The Son of God

[Not3in1]

Nick,
Keith puts forth such excellent, thought-out posts for knowing (as you say) “almost nothing about the nature of God.”
That doesn't sound quite fair to me, or kind, but I suppose you will debate as you wish.

Love,
Mandy

[NickHassan]

Hi not3,
Nobody knows very much about God's personal nature.

but still some like to present their theories as facts.

[Worshipping Jesus]

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

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 e ffect 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! WJ

Hi LU

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 29 2008,03:52)

Hi WJ, Thanks, good to hear from you too. The family is well, I now have 3 off to college and only 2 at home and still homeschooling the youngest (11).  Life is good and very expensive

Good to hear. Keep up the good work. I honour you for home schooling your kids.

My Oldest daughter with 4 and 1 on the way also home schools them.

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 29 2008,03:52)

We have discussed this monogenes theos term over and over haven't we?  I guess we might have to agree to disagree.  I will give you my thoughts on your post though.

No I think we have discussed “firstborn” in Col 1:14-17.

Quote

“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

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 29 2008,03:52)

Please note that “ginomai” isn't translated as “one” or “only” as we can see in what you have shown us above.

LU, I am not sure if you are being deceitful or just being evasive.

Of course the words “one” and “only” is not in the definition of “ginomai”, but please take note of the first part of the compound word which is…

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

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 29 2008,03:52)

However “to be made” or “to come into existense” IS listed.

True. And John clarifies what coming into existence is referring too in vs 14…

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

Which again confirms what Paul says…

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”.

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 29 2008,03:52)

That is why I say that to translate “monogenes theos” as the one and only God leaves out the “ginomai” part of the word.

Not at all. John uses the compound word “Monogenes”which includes “Single of its kind or One” in which as I have shown is interpreted in 3 places where there is an only or 1 child, and in the context of John 1:1 and 1:14 shows his coming in the flesh or coming into being.

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 29 2008,03:52)
If it was just “monos theos” then “one and only God” would be a fine translation.

True. It was not just “mono theos” but in fact is “Monogenes” which includes “Mono”, “One” and “Only” and “ginomai” which means came into existence and not Begotten or Born.

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 29 2008,03:52)

It is not just “monos theos” though.  BTW “unique” didn't make the list either for “ginomai”.

“Single of its kind” is “Unique”. It is “Monogenes” not just “Mono” and not just “ginomai”, the word Begotten is not found in “Mono or ‘ginomai”.

Yeshua is not a “begotten God” from way back in time. Johns description of Yeshua in context is he was the Word that was with God and the Word that was God who became or came into existence by coming in the flesh and taking on the likeness of sinful flesh as Paul confirms in Phil 2.

The term “Monogenes” is used by John to define the post incarnation Yeshua. John 1:14.

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

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

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 29 2008,03:52)

So you say that “ginomai” isn't translated as “begotten”.

No. I never said it wasn’t translated that way. But as it is shown by the scholars of the NET the word “Begotten is misleading.

You said…

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

Mono means “only” or unique” and genes means begotten

“Ginomai” does not mean begotten.

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 29 2008,03:52)

Do you also see that the word “only” or “unique” is not found as part of the definition of “ginomai” in your above list?

But it is found in the list under “Mono”, which means “single of its kind”.

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 29 2008,03:52)

However the word monogenes is translated as “begotten” several times as you pointed out and even referring to Jesus.

Yes, and the other 3 out of nine times it appears in the NT is referring to an “Only Child”.

If anything it is speaking of Yeshua’s human beginnings and not some begotten God who was born from the Fathers womb somewhere way back then when the Father spoke the Word into existence.

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 29 2008,03:52)

Therefore, a metaphysical beginning is what I understand the Son of God to have before creation of anything in heaven or on earth.

