was Almighty God, the pharisees would have been all over this, accusing him of being Crazy and blaspheming God to the highest degree. Instead, for some reason, they only apparently charged him with making himself out to be the “Son of” God.THIS IS REMARKABLY ODD AND INCOMPREHENSIBLE to me at least IF JESUS CLAIMED TO BE GOD ALMIGHTY.
For some reason, when I spoke of this with Is 1:18, he kept saying that the pharisees were above breaking the law to achieve their purposes. I no longer even remember why he said this. But it is wrong.
“The greatest travesty of justice ever committed was the trial and sentencing of Jesus Christ. Prior to his trial the chief priests and older men of the people took counsel together with a view to putting Jesus to death. So the judges were prejudiced and had their minds made up on the verdict before ever the trial took place. (Mt 26:3, 4) They bribed Judas to betray Jesus to them. (Lu 22:2-6) Because of the wrongness of their actions, they did not arrest him in the temple in the daytime, but they waited until they could act under cover of darkness and then sent a crowd armed with clubs and swords to arrest him in an isolated place outside the city.—Lu 22:52, 53.
Jesus was then taken first to the house of Annas, the ex-high priest, who still wielded great authority, his son-in-law Caiaphas being the high priest at the time. (Joh 18:13) There Jesus was questioned and was slapped in the face. (Joh 18:22) Next he was led bound to Caiaphas the high priest. False witnesses were sought by the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin. Many such witnesses came forward but could not agree on their testimony, except two who twisted Jesus’ words recorded at John 2:19. (Mt 26:59-61; Mr 14:56-59) Finally Jesus was put under oath by the high priest and questioned as to whether he was the Christ the Son of God. When Jesus answered in the affirmative and alluded to the prophecy at Daniel 7:13, the high priest ripped his garments and called upon the court to find Jesus guilty of blasphemy. This verdict was rendered, and he was sentenced to death. After this they spit in his face and hit him with their fists, taunting him, contrary to the Law.—Mt 26:57-68; Lu 22:66-71; compare De 25:1, 2 with Joh 7:51 and Ac 23:3.
After this illegal night trial the Sanhedrin met early in the morning to confirm their judgment and for a consultation. (Mr 15:1) Jesus was now led, again bound, to the governor’s palace, to Pilate, since they said: “It is not lawful for us to kill anyone.” (Joh 18:31) Here Jesus was charged with forbidding the paying of taxes to Caesar and with saying that he himself was Christ a king. Blasphemy against the God of the Jews would not have been so serious a charge in the eyes of the Romans, but sedition would. Pilate, after making futile attempts to get Jesus to testify against himself, told the Jews that he found no crime in him. Discovering, however, that Jesus was a Galilean, Pilate was happy to send him to Herod, who had jurisdiction over Galilee. Herod questioned Jesus, hoping to see a sign performed by him, but Jesus refused. Herod then discredited Jesus, making fun of him, and sent him back to Pilate.—Lu 23:1-11.
Pilate now tried to release Jesus in harmony with a custom of that time, but the Jews refused, calling for the release of a seditionist and murderer instead. (Joh 18:38-40) Pilate therefore had Jesus scourged, and the soldiers again mistreated him. After this, Pilate brought Jesus outside and tried to get his release, but the Jews insisted: “Impale him! Impale him!” Finally he issued the order to have Jesus impaled.—Mt 27:15-26; Lu 23:13-25; Joh 19:1-16.
What laws of God did the Jewish priests violate by the way they handled the trial of Jesus Christ?
The following are some of the laws of God that were flagrantly violated by the Jews in the trial of Christ: bribery (De 16:19; 27:25); conspiracy and the perversion of judgment and justice (Ex 23:1, 2, 6, 7; Le 19:15, 35); bearing false witness, in which matter the judges connived (Ex 20:16); letting a murderer (Barabbas) go, thereby bringing bloodguilt upon themselves and upon the land (Nu 35:31-34; De 19:11-13); mob action, or ‘following a crowd to do evil’ (Ex 23:2, 3); in crying out for Jesus to be impaled, they were violating the law that prohibited following the statutes of other nations and that also prescribed no torture but that provided that a criminal be stoned or put to death before being hung on a stake (Le 18:3-5; De 21:22); they accepted as king one not of their own nation, but a pagan (Caesar), and rejected the King whom God had chosen (De 17:14, 15); and finally, they were guilty of murder (Ex 20:13).”–Insight, Vol 2, page 235
Quote (Morning Star @ Feb. 26 2007,03:17) I agree with everything you said, I think. I do not think Jesus was a seperate sentient being before being begotten. Rather God took part of himself in begetting his son. Though he did not diminish in the process. Like the flame of a candle being passed on to another candle.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 26 2007,03:38) That is pretty much how I see it too.
t8/MS,
Am I to assume that you both hold that “God took part of himself in begetting his son” despite an apparent completelack of biblical witness to evidence this….If not…where is it written?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
