- This topic has 713 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
@t8
Hi there my friend,
I am going to assume that you understand the words that the Father spoke “Today I have begotten thee” refer to the day of the resurrection since you haven’t disputed this.
I also assume that you would agree that the begettal referred to in regards to that resurrection day, was a “work” of the Father. I think that is obvious.
I also assume that you would agree that the Son existed before that particular “work” was done, i.e. the Son existed before the resurrection day. That begettal (that work) earned the Son the title of “Firstborn from the dead.” Read carefully…in order to beget someone, that someone must already exist before the begetting. Even your own sons existed before their begetting. They existed for about 9 months before they were begotten. I assume that you agree that first your sons were conceived and months later they were begotten. Conceived is not the same word as begotten. Those are two different concepts.
Therefore, if you believe that the begettal of the Logos, (the Son) was the “first” work of the Father and not the “second” work of the Father, the Son had to have always existed eternally in order to have been begotten as the “first” work. If he had to be made and then begotten, the begettal would be the “second” work and the act of making Him would have been the “first” work. Are you getting this??
Furthermore, the begetting of the Son as the “first” work of the Father made the Son His “firstborn” of/over all creation which was to come.
I trust you are following this and taking time to really think about this.
Now in order to further explain how the Son is really a “son” even though He always existed, and not someone just designated as the son, I will use the common expression “with child.” I’m not sure this expression is used in New Zealand but if a person is “with child” that would mean that the person was pregnant, i.e. another person was inside them as their very own son or daughter.
I believe that the Father was “with child” eternally before the cosmos and then He (the Son) was begotten as the Father’s first work, i.e. another person was inside of the Father as a son. Two persons eternally existed; one within the other. The one within, would be the son of the other one. Regarding the Holy Spirit, they each eternally had within them their spirit and their two spirits have always been united as one because they are and always have been perfect. Eternally there has always been the Father, Son and their united Holy Spirit.
The NT scriptures tell us that for us there is one God, the Father and one Lord-the Lord Jesus Christ. The OT tells us that YHVH is both the God of gods and the Lord of lords. The Father and Son together with their Holy Spirit are unitedly YHVH, the God of Israel. That is why there can be a single pronoun used for them at times in scriptures and a plural pronoun used at other times. The persons of this holy unity act towards a common purpose and speak as one voice in the OT. One of the persons has always been invisible to the earthly human beings and the other person has at times appeared to the earthly human beings. Their united spirit fills the human beings that believe in Jesus as their Lord.
Ask yourself this:
If the Father was always “with child” before the cosmos and then at one point begat that child, wouldn’t that mean that there were two eternal persons? And if there were two eternal persons, shouldn’t both of them, together, be regarded as God to us and not just one of them?
In summary…the Son must be eternal if His begettal was the FIRST work of God the Father and not the SECOND work of God the Father. A person’s existence is a prerequisite to the act of their begettal. The Son pre-existed His begettal. The begettal was the FIRST work not the SECOND. Therefore, He was not made before He was begotten. He eternally existed before He was begotten.
Blessings!
@t8
No response, from you? I assume that you understand that the Son must exist before He can be begotten?
@t8
It has been almost a month since I posted my response to your post. Are you beginning to understand that you don’t have sufficient arguments to support your opinion that the Son wasn’t eternal in the past?
Saying that the son was eternal in the past is basically saying he is not the son but a second eternal God with another one called the Father.
And then you have to ask yourself why they are called Father and Son. If they are co-equal and eternal, then they are eternal friends, not Father and Son.
Of course, I believe that Jesus is the son of God and not a co-equal and eternal partner who combined could be called the Binity. That would be ridiculous..
Built into the meaning of ‘Father’ is ‘originator’ and built into the meaning of ‘son’ is ‘offspring’.
It is amazing how many devilish doctrines there are out there that deny these most basic of truths that all can understand. I suppose the Devil knows that if you repeat a lie ling enough, that some people will accept it after a while. We have had centuries of these repeated lies and the world is under his sway and confused and deluded.
In fact so good a liar is he that if it were possible, then the elect would also be deceived.
But some will hold onto the truth because they will be sustained by the Spirit of God. That spirit is the Spirit of Truth.
I am going to assume that you understand the words that the Father spoke “Today I have begotten thee” refer to the day of theresurrection since you haven’t disputed this.
Do not assume this.
The Word came from God. The Word then became flesh. Jesus was then resurrected and now has a body of which we believers will also inherit.
There are three stages here in linear order. Of which this verse is exactly referencing I am not sure to be honest. But this changes the truth not.
Therefore, if you believe that the begettal of the Logos, (the Son) was the “first” work of the Father and not the “second” work of the Father, the Son had to have always existed eternally in order to have been begotten as the “first” work. If he had to be made and then begotten, the begettal would be the “second” work and the act of making Him would have been the “first” work. Are you getting this??
This makes no sense. The Word came from God and was with God, but was originally part of God. Same for truth, wisdom, light, etc.
A son is like his father. The son is the image of his Father.
The Word was with God in the beginning. The Word became flesh and was called Jesus. He was born the messiah, savior, and Lord. He was the son of God at his birth in a manger. So he was the son at this point in the least.
