Proclaimer vs Lightenup

[Lightenup]

Is Jesus called “Adam” and also the son of “Adam”?

1 Cor 15:45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being;” the last Adam a life-giving spirit.

Can’t the Father and the Son both have the same proper name and the same nature or can they just have the same nature?

[Proclaimer]

You are suffering from a classic case of nature vs identity confusion.

Jesus is not Adam (the first man), he is however the final Adam (another identity).

If he came in the flesh and became adam, then that does not make him Adam (Eve’s husband).

Nature and identity are different.

If you can grasp that, then you will have way less questions to ask and you won’t need to invent doctrines to explain things. It will become crystal clear.

[Lightenup]

You seem to not be able to grasp the idea that one identity can give his name to another identity resulting in two identities with one name.

YHVH the Father has given His name to His son who is the YHVH that laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of His hands. Heb 1:10

[Proclaimer]

I can grasp the idea. I dont see any support for it. Likewise, I can grasp the flat earth, I just believe that is wrong too.

[Lightenup]

@Proclaimer

reposted for your convenience, please answer:

Proclaimer,

You said:

You either believe or you don’t. Fine.
So, what do YOU proclaim, Proclaimer? Do you think that God could produce a “biological” son, one that comes through some sort of an asexual reproductive process and in that manner the son is the actual, literal offspring of God? If yes, do you think that the pre-existent Son who all things were created through came that way? If no, why not?

[Lightenup]

@Proclaimer

Third time reposted for your convenience, please answer:

Proclaimer,

You said:

You either believe or you don’t. Fine.
So, what do YOU proclaim, Proclaimer? Do you think that God could produce a “biological” son, one that comes through some sort of an asexual reproductive process and in that manner the son is the actual, literal offspring of God? If yes, do you think that the pre-existent Son who all things were created through came that way? If no, why not?

[Lightenup]

@Proclaimer

Fourth time reposted for your convenience, please answer:

Proclaimer,

You said:

You either believe or you don’t. Fine.
So, what do YOU proclaim, Proclaimer? Do you think that God could produce a “biological” son, one that comes through some sort of an asexual reproductive process and in that manner the son is the actual, literal offspring of God? If yes, do you think that the pre-existent Son who all things were created through came that way? If no, why not?

[Proclaimer]

God can produce a son and many sons. He is the Father of Spirits.

God is Spirit. He begets spirit beings.

And if you think about it. Someone had to be first.

Someone was first to be with God.

And that is the Word of God that was with God in the beginning.

He later came in the flesh, but is now in the glory he had with the Father before the cosmos.

If the Word that was with God was not the first to be with God, then who was?

But I will let Justin Martyr explain it.

And when we say also that the Word, who is the firstborn of God, was brought forth without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven.

Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten.

For what is called by the Divine Spirit through the prophet “his robe,” are those men who believe in him in whom abides the seed of God, the Word. And what is spoken of as “the blood of the grape,” signifies that he who should appear would have blood, though not of the seed of man, but of the power of God. And the first power after God the Father and Lord of all is the Word, who is also the Son; and of Him we will, in what follows, relate how He took flesh and became man.

[Proclaimer]

Can’t the Father and the Son both have the same proper name and the same nature or can they just have the same nature?

For Believers of which I am one, we are qualified in our belief of one God the Father, and another that he made lord, the Lord Jesus Christ.

So it makes no difference about asking questions about them being the same nature and having the same name etc.

One is God and the other was made Lord by that God.

And before you go on about God being Lord too and then spinning a binity formula of some kind, the context here is that there one unique Most High God and another we know as Jesus who God made lord over all his kingdom, (except himself of course). Just like Pharaoh made Joseph lord over his kingdom, Jesus is Lord over God’s kingdom.

God and Lord are words that have been chosen to represent their power and authority. In this context, God is greater than Lord. And of course, if we get technical about it, of course God would be a lord.

But think of it like God is light and we can be the light of the world. One is greater, the other begotten.

[Lightenup]

Thanks Proclaimer, I agree with most of what you said. I’m not sure if you agree with what Justin Martyr said here:

Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten.

Do you agree that Jesus is the only proper Son and all other beings called “sons” are not proper sons but instead created sons? And what specifically do you think that means, to be a “proper son” of God?

[Lightenup]

Proclaimer,

Here is what I found about the definition of “proper” in the KJV dictionary:

KJV Dictionary Definition: proper
proper
PROP’ER, a. L. proprius, supposed to be allied to prope, near.

1. Peculiar; naturally or essentially belonging to a person or thing; not common. That is not proper, which is common to many. Every animal has his proper instincts and inclinations, appetites and habits. Every muscle and vessel of the body has its proper office. Every art has it proper rules. Creation is the proper work of an Almighty Being.

2. Particularly suited to. Every animal lives in his proper element.

3. One’s own. It may be joined with any possessive pronoun; as our proper son.

It seems to me that God’s only begotten son was an only true offspring of God containing God’s eternal essence and eternal life. An offspring would come by an act of reproduction in the asexual manner in this case which would disqualify it from being a “prototype” son if that only happened once which therefore sets the Son apart as the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. Any thoughts?

