- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 30 2012,21:58) Pierre,
Christ emptied Himself before He became flesh. It doesn't tell us what He emptied Himself of but we are told that He hoped to receive back the glory that He had shared with His Father before the foundation of the world. He emptied Himself of whatever was necessary to become a man. He didn't stop being Himself though, He just emptied Himself, of what exactly, we don't know.He had powers of His own, He just refrained from using them in order to be like regular men who were dependent on the power of God in heaven.
KQuote He had powers of His own, He just refrained from using them in order to be like regular men who were dependent on the power of God in heaven. this is your personal opinion
Quote He chose to limit Himself, that is not a defect but an act of heroism.
Kathi is it really that heroic or that great of an accomplishment if a God become man did what Jesus the man actually did?
Many gods have done heroic things in the form of man or so many of the ancients believed.So the God Jesus left glory, assumed human flesh,did some miracles,pretended to trust in another God,which he really didn't need to do,died a martyrs death,raised his body and returned to glory where he'd always been:it's a nice story but is it really that big of a deal for a God to do this?
You think that by limiting himself it means he chose to trust in his fellow God? Remember they are co-equals,so as God and immutable and unchanging one is truly never greater than the other.Yet one chose to be less than the other-humbled himself-but the reality is one can't be less than the other.So how can one true God be subject to another true God? The only way is if one chooses to pretend to be subject to the other.So when Jesus says “my Father is greater than I” that can in no way be true except according to a script.In the same way when he says”I ascend to my Father and your Father”,that can't really be true.The Father is just a role another co-equal God is playing.The reality is Jesus doesn't have a father and the Father doesn't have a son since they are both uncreated eternal Gods.Father and Son don't really exist except in name like Forrest Gump doesn't really exist but Tom Hanks really exists.So just who are these gods behind the scenes?
And who was it that died on the cross? did anyone really die at all? If the only true God can't die,and the other only true God can't die, and the other only true God can't die,then who did? According to the doctrine of the trinity I would have to say God the Son is the one who pretended to humble himself and also pretended to die.Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 30 2012,13:32) If Adam named his son Adam instead of Cain, your example falls flat.
Now you are just been plain silly I think, or maybe you are really that blind. I don't know.Surely you would distinguish Adam from Adam by saying something like Adam senior. You see they would be 2 different identities. Only one can be Adam (the first man) in identity. All men are adam. This subtle difference between Adam (Eve's husband) and adam is actually huge. Over 10 billion adams, but only one Adam who was the first man.
Technically speaking I should mention that we have a second Adam before you make a similar comment. However, the second Adam was not the first Adam. They are not the same identity or person. But they are/were both adam, i.e., part of mankind.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 29 2012,12:59) Quote (t8 @ Sep. 27 2012,22:33) But the wise of the world do not like childlike faith and childlike and simple interpretations. No they have to make everything complicated so that they feel that they are the only ones who understand and then you have to go to them for knowledge.
Wonderfully put, t8.
Thanks Mike. It amazes me the arrogance of the pride to complicate that which God has given us, so that they can draw men away from Christ and unto themselves.Who in their right mind would compete with Jesus for his own disciples in order to make them their own.
Just plain arrogance, ignorance, and pride. There is no other word for it. Their reward is that God hands them over to their own delusion to become fools. Their puffed up image of themselves and their so-called revelations and knowledge are not the same truthful image that they actually are.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 29 2012,13:14) Cain was the very adam of very adam, too. But he wasn't the very Adam of very Adam, was he?
True Mike.It will be interesting to see what delusion will be put up as a defense as to why this is wrong.
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 29 2012,11:29) A literal begotten Son of God would be the very God of very God/the very God begotten of very God…like begets like…the only begotten God. 'Like begets like' is so easy to understand, children have no problem with this, why do some adults on here have problems with this.
Let's do a little exercise to show where you are failing.- I will replace God with Adam in your paragraph.
- I will then spell it out as it should so that it matches scripture.
- A literal begotten Son of Adam would be the very Adam of very Adam/the very Adam begotten of very Adam…like begets like…the only begotten Adam.
- A literal begotten Son of Adam would be the very adam of very Adam/the very adam begotten of very Adam…like begets like…the only begotten adam.
The latter is correct and the former is wrong. Now learn something from this. You make the same error as the first one. Do you have ears to hear this. Do you have eyes to see this. If not, you need a physician. But no ordinary physician.
Quote (AndrewAD @ Sep. 30 2012,22:11) Quote He chose to limit Himself, that is not a defect but an act of heroism.
Kathi is it really that heroic or that great of an accomplishment if a God become man did what Jesus the man actually did?
