- This topic is empty.
- Posts
For what it is worth, the 2nd century Fathers as they are known believed that Jesus existed as the son of God before coming to this world, (as far as I know).
They seem to acknowledge that he pre-existed as the son, but are also careful to point out that God is the greatest and Most High.
Quote (t8 @ July 18 2010,20:14) For what it is worth, the 2nd century Fathers as they are known believed that Jesus existed as the son of God before coming to this world, (as far as I know). They seem to acknowledge that he pre-existed as the son, but are also careful to point out that God is the greatest and Most High.
Thanks t8. There is a lot of confusion around this area, I accept that.When God started teaching me about the Word of God, He taught it to me this way. It took a bit of getting my head around.
There was the Almighty. The Almighty spoke and His Word went forth to create and the Spirit hovered to sustain.
It's like the Word was what He spoke prophetically and the Word had a life of its own to create that which He was sent to do.
The Spirit on the other hand was likened to the breath from the nostrils, once again going forth from the Father to do His bidding, but having a life of His own as with the Word, yet neither is seperate from the Almighty.
The Word, who was with God and was God, was begotten of God when He was born of Mary. Two things happened then, the Word became flesh and the Almighty became a Father.
When you compare us and God, remembering that we are made in His likeness, it is not hard to see that both God and us are made up of three parts. Each part is individually identifiable, but each part makes up the One. The Father has authority over the Holy Spirit and the Son in much the same way that our soul has authority over our body and spirit.
Oxy,
You are hitting on something I have been trying to show to many in this forum… That the Scriptures is Fractal'. Find a theme in one place and it will be replicated in another in a greater or lesser degree. By this, levels of 'error correction', 'distortion reduction', 'corruption recovery', are directly designed into the Scriptures by God…
Did God not know that man would try ti corrupt his Word. Is God not wise enough to have foerseen that such a mechanism would be required. Do we not put such things in place for systems tha we design. Should we say then that we are wiser than God.Everything required to know God, to Show God, the path to come to God and remain with God, is within the Scriptures, through the Testiment of Christ Jesus.
Who believes this?
Who tries to find the answers in external sources that are every bit as disputable and every other external source. As one uses it as proof, another uses it as disproof, thus making the whole debate pointless.
The only undisputable Truth is in the Scriptures,..
“If you need help,
and you can find them,
then you too call on 'the Holy Spirit' God team'dah di dah, dah dah dahhh!!!
Kathi cited Calvin who said:
Quote This expression, to be begotten, does not therefore imply that he then began to be the Son of God, but that his being so was then made manifest to the world.
Kathi,
Note that Calvin said that the expression “to be begotten DOES NOT THEREFORE IMPLY that He began to be the Son of God.”So we know that Calvin did NOT mean that Jesus had a beginning when he said that Jesus was “begotten before all ages.”
Calvin said that Jesus was begotten at His resurrection and that it referred to His “coronation” as King:
On the word “begotten” in Psalm 2:7 Albert Barnes refers to Calvin and Professor Aklexander:
“The term [only begotten Son] as Calvin suggests, and as maintained by Prof. Alexander, refers here only to His being constituted King – to the act of coronation” (Barnes Notes on Psalms, vol1. p. 20)
Of course Calvin differs from Keith and I on some points but for you to try to pass him off as a non-trinitarian really subtracts from your credibility and puts you down in the same category with Mikeboll.
KJ
Quote (Oxy @ July 18 2010,02:12) Quote (Lightenup @ July 18 2010,20:03) Quote (Oxy @ July 17 2010,23:39) Christ was the firstborn in that He was the first of the actual sons of God to be born. He was born of Mary, begotten of the Father at that time. There is no Scriptural reference to the Word being created, but there is plenty of Scriptural reference to the Word being made flesh as the firstborn of the Father, who incidentally wasn't a father until Christ was born, hence Him (Jesus) being the firstborn.
Hi Oxy,
Don't confuse the Son in the flesh with the firstborn Son that created the world. One was the root of David, the other the offspring of David.
Where is it written that the firstborn Son created the universe?I understand that the Word, whom created the universe preceeded David, but then that very same Word was made flesh and was called Jesus, thus the root of David became the offspring.
Hi Oxy,It is written here:
Col 1:15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
It was by the firstborn, the image of the invisible God that all things were created.
Firstborns are not creations but offsprings. The Son of God is the only begotten offspring of the Most High God and came as the firstborn before the ages and by Him all things in heaven and on earth were created.
