The Son of God

This topic is empty.

Viewing 20 posts - 661 through 680 (of 840 total)

Author
Posts

August 27, 2008 at 4:17 am#103056

Participant

When there is a problem with interpreting a Word and it is not clear, we must go else to prove all things.
First I want to make sure that all understand what the trinity doctrine really is. W.J. says that the Father and the Son is equal in power. But can I prove otherwise? Yes, I can by Jesus own words. He said The Father is greater then I.
John 14:28 For my Father is greater then I…..
Ephesians 4:6 the Father is above all…
1 Corinth.11:3 the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.
Jesus Christ has taken on the name of God, but He is His Son and not Jehovah God Himself. Jehovah God always existed, when the Son came forth from the Father. Rev. 3:14 tells us that He is the True Witness the beginning of all the creation of God. So Jesus had a beginning.
For me I have proven that Jesus is the Son of God and not equal with the Father. I have proven that there is no trinity.
Peace and Love Irene

August 27, 2008 at 4:42 am#103064

Lightenup

Participant

Quote (Tiffany @ Aug. 27 2008,00:17)

Hello Irene,
Well said. I might add that WJ says that monogenes theos means the one and only God but that is not the correct translation of monogenes. Mono means “only” or unique” and genes means begotten. So that makes the Son of God the “only begotten theos”. Which agrees perfectly with the term that is used of Him as the “Firstborn of all creation” since firstborn literally means the first out of the womb.

BTW, I'm praying for your foot and wisdom for you and your doctor. Maybe a second opinion would be good?

Love,
Kathi

August 27, 2008 at 8:06 am#103082

Tiffany

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 27 2008,16:42)

Quote (Tiffany @ Aug. 27 2008,00:17)

BTW, I'm praying for your foot and wisdom for you and your doctor. Maybe a second opinion would be good?

Love,
Kathi

Hi, thank you for your advice. I might do so. It's to early to concentrate on anything. So I will say good-night to all.
Love Irene

August 27, 2008 at 8:09 am#103083

Oxy

Participant

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 27 2008,06:08)

Oxy…….But Jesus said the words were not His words, what do we do with that then, while he can be the spokesman of God and relay GOD”S words to us , that does not make the Word does it.. Jesus is the word of God in a representative state not actual state. He relayed God's words to us. Just as He said He did, “the words i am telling you are (NOT) mine, but the words of Him who sent me.”.

Oxy…> Jesus' Glory in the beginning was that He was (foreordained) to that Glory by God before He ever was born. Not because He had obtained it already as a preexistent being of some kind. Much like Cyrus was 200 hundred years before he was born, God told of His glory and even maned Him. It is the same with Jesus. Jesus was a man just like us having no advantage of a preexistence existence. Scripture say there is only one GOD and one mediator between God and Man, the (MAN) Jesus Christ. No where does it say the incarnated man.

Love and peace to you and yours……….gene

Hi Gene

August 27, 2008 at 8:18 am#103086

Oxy

Participant

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 27 2008,06:08)

Love and peace to you and yours……….gene

The Word of God did in fact speak the words He heard God say, or in the New Testament, the words His Father said. I do not go along with your suggestion that it is a representative state, but rather have seen enough evidence in Scripture to show that He is indeed the Word of God in every sense of the word.

As for your second comment, how do you explain John 1 which explicitly describes the Word of God being with God and being God, and all things were created by Him, and He was made flesh as the firstborn of the Father?

If you read Scripture with the understanding that Jesus is the one and only Word of God, Scripture suddenly reads very differently and not only does it take on new meanings, but the relationship with our Lord is noticeably enhanced through it.

Check it out on my page http://www.all4god.net/word_of_god.htm

August 28, 2008 at 4:14 am#103177

GeneBalthrop

Participant

Oxy…..I don't read scripture with the understanding that Jesus is the one and only word of GOD, I read scripture with the understanding that GOD Spoke (HIS) WORDS through the prophets and in these latter days Spoke (HIS) Words (THROUGH) a Son. It was God's words no one else's that were Spoke. Jesus plainly said the words He spoke were (NOT) HIS, but the WORDS of HIM that sent HIM. So why try to make Him be the word then when in fact He said they were not his words>.

August 28, 2008 at 4:25 am#103179

Proclaimer

Participant

God speaks his truth through the Truth.
God gives his life through the Life.
God makes a way through the Way.

God's word comes though the Word.

There are attributes and there are names that describe a person. People often trip up on the difference. Usually the definite article in Greek helps us to understand, when someone is being identified as opposed to speaking of a quality.

If Jesus is called the Truth, then it is because the truth of God is in him.

