Proclaimer vs Lightenup

[Proclaimer]

Yes, that is why I questioned you because you had in the past been claiming belief that He was the son even before creation.

There are some scriptures that tend to support the view that the son of God existed as the son even before being born as the son of God in Bethlehem.

Born as the son:

Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord.

The above scripture also fits under the heading below. So being born the son can also mean that he was already the son and was born into this world as the son. But yes, I can certainly agree that he was the son when he was born as a baby.

Came as the son:

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.…

The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined… For to us a child is born, to us A SON IS GIVEN;

[Lightenup]

@t8

Thank you for those verses. I agree that those verses seem to show that He has always been the Son of God. Seems impossible to send a son if you do not have a son to send and also for the ‘image of  God’ and the ‘firstborn over all creation’ to create all things, He would have to be that ‘image’ and ‘firstborn’ before creation. Those are terms indicating that He was already a son before creation and before He came in the flesh.

Now for this question:

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?

[Proclaimer]

No. I believe that we can also participate in divine nature. Further, we are clearly told in scripture that we will have a body like his even if we are not sure what he looks like. Finally, Jesus calls us brethren. That is of like kind. We are sons as he is the son. The difference between him and his brethren is he is the prototype son.

[Lightenup]

@t8

Thanks for your answer. Do you agree that the Son is the only son who has always had the same nature of the Father?

[Lightenup]

@t8

What is your response to the last question above?

[Lightenup]

@t8

You have a response to the last question, don’t you?

 

[Proclaimer]

Thanks for your answer. Do you agree that the Son is the only son who has always had the same nature of the Father?

We can be sons and participate in divine nature. We are told by Paul (I think) that we will have a body like Jesus has now and he calls us brethren.

He is the son and we are sons.

Of course he is the first and he is the only one that reflects the complete glory of God while we individually reflect in part.

Basically he is the prototype son and firstborn among many,

As for always having the same nature. He emptied himself for a time and came in the flesh. He is now in the glory he had with the Father before the cosmos. Whereas we were born of the flesh and have the opportunity to be born from above. In short, Jesus became one of us so we could be one of him.

[Lightenup]

@t8

You seem to be confused. Jesus is the firstborn of many brethren from death. That is regarding the manhood of Jesus, not His Godhood. Also, He never gives up His original essence to come in the flesh. You have no scriptural backing for that.

[Proclaimer]

You seem to be confused. Jesus is the firstborn of many brethren from death.

Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities.

Let’s see. He is the firstborn of all creation and all things were made through him. When did he die? Before all creation? But yes, he is the firstborn from the dead too. He is in fact both.

And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning AND the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

‘AND’ means that he is both. It doesn’t say ‘OR’. There is not a single choice here. Both statements are true. Further, he is first on other things too.

 

[Lightenup]

@t8

Yes, you are correct that He is both the firstborn over all creation and also the firstborn from among the dead. I am not challenging that. When He became ‘firstborn over all creation’ and when He became ‘firstborn from among the dead’ are two different events separated by many years. He obviously became the firstborn over all creation…before creation. Much later, after He became flesh and then died and was buried, He was resurrected to become the firstborn from among the dead.

As ‘firstborn over all creation’ His essence was and is of the highest order, equal to the Father’s essence. This essence never changed. His form changed when He became flesh to that of a human bondservant but His essence did not change. He emptied Himself in order to become flesh and to be like us, but He did not empty Himself of His essence.

Believers do not become like the Son according to the Son’s divine essence. Believers become like the Son regarding His glorified flesh body and also partake in eternal life but believers do not receive His divine essence. The Son is the prototype in that He was the first to be born from the dead and receive an eternal glorified body. He is not the prototype son to have divine essence as if many sons were also going to gain divine essence after Him. He is the only Son to ever have divine essence. He never emptied Himself of that essence.

You seem to think that He emptied Himself of His divine essence in order to become flesh. Do you think that?

[Proclaimer]

You seem to think that He emptied Himself of His divine essence in order to become flesh. Do you think that?