Roo,
Where have I passed Calvin off as a non-trinitarian? I only quote him and agree with him as to when the Son of God was begotten before the ages. I would love to talk to Calvin himself. I do believe that Calvin thought the Son of God to be the first cause of the Father and that the Father was the source of the Son and thus a true Son. I think that it is wrong for you to pass yourself off as a trinitarian, btw.Amen Oxy and LU,
Christ began as The Word of God…given it's own life and likened unto as The ONLY begotten of The Father.
Many don't agree but if you read the OT
we have encounters with The Word of God in which takes on a form, interacts with prophets, shows people things, talks and converses and has his own personality?
It's ironic The Word of God in the OT is called that, and not just simply YHVH.
This proves and shows a distinction between YHVH himself, and his word…but both are recognized as God.
—————–
You two are on the right path.It's also rediculous to say they are equal, how can you compare something to itself?
That's like saying, my head is equal to my legs lol
who cares, it's ALL ME!
—————–
Not to mention, we see the Spirit (YHVH The Father) controlling everything…nothing is above him…he is The Almighty.The Word and The Holy Spirit are subject to him.
So if you want to understand who The Source is…it is YHVH The Father.
The Word and Holy Ghost are his driving forces….one is his communication, the other is his personal wisdom that interacts with mankind.
Both, however, are subject to his will…as Jesus was subject to him as a man.
To all,
Is there more than one meaning of 'Firstborn'?
Is there, 'Firstborn' meaning, literally, the first [Male] by birth who is then, by Jewish tradition, the major inheritor of the Father's property.
And is there 'Firstborn' meaning 'to become the one who is the inheritor, to become first in rank among a group of brethrens but not the original literal 'first born by birth', 'to be Begotten'?
Quote (Lightenup @ July 18 2010,21:30) Quote (Oxy @ July 18 2010,02:12) Quote (Lightenup @ July 18 2010,20:03) Quote (Oxy @ July 17 2010,23:39) Christ was the firstborn in that He was the first of the actual sons of God to be born. He was born of Mary, begotten of the Father at that time. There is no Scriptural reference to the Word being created, but there is plenty of Scriptural reference to the Word being made flesh as the firstborn of the Father, who incidentally wasn't a father until Christ was born, hence Him (Jesus) being the firstborn.
Hi Oxy,
Don't confuse the Son in the flesh with the firstborn Son that created the world. One was the root of David, the other the offspring of David.
Where is it written that the firstborn Son created the universe?I understand that the Word, whom created the universe preceeded David, but then that very same Word was made flesh and was called Jesus, thus the root of David became the offspring.
Hi Oxy,It is written here:
Col 1:15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
It was by the firstborn, the image of the invisible God that all things were created.
Firstborns are not creations but offsprings. The Son of God is the only begotten offspring of the Most High God and came as the firstborn before the ages and by Him all things in heaven and on earth were created.
Hi Lightenup.. yes I am aware of that Scripture, but it was prophetic of the Christ to come. He was in the beginning, but not born until born. He is the firstborn in that He is the first begotten of the Father.Quote (Oxy @ July 18 2010,20:29) Quote (Lightenup @ July 18 2010,21:30) Quote (Oxy @ July 18 2010,02:12) Quote (Lightenup @ July 18 2010,20:03) Quote (Oxy @ July 17 2010,23:39) Christ was the firstborn in that He was the first of the actual sons of God to be born. He was born of Mary, begotten of the Father at that time. There is no Scriptural reference to the Word being created, but there is plenty of Scriptural reference to the Word being made flesh as the firstborn of the Father, who incidentally wasn't a father until Christ was born, hence Him (Jesus) being the firstborn.
Hi Oxy,
Don't confuse the Son in the flesh with the firstborn Son that created the world. One was the root of David, the other the offspring of David.
Where is it written that the firstborn Son created the universe?I understand that the Word, whom created the universe preceeded David, but then that very same Word was made flesh and was called Jesus, thus the root of David became the offspring.
Hi Oxy,It is written here:
Col 1:15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
It was by the firstborn, the image of the invisible God that all things were created.
Firstborns are not creations but offsprings. The Son of God is the only begotten offspring of the Most High God and came as the firstborn before the ages and by Him all things in heaven and on earth were created.
Hi Lightenup.. yes I am aware of that Scripture, but it was prophetic of the Christ to come. He was in the beginning, but not born until born. He is the firstborn in that He is the first begotten of the Father.
Firstborn over all creation, for everything was made by him.Sounds more like firstborn as The Word of God as oppose to his fleshy birth.