If God calls a certain person Grace, then perhaps it is because grace is this persons character.

Perhaps understanding this gives us a clue as to why God will give us a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to him.

Also understanding what the word 'name' means is important. It isn't just a sound used to identify someone as it is a word that describes a persons character. Jesus said to baptise in his name.

So can a person be called the Word? If so, then the Word that was with God makes sense and couple that with God made all things through him and that nothing exists that wasn't made through him and you have a clear teaching.

August 28, 2008 at 4:41 am#103184

GeneBalthrop

Participant

T8….the difference is when you apply God's Words to yourself you then become a lier and a thief because you robbing God of His Glory and Part of GOD Glory is His words;Why do you think Jesus said in several places the word were not his, because he did not want people to thin k they were His words , that would be stealing from God. Something Jesus never did. But Jesus did say all who came before Him were liars and thieves. But Jesus never stoled anything from God (His Glory or His words) He always gave God the Father the credit for the Words Hew spoke to us. Saying they were His words and not his words.

peace………..gene

August 28, 2008 at 5:09 am#103190

GeneBalthrop

Participant

T8….> here is a good example of what i am talking about, remember when Jesus told i believe Mary or Martha this, “did i not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God” NOTICE now what he immediately said after he said that, “Father i know thou doest always Hear me I (ONLY) said that, so that they might believe you have sent Me”.

Question why did Jesus almost apology's for saying that they would see the glory of God , Because what he said could have been easily taken to meaning (HE was God) when He raised Lazarus and so He wanted God to know the reason he said what he said was for the purpose of showing them the Father sent Him and that was why he said what he said. When God does a miracle through someone if that person does not give the glory to God it can appear that He is the one doing the miracle and there by rob God of His Glory. Jesus made sure God got the Glory not Him.

Remember what Moses did at the waters of meriba He robed God of Glory and Broke Faith with Him and as a result was not permitted to go into the promise land. Jesus made sure He did not make that same mistake.

peace …………gene

August 28, 2008 at 8:36 am#103210

gollamudi

Participant

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 28 2008,16:14)

Amen to that simple and wonderful post my brother Gene. Jesus is none but 'Living word of God' and a messenger or Prophet of God as foretold by Moses in Deut 18.

Thanks and love to you
Adam

August 28, 2008 at 10:46 am#103225

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Hi LU

Good to hear from you, I hope you and yours are doing fine!

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 27 2008,16:42)

Well said. I might add that WJ says that monogenes theos means the one and only God but that is not the correct translation of monogenes. Mono means “only” or unique” and genes means begotten.

“Monogenes or “monogenh/v” is a compound word that means. “Unique One” or “One and Only”.

Monos
alone (without a companion), forsaken, destitute of help, alone, only, merely

giðnomai
1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
a) of events
3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
a) of men appearing in public
4) to be made, finished
a) of miracles, to be performed, wrought
5) to become, be made

giðnomai is found in the NT about 678 times and is translated as follows…

AV — be 255, come to pass 82, be made 69, be done 63, come 52, become 47, God forbid + 3361 15, arise 13, have 5, be fulfilled 3, be married to 3, be preferred 3, not tr 14, misc 4, vr done 2 Source

Never once is the word translated “begotten”, and also notice the word “Born” is not found as part of the definition of “Monogenes”.

John 1:1 and 1:14 sets the tone for the use of the word “Monogenes” in its context describing Yeshua and his appearing in the flesh.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:14 KJV

The Greek word for “made” is ‘ginomai’, the second part of the compound word “monogenes”, see above definition.

The Greek word for “dwelt” is ‘skenoo’, which means…

1) to fix one's tabernacle, have one's tabernacle, abide (or live) in a tabernacle (or tent), tabernacle
2) to dwell

This corresponds beautifully with Heb 1:5.

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

So John 1:14 in its context could be read…

And the Word (that was with God and was God) came and tabernacled among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only one (monogenēs) of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:14

The NET renders the verse…

Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory – the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. John 1:14

So we see the first use of the word ‘monogenēs’ in reference to Yeshua is related to his incarnation. Furthermore John uses the second part of the compound word ‘monogenēs’, which is ‘ginomai’ in describing his coming in the flesh and Tabernacleing or dwelling among us.

What makes Yeshua “Unique” or the “Only One of his kind” is because Yeshua is the Word that was with God and is God came in the flesh and was found in fashion as a man.

This agrees with Paul’s use of the word “ginomai” in Phil 2

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made (ginomai) in the likeness of men: Phil 2:7

Paul then clarifies Yeshua coming in the flesh by the next verse…

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became (ginomai) obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Phil 2:7

The use of the word “ginomai” never implies “begotten”.