I think he emptied himself of his former position, place, and power to be born as an innocent baby and grow up learning as he goes as we all do. For sure he learned obedience through this experience, he learned to relate to us in our suffering, and it is nice to know that he understands what we go through. Of course he came here to save us more so than for the personal benefits he received. He came to us as one of us, so we could be one of him. This was all God’s plan.

Whatever Jesus was, he didn’t empty himself of his own person. That would probably be death. He took on a different nature which is our nature. He became a little less than the angels, but in reality was, is, and always was above them. And perhaps he was always able to grasp this at anytime but remained humbled for our sake.

[Lightenup]

Thank you for your response, t8. I agree with some things you said. Although, regarding what He emptied Himself as…I think He emptied Himself of His memories and gave them to the Father for safe keeping. Little by little, Jesus grew in wisdom and received His memory back a portion at a time. Perhaps like if someone volunteered to go into amnesia for the sake of becoming completely clueless as to who they were and their ability to do what they can do.

For example, consider the prince of the country of xyz. What if this prince was kidnapped and beaten up and randomly placed in an undiscovered jungle somewhere. His beatings left him with severe amnesia. He no longer realized that he was the prince of the country xyz and no longer knew about the country xyz or about anything from his past, including his position, place and power or anything at all, like a newborn. Would that make him no longer the prince of the country xyz, NO. He still is the prince of the country xyz, just no one knows it where he is, including himself. Then little by little the prince begins to remember things from his past as he heals until he eventually remembers everything. He grows in wisdom, the wisdom that he had from the past.

That analogy seems reasonable to me. What do you think?

[Proclaimer]

Thank you for your response, t8. I agree with some things you said. Although, regarding what He emptied Himself as…I think He emptied Himself of His memories

Yup, I pretty much hinted at that in being born innocent meaning no prior knowledge but having to learn everything like we do. He may even had to learn who he really was.

🙂

[Lightenup]

@t8

It seems like we agree 🙂 🙂 🙂 on the possibility that the Son emptied Himself of His memory which the Father released back to Him as He grew in wisdom, a portion at a time.

You said:

He may even had to learn who he really was.

Does it seem to you that after Jesus rose and sent the Holy Spirit, that knowledge of who Jesus actually was increased beyond what Jesus said about Himself?

[Proclaimer]

Yes I agree. While Jesus taught his disciples in parables and directly, many things came clear to them after the resurrection.

[Lightenup]

@t8

I noticed that you seem to be unsure that Jesus is the Word of God from what you said here and I noticed that you did not understand what the early church father is saying regarding the Son of God. I would like to help you out here in these regards…

This is what you said:

if Jesus is the Word that was with God etc, this does not make him God. Saying these things does not prove LU’s position even if these points were/are correct. The early Church fathers (pre-Nicene) did not believe Jesus was God, but the Word and that Word was in God as an attribute of God, but was expressed as the first work of the Father. Tatian said this for example:

God was in the beginning, but the beginning, we have been taught, is the power of the Word. For the Lord of the universe, who is Himself the necessary basis of all being, inasmuch as no creature was yet in existence, was alone, but inasmuch as He was all powerful, Himself the necessary ground of things visible and invisible, with Him were all things; with Him, by Word-power, the Word himself also, who was in Him, subsists. And by His simple will the Word sprang forth, and the Word, not coming forth in vain, became the firstbegotten work of the Father . Him [the Word] we know to be the Beginning of the world (cf. Rev. 3:14). But He came into being by participation, not by cutting off, for what is cut off is separated from the original substance, but that which comes by participation, making its choice of function, does not render him deficient from whom it is taken. For just as from one torch many fires are lighted, but the light of the first torch is not lessened by the kindling of many torches, so the Word, coming forth from the Word-Power of the Father, has not divested of the Word-Power Him who begat Him

You say “if” Jesus is the word that was with God. Are you unsure? Please read this:

Rev. 19 11And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. 12His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. 13He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. 15From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. 16And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

The author that you quoted said this, “the Word himself also, who was in Him,” please note that the author who said the Lord of the universe was alone, i.e. not accompanied by creation, and while He was alone, He had the Word HIMSELF in Him. The author is making a point of saying that before creation, the Word was himself (as opposed to ‘itself’) IN HIM.  The Word Himself was in God and at some point before creation, was begotten from Him. See the words that I have made red in what you were quoting. This is exactly what I have been saying also. The Word is a person, not an attribute as you say, and that this person was existing within the Father before He was begotten from the Father. Let your own quoted words teach you.