Many gods have done heroic things in the form of man or so many of the ancients believed.So the God Jesus left glory, assumed human flesh,did some miracles,pretended to trust in another God,which he really didn't need to do,died a martyrs death,raised his body and returned to glory where he'd always been:it's a nice story but is it really that big of a deal for a God to do this?
You think that by limiting himself it means he chose to trust in his fellow God? Remember they are co-equals,so as God and immutable and unchanging one is truly never greater than the other.Yet one chose to be less than the other-humbled himself-but the reality is one can't be less than the other.So how can one true God be subject to another true God? The only way is if one chooses to pretend to be subject to the other.So when Jesus says “my Father is greater than I” that can in no way be true except according to a script.In the same way when he says”I ascend to my Father and your Father”,that can't really be true.The Father is just a role another co-equal God is playing.The reality is Jesus doesn't have a father and the Father doesn't have a son since they are both uncreated eternal Gods.Father and Son don't really exist except in name like Forrest Gump doesn't really exist but Tom Hanks really exists.So just who are these gods behind the scenes?
And who was it that died on the cross? did anyone really die at all? If the only true God can't die,and the other only true God can't die, and the other only true God can't die,then who did? According to the doctrine of the trinity I would have to say God the Son is the one who pretended to humble himself and also pretended to die.
Blessings and peace to you Kathi,
I was hoping to show to you by this little illustration how that by making Jesus equal to His Father what it really does in effect is make them both out to be imposters.It really makes them untrue and therefore the gospel and whole bible untrue.
I know it's caused me much confusion through the years and have gone many years without reading the bible even when I was going to church.I praise God now because I know He is being gracious to me.I know in my heart He's shown me this light.I certainly don't pretend to know much or anything like I ought to know but believe I'm learning.It's only in His Light that we see light and Jesus is really the Light of the world,the Chosen One,the One foreordained by God from the beginning.1Pet1:20
I hope you know that I'm not attacking you but in a sense I am attacking a belief system that I once held dear.I believe it really does blind and hinder Christians and gives the world more cause to ridicule Christ and his church.I'm sure you've probably heard the jokes about God committing suicide;these use to really bother me but in a sense I never could really refute them since the doctrine is truly illogical and nonsense.
Jesus considered not the idea of being equal with God,for He knew that would be robbery.He never was equal and never considered it.Satan did consider it and so did Adam and Eve but our Saviour Jesus never did.Jesus had only one true God and I know He came to show us and bring us that One true God,His Father and our Father.
In Christs Love-AndrewQuote (terraricca @ Sep. 29 2012,23:27) Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 30 2012,21:58)
He had powers of His own, He just refrained from using them in order to be like regular men who were dependent on the power of God in heaven.this is your personal opinion
Agreed.The divider of Christians ;
the true divider is within ourself ,if we are divided it is because we do not have come to the truth of God IN A PURE HEART, and so are still with all of this world ideas and believes that in this way the truth of God is blocked at the door of our hearts and so can not see or change and be saved .
look in the mirror ,of truth and see
Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 30 2012,00:27) Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 30 2012,21:58) Pierre,
Christ emptied Himself before He became flesh. It doesn't tell us what He emptied Himself of but we are told that He hoped to receive back the glory that He had shared with His Father before the foundation of the world. He emptied Himself of whatever was necessary to become a man. He didn't stop being Himself though, He just emptied Himself, of what exactly, we don't know.He had powers of His own, He just refrained from using them in order to be like regular men who were dependent on the power of God in heaven.
KQuote He had powers of His own, He just refrained from using them in order to be like regular men who were dependent on the power of God in heaven. this is your personal opinion
And scripture!Quote (t8 @ Sep. 30 2012,06:49) Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 29 2012,11:29) A literal begotten Son of God would be the very God of very God/the very God begotten of very God…like begets like…the only begotten God. 'Like begets like' is so easy to understand, children have no problem with this, why do some adults on here have problems with this.
Let's do a little exercise to show where you are failing.- I will replace God with Adam in your paragraph.
- I will then spell it out as it should so that it matches scripture.
- A literal begotten Son of Adam would be the very Adam of very Adam/the very Adam begotten of very Adam…like begets like…the only begotten Adam.
- A literal begotten Son of Adam would be the very adam of very Adam/the very adam begotten of very Adam…like begets like…the only begotten adam.
The latter is correct and the former is wrong. Now learn something from this. You make the same error as the first one. Do you have ears to hear this. Do you have eyes to see this. If not, you need a physician. But no ordinary physician.