Quote (Lightenup @ July 18 2010,19:37) Roo,
Where have I passed Calvin off as a non-trinitarian? I only quote him and agree with him as to when the Son of God was begotten before the ages. I would love to talk to Calvin himself. I do believe that Calvin thought the Son of God to be the first cause of the Father and that the Father was the source of the Son and thus a true Son. I think that it is wrong for you to pass yourself off as a trinitarian, btw.
Roo………..Calvin definitely was a trinitarian, he was the murderer of Micheal Servetus who wrote the Book on the Errors of the Trinity. He manipulated and forced the court to execute by slow death by burning Him with Green Wood and making a Crown of sulfur on his head and lighting it so all could watch him slow die , Calvin was nothing more tan a cold blood vanity filled murderer .If anyone doubts this get a copy of OUT OF THE FLAMES, It will show a word for word record of the trial of Micheal Servetus. It still exists today.
John Calvin was no more that another POPE a false teacher of the word of GOD and a Murderer. IMO
peace and love…………………………gene
Quote (Oxy @ July 18 2010,20:29) Hi Lightenup.. yes I am aware of that Scripture, but it was prophetic of the Christ to come.
Hi Oxy,I don't understand how Col 1:15 could be prophetic of the Christ to come if it was written AFTER he came and AFTER all things were created.
mike
Quote (JustAskin @ July 18 2010,20:10) To all, Is there more than one meaning of 'Firstborn'?
Is there, 'Firstborn' meaning, literally, the first [Male] by birth who is then, by Jewish tradition, the major inheritor of the Father's property.
And is there 'Firstborn' meaning 'to become the one who is the inheritor, to become first in rank among a group of brethrens but not the original literal 'first born by birth', 'to be Begotten'?
Hi JA,Your first definition is correct. Your second only implies the the “ONE WHO WAS LITERALLY BORN FIRST HAD HIS RIGHTS PASSED ON TO ONE WHO WASN'T”.
It doesn't change what “firstborn” means just because another inherited the rights of that “firstborn” one.
mike
Martin R. Vincent D.D. on the word “Today” in Hebrews 1:5
Quote First quotation from Ps. ii 7. The Psalm is addressed as a congratulatory ode to a king of Judah, delcaring his coming triumph over the surrounding nations, and calling on them to render homage to the God of Israel. The king is called Son of Jahveh, and is said to be “begotten” on the day on which he is publically recognized as king.
Vincent on the phrase “I have begotten you”Quote Recognized thee publically as sovereign; ESTABLISHED THEE IN AN OFFIFIAL SONSHIP-RELATION. This official installation appears to have its N.T. counterpart in the resurrection of Christ. In Acts xiii. 33, this is distinctly asserted; and Rom. 1:4, Paul says that Christ “powerfully declared” to be the Son of God by the resurrection of the dead. Comp Col. i. 18
Excerpts taken from Vincent's Word Studies in the new Testament, page 387, Hendrickson PublishersThe New testament is unmistakeably clear that Jesus was “begotten,” that is, He assumed His OFFICE as King-Son AT HIS RESURRECTION.
the Roo
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 19 2010,04:19) The New testament is unmistakeably clear that Jesus was “begotten,” that is, He assumed His OFFICE as King-Son AT HIS RESURRECTION.
KJ,Do you ever just sit back away from yourself and listen to the crap you spew? Do you ever even consider how much you must butcher God's word to make your doctrine seem plausible? It's ridiculous the lengths to which you are willing to go.
Why do you think God is the Father, and Jesus is the Son? Don't you realize that God and Jesus tried to explain heavenly things to us by putting them in earthly terms? Why would Jesus be God's Son instead of God's “co-God” or God's “partner” or something like that? Why Son?
God surely knew how we understood the words “begotten son”. God knew that men understood a “begotten son” to be the offspring of the father – one who was caused to exist by his father.
Knowing this, why would God call Jesus His Son if we weren't suppose to take this phrasing literally? Why would God confuse us in this way?
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 18 2010,03:26) Kathi cited Calvin who said: Quote This expression, to be begotten, does not therefore imply that he then began to be the Son of God, but that his being so was then made manifest to the world.
Kathi,
Note that Calvin said that the expression “to be begotten DOES NOT THEREFORE IMPLY that He began to be the Son of God.”So we know that Calvin did NOT mean that Jesus had a beginning when he said that Jesus was “begotten before all ages.”