[Proclaimer]

Yes I do believe he is the Word of God that was with God. But I am open to a different understanding because I would like to think I am teachable and can accept a teaching if proven by scripture.

[Proclaimer]

The author that you quoted said this, “the Word himself also, who was in Him,” please note that the author who said the Lord of the universe was alone, i.e. not accompanied by creation, and while He was alone, He had the Word HIMSELF in Him. The author is making a point of saying that before creation, the Word was himself (as opposed to ‘itself’) IN HIM.

The logos was and is an attribute of God just as wisdom, life, light, and truth are. The fact that Jesus is those things show that he was begotten of God himself and is the expression of the invisible God. It doesn’t make him God, but of God.

Likewise I believe each one of us who is begotten is also born of him and will shine certain attributes of God. We get a name that is given to us that only we and God know. Names are important because they describe and title us and who we are. While we may call our kids with a name like Grace because we like the sound of it or in honour of another person, that doesn’t make Grace God just because grace is in God. If God called someone Grace, then it is because he begat and personified that particular attribute of himself in that person. Likewise we see many of the disciples including Paul being given new names that probably reflected who they were to become.

[Lightenup]

@t8

You seem to believe that attributes, when begotten of God become living entites who are referred to as sons of God. You seem to believe that the difference between Jesus and all the other sons of God is that he was the first to be begotten before all the other sons. You seem to say that it was the act of ‘begetting’ that made him a son. Is that correct?

I believe that the Son of God was always a living entity even before He was begotten. You seem to say that the Son of God became a living entity AFTER he was begotten.

Here is something to think about…even you and I were living entities for about 9 months BEFORE we were begotten (born) from the womb, t8. You still do not understand the term ‘begotten.’ Begotten does not mean that something begins to exist as if it did not exist n a living way before it was begotten.

As I said in another thread, There was never a time when the Son was not. That is a big difference between created beings as sons and Jesus as a son. Regarding created sons, there WAS a time when the created sons were NOT.

1 John 1 tells us that even from the beginning, Jesus was the eternal life with God. That alone goes against your view if you believe there was a time when Jesus became a living entity, and before that he did not exist in a living way.

Also, you said:

The logos was and is an attribute of God…

Jesus is not just a word of God or a bunch of attributes of God that became alive and called a son. Jesus is the Word ‘of life’ and that life was eternally with the Father.

The Word (logos) of life:

1 John 1What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. 4These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.

I really would like to know how differently you would think of Jesus if you believed that there never was a time when the son was NOT. That really is the difference between you and I.

[Proclaimer]

You seem to believe that attributes, when begotten of God become living entites who are referred to as sons of God.

When God creates and begats, from what and where do these living creatures come from. They come from him and he is living and has attributes. Of course he shares his nature and he shares his attributes. That is obvious. And he gives each a measure that we are responsible for. Ask yourself, does God create living beings that have attributes that are not of him? The truth is the lack of godly attributes is due to our fallen nature. Dod commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. We seem to have got the second part right, but the first has suffered due to our fallen nature.

God created man in his own image. So if we are a reflection of him, then what is it that God is? He is love, he is wise, he creates order out of chaos. Some of us have a stronger sense of truth, justice, charity, joy, etc than others. Did we come up with these attributes ourselves or were they imputed by God. Even as a fallen race, we still show these attributes in differing measures. We are not all the same, but are a different combination of attributes that originally came from God. Our names are meant to reflect that which we are. A name known to us and God.

To the one who is victorious, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give that person a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to the one who receives it.

[Author]

Posts