A literal son of Adam who is also named Adam would be very Adam of very Adam…the son who is very Adam is OF the father who is very Adam.This is not hard, t8.
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 30 2012,05:26) Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 30 2012,13:32) If Adam named his son Adam instead of Cain, your example falls flat.
Now you are just been plain silly I think………….
Apparently, there is no limit to the silliness people will speak in order to keep their flawed, man-made doctrines afloat. What irks me the most is how certain people will PRETEND to not understand a simple concept – because they know the understanding of that concept shows their doctrine to be flawed. (Ed, for example, is a master at this technique.)I am quite sure that Kathi understands the difference between identity and nature. She understands that offspring are often very much LIKE the one who begot them in many ways – but they are not IDENTICAL.
She also understands that saying a begotten son has existed as long as his father has existed completely negates the very meaning of “begotten”, “son”, and “father”.
She understands these things (and many of the other things we bring up to her), but must pretend that she doesn't.
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 30 2012,12:08) A literal son of Adam who is also named Adam would be very Adam of very Adam…the son who is very Adam is OF the father who is very Adam. This is not hard, t8.
Karhi,Will you continue to PRETEND that you don't know what we're saying?
You are talking about NAMES, which is not the same as identity when two or more are named the same thing. That's why, as t8 pointed out before, we use names like “Adam Junior”, or “Adam Senior”, or “Adam the First”, or “Adam the Younger”, etc.
Kathi, think about the wording “very God OF very God”. One of those “Gods” is OF the other one. Is God Almighty OF anyone, in the “came from” sense that the word “of” means in this case? (I'd like a simple YES or NO to this question, please.)
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 30 2012,06:26) Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 30 2012,13:32) If Adam named his son Adam instead of Cain, your example falls flat.
Now you are just been plain silly I think, or maybe you are really that blind. I don't know.Surely you would distinguish Adam from Adam by saying something like Adam senior. You see they would be 2 different identities. Only one can be Adam (the first man) in identity. All men are adam. This subtle difference between Adam (Eve's husband) and adam is actually huge. Over 10 billion adams, but only one Adam who was the first man.
Technically speaking I should mention that we have a second Adam before you make a similar comment. However, the second Adam was not the first Adam. They are not the same identity or person. But they are/were both adam, i.e., part of mankind.
t8,
you say:Quote Surely you would distinguish Adam from Adam by saying something like Adam senior. You see they would be 2 different identities. Only one can be Adam (the first man) in identity. All men are adam. This subtle difference between Adam (Eve's husband) and adam is actually huge. Over 10 billion adams, but only one Adam who was the first man. If Adam had a son named Adam and one Adam was said to be 'of' the other Adam, you should be able to know that the one 'of' the other would be the son Adam, right? Context often clears up things like this. The NT doesn't use the word 'senior' but calls one Father and one Son or one God and one Lord to make the distinction. Sometimes the NT adds 'Jesus Christ' to 'our God and Savior' to bring clarity that He is the God and Savior being spoken about in the context.
Your example of Adam/adam does fall flat if his son was named Adam also. See this:
If Adam named his son Adam, they would both be adam and both be Adam, but not both be the father Adam, nor would both be the son Adam. Nevertheless, both would be equally Adam and adam. Get it? One would be the first Adam/adam and one would the second Adam/adam yet both equally Adam and adam. One being first doesn't make one a better Adam or adam. The first Adam would be greater than the second Adam only because the first one would be the second Adam's father and hence authority over the second Adam, but both Adams would equally be Adam and also equally be adam.
Your example of Adam/adam really isn't a comparative example though any how, since God is not a name like Adam is but instead a person/being/presence or whatever that carries the attributes of, let's just call them 'xyz.' Certain attributes, 'xyz,' are required to be God, 'capital G.' I believe that both the Father AND the Son have those attributes.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 30 2012,14:10) Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 30 2012,12:08) A literal son of Adam who is also named Adam would be very Adam of very Adam…the son who is very Adam is OF the father who is very Adam. This is not hard, t8.
Karhi,Will you continue to PRETEND that you don't know what we're saying?
You are talking about NAMES, which is not the same as identity when two or more are named the same thing. That's why, as t8 pointed out before, we use names like “Adam Junior”, or “Adam Senior”, or “Adam the First”, or “Adam the Younger”, etc.
Kathi, think about the wording “very God OF very God”. One of those “Gods” is OF the other one. Is God Almighty OF anyone, in the “came from” sense that the word “of” means in this case? (I'd like a simple YES or NO to this question, please.)