But you see something that is born as not part of the creation, which totally denies scriptures that say we are created.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:3

and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:3

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

You don't.  I can understand that you or some translators wouldn't understand that if thinking that the 2nd person of a trinity God was co-eternal.  I think that He is not co-eternal and is easy to understand that He was a begotten God as the NASB states in John 1:18. LU

I understand that you think that Yeshua is less than God in nature. I can see how you have come to have this “unique” revelation of a begotten God, though you use an isolated translation the NASB with an isolated verse. The NASB is the only one I know of that interprets John 1:18 as a “begotten God”.

Tell me why the term “begotten God” is not found anywhere else in the scriptures?

Paul never mentions the term “begotten God” but he does mention the term “God” in referring to Yeshua.

Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: 2 Peter 1:1 NASB

looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, NASB

Blessings WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 29 2008,11:21)

Nick, Keith puts forth such excellent, thought-out posts for knowing (as you say) “almost nothing about the nature of God.” That doesn't sound quite fair to me, or kind, but I suppose you will debate as you wish. Love, Mandy

Hi Mandy

I think that for our finite minds to even begin to comprehend an infinite God is impossible to know on this side of the grave.

In fact I believe that we will spend all of eternity learning of him and still not know all about him.

With that in mind though, we can seem to comprehend somewhat that God is Omnipresent, Omnipotent, and Omniscient. We know that God is infinite in Love and mercy.

Yet we still cannot comprehend what all Loving and all Powerful and all knowing and all of eternity means.

So now that I have answered with very little understanding of this infinite God, maybe NH can tell me which one of these attributes I just mentioned that Yeshua does not have.

Maybe he can answer the question “In what way is the nature of Yeshua less than God”?

I hear all this talk but see no answers for the questions.

I don't have time now Mandy but hope to be able to address your post later, I need to answer Jodi's post since she refuses to answer my questions I thought I will bring them up one more time.

WJ

[NickHassan]

Hi WJ,
Are those OMNI words from the bible or your theology books?

[Tiffany]

W.J. However, scriptures says that the mysteries of God has been given to His Saints.
Col. 1: 26 the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His Saints.
Question however still consist if we are His Saints now? I let you answer that.
But not only that if we have Gods Holy Spirit we are to understand the things of God, are we not?
Peace and Love Irene

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 28 2008,21:10)