In summary…the Son must be eternal if His begettal was the FIRST work of God the Father and not the SECOND work of God the Father. A person’s existence is a prerequisite to the act of their begettal. The Son pre-existed His begettal. The begettal was the FIRST work not the SECOND. Therefore, He was not made before He was begotten. He eternally existed before He was begotten.
He was born the son of God in a manger. He was the Word that was with God before that. He is now back with God in the glory he had with him way before his birth as Jesus. In fact even before the cosmos.
@t8
So, now are you saying that Jesus was not a “son” when He was the Word of the LORD in the OT? I disagree. I believe that the one who called Himself the “Word of the LORD” was the true Son and existed before creation. Later that Word who was “with” God in the beginning and “was” God, did not consider this form “of God” something to be grasped but came in the form of flesh even as a bondservant. He gave up His glory which He had with God the Father before creation to come here to save us.
He was not an attribute in the beginning, He was a son even back then. The Heavenly Father has a son of the same type as Himself. He was not adopted.
Believers will never be that type of son, i.e. one that is the same type as the Heavenly Father, we are a human type.
So, now are you saying that Jesus was not a “son” when He was the Word of the LORD in the OT?
That is a desperate statement LU.
If I said that Jesus was the truth would that nullify that he was the son of God?
No.
So it is if I say Jesus is something else as well.
He can be called and be more than one thing. Pretty obvious, but I know you know that. Hence why I spoke the truth about your post being a desperate one.
You haven’t said anything in Heaven Net so far for me to take you seriously.
@t8
My comment was not desperate, it was in response to your comment here (particularly what I made bold)
The Word was with God in the beginning. The Word became flesh and was called Jesus. He was born the messiah, savior, and Lord. He was the son of God at his birth in a manger. So he was the son at this point in the least.
It was because you said that he was the son at that point (in the manger)” in the least,” that I see your lack of confidence in the belief that he was the son even before the manger and therefore before creation. That is why I asked if you now believe he was not a son before the manger. Those were your words, t8. OWN IT! I didn’t make it up as some desperate plot.
It was because you said that he was the son at that point (in the manger)” in the least,” that I see your lack of confidence in the belief that he was the son even before the manger and therefore before creation.
I can prove in scripture that he was born the son of God in Bethlehem. Not sure I can pull out a clear scripture that calls him the son of God before that. Although there are verses that could allude to that.
But certainly do not deny it even if he was the Word. Why do people think when you say something that it automatically also means you deny something else. I think that is either silly or intentionally designed to make the opponent’s argument look a little silly. To me that is a desperate challenge and not completely an honest one.
That’s my point. That is why I asked. It was a reasonable follow up question to your comment, not something that should be called ‘desperate’ by any means. Thank you for clarifying that you aren’t sure if you believe that He was a son before creation.
The Word was with God in the beginning. The Word became flesh and was called Jesus. He was born the messiah, savior, and Lord. He was the son of God at his birth in a manger. So he was the son at this point in the least.
Does this not mean to you that he was the son of God at that point and possibly earlier?
I believe that he was begotten by God as the first to be with him. He was the Word that was with God and came in the flesh. His unique birth on Earth certainly qualifies him as the son of God and I think even Adam was called that.. But we are also told that One will go forth who will be ruler in Israel and who his goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity.
So you don’t deny that he may have been a son before creation, you just don’t think that scripture can alone, make that clear.
I’m sure that we lack so much in reading the Bible without the understanding of the Hebrews of the day. I do believe that they had the “Word of YHVH” in mind when John wrote John 1:1. Their understanding of the “Word of YHVH” was YHVH in a perculiar way of which could be seen yet they did not die from seeing it from what we learn from the Targums. (This CAN be substantiated in the Targums, btw).
t8, you asked:
Does this not mean to you that he was the son of God at that point and possibly earlier?
Yes, that is why I questioned you because you had in the past been claiming belief that He was the son even before creation. That comment did not have much faith behind it, just that it was “possible.”
It is by faith in what I experienced and then heard in my ear many years ago that led me to have a strong conviction that Jesus has always been a true son and of the same type as His Father. I asked God to show me what was meant by the term “firstborn of all creation.” The experience which followed that is why I believe so strongly today that Jesus has always been a son. I know this truth by faith. The Holy Spirit revealed this to me.
you said:
I believe that he was begotten by God as the first to be with him.
I agree. What I have tried to explain to you recently is that he must have already existed in some manner in order to have been begotten. This is my belief…a thing has to exist before it can be begotten. Would you agree with that?
@t8
I see that you have not answered my last question here dated September 8. Please answer that here so I don’t have to send you to the hot seat again. After you answer that last question above this post, you can answer this question regarding your response which I will paste here:
My question to you was:
Please tell me which way you understand the sonship of Jesus before He became a man:
He was the same type of being as his father. For example, Joseph was the same type of being as his father, Jacob.
He was a different type of being than his father. For example, an angel is a different type of being than the Father.
Other, please explain.
Your response almost 5 weeks later: “My guess is 1.” And furthermore you said: “I believe that the son is the image of the Father. He has his nature.” From here: https://heavennet.net/forums/topic/t8-vs-lightenup-2/#post-818428
Since you agree that the Son is the image of the Father and that the Son has the Father’s nature, do you believe that the Son who becomes Jesus, is the only son that has the same nature as the Heavenly Father?
Please answer those two questions.
Thank you t8!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