Calvin said that Jesus was begotten at His resurrection and that it referred to His “coronation” as King:
On the word “begotten” in Psalm 2:7 Albert Barnes refers to Calvin and Professor Aklexander:
“The term [only begotten Son] as Calvin suggests, and as maintained by Prof. Alexander, refers here only to His being constituted King – to the act of coronation” (Barnes Notes on Psalms, vol1. p. 20)
Of course Calvin differs from Keith and I on some points but for you to try to pass him off as a non-trinitarian really subtracts from your credibility and puts you down in the same category with Mikeboll.
KJ
JackCalvin also said this…
On the contrary, HE WHO HAD BEEN THE SON OF GOD IN HIS ETERNAL GODHEAD, APPEARED ALSO AS THE SON OF GOD IN HUMAN FLESH.
I have no problem with saying that Jesus was “begotten” before the ages, though there is no scripture to say so in my opinion.
But as scriptures shows and the Church Fathers believe, the word “Begotten” in reference to Jesus does not imply a “beginning” before he came in the flesh, or some birth from an aesexual God of a smaller god before time.
John doesn't say “In the beginning was the “begotten son” and the “begotten son” was with God and the “begotten son” was God”!
The conclusion of the Church Fathers is obviously that Jesus existed in the “Eternal Godhead” for eternity past.
That is an indisputed fact and for the “Arians” to pawn off the Fathers like Calvin as somehow supporting their “Arian” theorys is missleading and disingenous.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 18 2010,12:52) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 19 2010,04:19) The New testament is unmistakeably clear that Jesus was “begotten,” that is, He assumed His OFFICE as King-Son AT HIS RESURRECTION.
KJ,Do you ever just sit back away from yourself and listen to the crap you spew? Do you ever even consider how much you must butcher God's word to make your doctrine seem plausible? It's ridiculous the lengths to which you are willing to go.
Why do you think God is the Father, and Jesus is the Son? Don't you realize that God and Jesus tried to explain heavenly things to us by putting them in earthly terms? Why would Jesus be God's Son instead of God's “co-God” or God's “partner” or something like that? Why Son?
God surely knew how we understood the words “begotten son”. God knew that men understood a “begotten son” to be the offspring of the father – one who was caused to exist by his father.
Knowing this, why would God call Jesus His Son if we weren't suppose to take this phrasing literally? Why would God confuse us in this way?
mike
MikeAnd your point is? What did the Angel declare Jesus to be when he spoke to Mary?
Was he born a Son of God in the flesh or not?
You totally ignored Jacks points about the term “begotten” in relation to his resurrection.
Do you ever listen to yourself and how you deny the scriptures the Word of God and only see what you want to see?
WJ
Quote (JustAskin @ July 18 2010,04:10) To all, Is there more than one meaning of 'Firstborn'?
Is there, 'Firstborn' meaning, literally, the first [Male] by birth who is then, by Jewish tradition, the major inheritor of the Father's property.
And is there 'Firstborn' meaning 'to become the one who is the inheritor, to become first in rank among a group of brethrens but not the original literal 'first born by birth', 'to be Begotten'?
JAExactly. But some of your friends deny this truth!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 19 2010,10:57) Quote (JustAskin @ July 18 2010,04:10) To all, Is there more than one meaning of 'Firstborn'?
Is there, 'Firstborn' meaning, literally, the first [Male] by birth who is then, by Jewish tradition, the major inheritor of the Father's property.
And is there 'Firstborn' meaning 'to become the one who is the inheritor, to become first in rank among a group of brethrens but not the original literal 'first born by birth', 'to be Begotten'?
JAExactly. But some of your friends deny this truth!
WJ
Hi WJ,First, why didn't you answer my points about Jesus being the SON of God instead of a different title?
How do you think God expected us to understand “only begotten Son of God”?
Second, show me one instance in the Bible where the firstborn isn't either:
the one born first, OR
it is made clear that that one inherited the rights of THE ONE BORN FIRST.
mike
Quote That is an indisputed fact and for the “Arians” to pawn off the Fathers like Calvin as somehow supporting their “Arian” theorys is missleading and disingenous.
Keith, who is pawning off the Fathers as supporting their arian theories? If you think that I am an arian, then you do not know what they believe. Anyway, I am just quoting the guy who specifically states that the Son of God was begotten before the ages since that is the topic of this thread, it is interesting what true trinitarians believed.Begotten before the ages does not equal always existent neither does eternally begotten, imo. That term means begotten during eternity past from someone that always existed, i.e. from someone unbegotten. That is how I am understanding the mindset. The earlier Christians that I am reading about admit that the Father is the source of all things, even the Son.
The light of day one was called forth from eternity also. It was begotten before the ages.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