So 25 scholars with access to over 60,000 translator’s notes commentate on John 1:14 and John 1:18 explaining why the proper use of the Greek word ‘monogenēs’ is interpreted “Only One” or “Unique One”…

John 1:14
38tn Or “of the unique one.” Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clem. 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant., 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God, Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18).
John 1:18
45tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh” qeo”, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh” Juio”, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ �1,13 � lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. �75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in �66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun
that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo” hn Jo logo”) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.
tn Or “The unique one.” For the meaning of μονογενής (monogenh”) see the note on “one and only” in 1:14.

‘Monogenēs’

1) single of its kind, only
a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God

It is used 9 times in the NT and translated…

AV — only begotten 6, only 2, only child 1

The six times in the AV is referring to Yeshua yet the other three is used for a Father and a Mother having an “Only Child”.

Yeshua was not a Son who was born a Son!

No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known. John 1:18 NET

Blessings!

August 28, 2008 at 10:54 am#103226

Proclaimer

Participant

Quote (gollamudi @ Aug. 28 2008,20:36)

Amen to that simple and wonderful post my brother Gene. Jesus is none but 'Living word of God' and a messenger or Prophet of God as foretold by Moses in Deut 18.

Mohamed also believed that or most of it and he believed in one God, as did the demons too.

But who truly believes that he also existed in the form of God and emptied himself and partook of flesh, and humbled himself to the point of death? I think Mohamed doesn't believe that and curiously I find that you do not too.

What am I to think regarding this?

August 28, 2008 at 10:56 am#103227

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 27 2008,10:35)

Hi WJ,
What is divine nature?
Please detail what you know of it

There is only “One” divine being.

Yeshua is not a partaker of the divine nature of God.

He is in nature all that God is. Heb 1:3

Now a question for you.

Tell me in what sense is Yeshua's nature less than God?

August 28, 2008 at 1:00 pm#103237

Not3in1

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 28 2008,22:46)

The Greek word for “dwelt” is ‘skenoo’, which means…

1) to fix one's tabernacle, have one's tabernacle, abide (or live) in a tabernacle (or tent), tabernacle
2) to dwell

This corresponds beautifully with Heb 1:5.

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

I wonder what Mary's response would have been if the angel Gabe said to her, “Mary, God's holy spirit is going to overshadow you so he can fix a tabernacle for his only Son. He needs to have a body prepared for him and you're just the gal for the job!” :;):

Jesus is truly God's own Son. Any other theological reasoning just robs the Father, the Son, and Mary of the truly wonderful and simple process of conception and birth (however I am pretty impressed with your post, Keith).

Jesus is unique and an “only” child. Why do you think we have to be adopted?

Reading some of the explainations of scripture given by the sources leads me to believe there has been more scribe involvement in scripture…..hmmm? Can we really know anything for certain? If one letter could change the meaning of things?

Love,
Mandy

August 28, 2008 at 1:12 pm#103238

Not3in1

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 27 2008,08:02)

If men want to know and see who God is, then you can only know and see him by knowing and seeing Yeshua who is clearly in nature all that God is, and if he is in nature all that God is then he is truly God.

Is Jesus all that God was?

Why did Jesus say his Father was greater than him?
Why did Jesus say no one is good but ONE – his Father?
Why……

I can accept that “in nature” Jesus was just like his Father (that is the very idea of Father and Son – they share a common “nature”), but I do not believe that makes Jesus God. After all, Jesus had a HUMAN mother and was truly conceived by her.

Thanks,
Mandy

August 28, 2008 at 1:15 pm#103239

Not3in1

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 27 2008,08:37)

The Word that was with God and was God is 100% God.

That is until he was born of a human and came in the FLESH.

God is not flesh.

Perhaps Jesus was 100% God when he was preexistent (whether fully alive OR as the future son), but once he was born that 100% God was fused with human nature. Now what?

August 28, 2008 at 1:19 pm#103240

Not3in1

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 26 2008,11:11)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 26 2008,11:03)

Hi WJ,
Certainly sonship is an essential attribute.
Sons do not exist without a parent.

You can exist without a image of you, but a image cannot exist without an original.

Yeshua is not a copy of the invisible God.

He is the “image of the invisible God”

He is God manifest to us.

But Jesus is also a “representative”. A representative is someone who stands in for someone else. Right?

August 28, 2008 at 1:24 pm#103241

Not3in1

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 26 2008,10:15)

Can you give me one attribute of God that Yeshua does not have?

You mean while Jesus was alive on earth? For one, Jesus was not all-knowing. There were things that he did not know, like the time of his return.

August 28, 2008 at 3:52 pm#103245

Lightenup

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 28 2008,06:46)