I do think that Justin Martyr would agree to this.

150 AD Justin Martyr “God speaks in the creation of man with the very same design, in the following words: ‘Let us make man after our image and likeness’ . . . I shall quote again the words narrated by Moses himself, from which we can indisputably learn that [God] conversed with someone numerically distinct from himself and also a rational being. . . . But this Offspring who was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with him” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 62).

[Proclaimer]

Do you agree that Jesus is the only proper Son and all other beings called “sons” are not proper sons but instead created sons? And what specifically do you think that means, to be a “proper son” of God?

I would say that he came directly from God. Whereas creation came from God through the Word.

And what you quote from Justin seems right. I glanced through it.

Of course the son would be the image of the Father.

Although he existed in the FORM of God, he emptied himself and came in the flesh. He is now in the glory he had with the Father before the cosmos.

Many err in that they say he is just a man who started life 2000 or so years ago. Or they say that he is God and as old as God.

Eternal life means you have life forever. It doesn’t necessarily mean you have existed forever in the past.

God > Word / Son / Christ > Man and creation.

Too many put the Son at the level of man or the level of God himself. That is wrong.

And if you argue against the scripture, then that is your prerogative.

I just don’t recommend doing that.

[Lightenup]

Thanks for your reply, Proclaimer.

You said:

Or they say that he is God and as old as God.

150 AD Justin Martyr “The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God, is even God.” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 63)
150 AD Justin Martyr “Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts.” (Dialogue with Trypho, ch, 36)

150 AD Justin Martyr “But if you knew, Trypho,” continued I, “who He is that is called at one time the Angel of great counsel, and a Man by Ezekiel, and like the Son of man by Daniel, and a Child by Isaiah, and Christ and God to be worshipped by David, and Christ and a Stone by many, and Wisdom by Solomon, and Joseph and Judah and a Star by Moses, and the East by Zechariah, and the Suffering One and Jacob and Israel by Isaiah again, and a Rod, and Flower, and Corner Stone, and Son of God, you would not have blasphemed Him who has now come, and been born, and suffered, and ascended to heaven; who shall also come again, and then your twelve tribes shall mourn. For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God. For Moses says somewhere in Exodus the following: The Lord spake to Moses, and said to him, I am the Lord, and I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, being their God; and my name I revealed not to them, and I established my covenant with them.' And thus again he says,A man wrestled with Jacob,’ and asserts it was God; narrating that Jacob said, `I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'” (Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, A Jew, Chap. CXXVI [See also The First Apology of Justin, Chap. XIII; XXII; LXIII; Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, A Jew, Chap. XXXVI; XLVIII; LVI; LIX; LXI; C; CV; CXXV; CXXVIII)

Proclaimer, is Justin Martyr saying that Jesus was God as the Son of the unbegotten God? Do you believe this?

[Proclaimer]

150 AD Justin Martyr “The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God, is even God.”

I’m pretty sure that he is saying that he is divine or has the nature of God just as John 1 states.

But it seems that many in the years after such writings were confused about the nature vs identity thing.

Origen says this regarding that very subject. He states this:

“Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos (gods), and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked.”.

Full text

“We next notice John’s use of the article [“the”] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article [“the”], and in some he omits it. He adds the article [“the”] to logos, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article [“the”], when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the logos is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article [“the], and theos without it, prevail also between logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As God who is over all is theos with the article [“the”] not without it, so also “the” logos is the source of that logos (reason} which dwells in every reasonable creature; the logos which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence “the” logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos (gods), and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is autotheos (God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know You the only true God; “but that all beyond the autotheos (God) is made theos by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply “the” theos but rather theos. And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other theos (gods) beside Him, of whom “the” theos is “the” theos, as it is written, “The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became (gods), for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made theos gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is ho theos (“the god”), and those who are formed after Him are (gods), images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the ho logos (“the word”) of ho theos (“the god”) , who was in the beginning, and who by being with “the” theos (“God”) is at all times theos (“god”), not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be theos, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.
(Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2)

[Lightenup]

Hi Proclaimer,

You said:

God can produce a son and many sons.

Did the only begotten son come by producing or reproducing? What do you think?

[Lightenup]

???

[Lightenup]

Again…

Hi Proclaimer,

You said:

God can produce a son and many sons.
Did the only begotten son come by producing or reproducing? What do you think?

[Proclaimer]

The Son was begotten by God directly. Whereas  we weren’t. However  the new birth is a begetting from God for us. We are called sons for this reason. It’s a spiritual birth. A new Spirit where we inherit eternal life.

[Lightenup]

Hi Proclaimer,

Thanks for your reply.

You said: The Son was begotten by God directly.

What type of being is the Father and the Son according to your understanding? Are they the same type of being or different? Please explain your answer.

[Lightenup]

Hello Proclaimer,

Second time posted:

You said: The Son was begotten by God directly.

What type of being is the Father and the Son according to your understanding? Are they the same type of being or different? Please explain your answer.

[Author]

Posts