Mike,
That is why one is called the 'only begotten' God and that is why I call one Almighty God THE SON.Depending on the context, the Almighty God could be the Son or the Father. In the context that you are asking about, the one 'of' the other would not be Almighty God as the Father but would be Almighty God as the Son.
A simple 'yes' or 'no' does not bring a clear understanding of my thoughts Mike.
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 30 2012,13:10) If Adam named his son Adam, they would both be adam and both be Adam, but not both be the father Adam, nor would both be the son Adam. Nevertheless, both would be equally Adam and adam. Get it?
And if we were told that the First Adam has existed from eternity, would this mean the Second Adam – the one the first Adam begot at some time – has also existed from eternity? NO.If we were told that the First Adam created all things, would this mean the Second Adam also created all things? NO.
But these are some of the things you are claiming to be true in the case of Jesus and his God. And what's worse, you claim these things without one shred of scriptural evidence to support your claims. Kathi, we can't just imagine the way we would LIKE things to be, and then PREACH it to others as if it were gospel.
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 30 2012,13:10) Certain attributes, 'xyz,' are required to be God, 'capital G.' I believe that both the Father AND the Son have those attributes.
Once again, it is okay if you feel better believing these things, despite scriptural commentary to the contrary………….. just don't go around PREACHING things for which you have no scriptural support.Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 30 2012,13:19) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 30 2012,14:10) Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 30 2012,12:08) A literal son of Adam who is also named Adam would be very Adam of very Adam…the son who is very Adam is OF the father who is very Adam. This is not hard, t8.
Karhi,Will you continue to PRETEND that you don't know what we're saying?
You are talking about NAMES, which is not the same as identity when two or more are named the same thing. That's why, as t8 pointed out before, we use names like “Adam Junior”, or “Adam Senior”, or “Adam the First”, or “Adam the Younger”, etc.
Kathi, think about the wording “very God OF very God”. One of those “Gods” is OF the other one. Is God Almighty OF anyone, in the “came from” sense that the word “of” means in this case? (I'd like a simple YES or NO to this question, please.)
Mike,
That is why one is called the 'only begotten' God and that is why I call one Almighty God THE SON.Depending on the context, the Almighty God could be the Son or the Father. In the context that you are asking about, the one 'of' the other would not be Almighty God as the Father but would be Almighty God as the Son.
A simple 'yes' or 'no' does not bring a clear understanding of my thoughts Mike.
Hmmmm……………….So ONE Almighty God is NOT “of” anyone, but our OTHER Almighty God is?
Kathi, that makes TWO Almighty Gods, right? Yet the word “Almighty”, in and of itself, precludes TWO being “Almighty”. Oh, and the scriptures only ever speak of ONE Almighty God – and His Sacrificial Lamb.
Mike,
you say:Quote She also understands that saying a begotten son has existed as long as his father has existed completely negates the very meaning of “begotten”, “son”, and “father”. When the father is human that is so but the Father of Jesus is not human and you don't seem to take that into consideration.
If God the Father has attributes 'xyz' in His nature and then has a Son who has the exact nature, then the Son has attributes 'xyz' also, whatever those attributes are. One of those attributes would be eternal existence. The Son certainly could have been within the Father eternally before being begotten from within and would have in order to be the exact representation of the Father's nature.
Mike,
you asked:Quote And if we were told that the First Adam has existed from eternity, would this mean the Second Adam – the one the first Adam begot at some time – has also existed from eternity? NO. If the first Adam existed from eternity, then he would be God. If the second Adam was the son of the first Adam and had the exact nature as the first Adam, then the son would have existed from eternity also and be God also but as a son eternally existing within the first Adam.
Quote If we were told that the First Adam created all things, would this mean the Second Adam also created all things? NO. Yes, if we were also told that nothing was created apart from the second Adam.
Quote Once again, it is okay if you feel better believing these things, despite scriptural commentary to the contrary………….. just don't go around PREACHING things for which you have no scriptural support. I can provide scripture and typically do. What specifically do you need scripture on?
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 01 2012,12:03) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 30 2012,00:27) Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 30 2012,21:58) Pierre,
Christ emptied Himself before He became flesh. It doesn't tell us what He emptied Himself of but we are told that He hoped to receive back the glory that He had shared with His Father before the foundation of the world. He emptied Himself of whatever was necessary to become a man. He didn't stop being Himself though, He just emptied Himself, of what exactly, we don't know.He had powers of His own, He just refrained from using them in order to be like regular men who were dependent on the power of God in heaven.
KQuote He had powers of His own, He just refrained from using them in order to be like regular men who were dependent on the power of God in heaven. this is your personal opinion
And scripture!
kwhat scriptures???
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