Hi LU Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 29 2008,03:52) Hi WJ, Thanks, good to hear from you too. The family is well, I now have 3 off to college and only 2 at home and still homeschooling the youngest (11).  Life is good and very expensive Good to hear. Keep up the good work. I honour you for home schooling your kids. My Oldest daughter with 4 and 1 on the way also home schools them. Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 29 2008,03:52) We have discussed this monogenes theos term over and over haven't we?  I guess we might have to agree to disagree.  I will give you my thoughts on your post though. No I think we have discussed “firstborn” in Col 1:14-17. Quote “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 Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 29 2008,03:52) Please note that “ginomai” isn't translated as “one” or “only” as we can see in what you have shown us above. LU, I am not sure if you are being deceitful or just being evasive. Of course the words “one” and “only” is not in the definition of “ginomai”, but please take note of the first part of the compound word which is… Monos alone (without a companion), forsaken, destitute of help, alone, only, merely Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 29 2008,03:52) However “to be made” or “to come into existense” IS listed. True. And John clarifies what coming into existence is referring too in vs 14… 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 Which again confirms what Paul says… 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”. Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 29 2008,03:52) That is why I say that to translate “monogenes theos” as the one and only God leaves out the “ginomai” part of the word. Not at all. John uses the compound word “Monogenes”which includes “Single of its kind or One” in which as I have shown is interpreted in 3 places where there is an only or 1 child, and in the context of John 1:1 and 1:14 shows his coming in the flesh or coming into being. Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 29 2008,03:52) If it was just “monos theos” then “one and only God” would be a fine translation. True. It was not just “mono theos” but in fact is “Monogenes” which includes “Mono”, “One” and “Only” and “ginomai” which means came into existence and not Begotten or Born. Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 29 2008,03:52) It is not just “monos theos” though.  BTW “unique” didn't make the list either for “ginomai”. “Single of its kind” is “Unique”. It is “Monogenes” not just “Mono” and not just “ginomai”, the word Begotten is not found in “Mono or ‘ginomai”. Yeshua is not a “begotten God” from way back in time. Johns description of Yeshua in context is he was the Word that was with God and the Word that was God who became or came into existence by coming in the flesh and taking on the likeness of sinful flesh as Paul confirms in Phil 2. The term “Monogenes” is used by John to define the post incarnation Yeshua. John 1:14. Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 28 2008,06:46) Never once is the word translated “begotten”, and also notice the word “Born” is not found as part of the definition of “Monogenes”. Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 29 2008,03:52) So you say that “ginomai” isn't translated as “begotten”. No. I never said it wasn’t translated that way. But as it is shown by the scholars of the NET the word “Begotten is misleading. You said… Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 27 2008,16:42) Mono means “only” or unique” and genes means begotten “Ginomai” does not mean begotten. Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 29 2008,03:52) Do you also see that the word “only” or “unique” is not found as part of the definition of “ginomai” in your above list? But it is found in the list under “Mono”, which means “single of its kind”. Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 29 2008,03:52) However the word monogenes is translated as “begotten” several times as you pointed out and even referring to Jesus. Yes, and the other 3 out of nine times it appears in the NT is referring to an “Only Child”. If anything it is speaking of Yeshua’s human beginnings and not some begotten God who was born from the Fathers womb somewhere way back then when the Father spoke the Word into existence. Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 29 2008,03:52) Therefore, a metaphysical beginning is what I understand the Son of God to have before creation of anything in heaven or on earth.   But you see something that is born as not part of the creation, which totally denies scriptures that say we are created. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:3 and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:3 Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 27 2008,16:42) You don't.  I can understand that you or some translators wouldn't understand that if thinking that the 2nd person of a trinity God was co-eternal.  I think that He is not co-eternal and is easy to understand that He was a begotten God as the NASB states in John 1:18. LU I understand that you think that Yeshua is less than God in nature. I can see how you have come to have this “unique” revelation of a begotten God, though you use an isolated translation the NASB with an isolated verse. The NASB is the only one I know of that interprets John 1:18 as a “begotten God”. Tell me why the term “begotten God” is not found anywhere else in the scriptures? Paul never mentions the term “begotten God” but he does mention the term “God” in referring to Yeshua. Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: 2 Peter 1:1 NASB looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, NASB Blessings WJ

Hi WJ,
Thank you for encouraging me with home schooling my kids. God bless your daughter as she homeschools 4 kids with one on the way. I was there and she just needs to keep putting one foot in front of the other. God will be faithful to meet her efforts and bring good fruit. My older ones tried going to school to see that they could do it and after a year or two came home to finish because they saw the freedom they had. I am very close with my kids and they are close with each other and love God. God has been very faithful to us and has blessed us beyond what we could ever deserve. I am glad that you support her efforts. It is extremely challenging at times. I have learned so much through the process.

You wonder if I am being evasive or deceitful by not addressing every detail of your post. How about a third option like you write extremely long posts at times and they make my head spin. I would like to meet you at the Waffle House somewhere between where I am in Tennessee and where you are in South Carolina and answer or attempt to answer whatever you want. I have to limit my time on here because it affects my family. They are not too fond of Heaven net.

I truly see Christ as existing before His incarnation, not as “the Christ” yet, but as the “firstborn”, God's Holy One. Since I see Him as the literal firstborn, naturally I see Him as the Son of God. Since I see Him as the actual Son of God I accept that God begat God. I believe that He has the nature of His Father. I do not believe that nature has anything to do with age. I do see that the God who always existed is unique to the God that came from Him even though the nature can be the same. Obviously the God who always existed would be greater than the one who had a beginning.

I understand that being the Firstborn would mean that He came into being because of the very meaning of the word. You are right that he came into being as a man also. That doesn't mean that He didn't exist in a heavenly form before He came in the flesh form. We are also going to become a different form someday, right. We will go from one form to become another form.

You are correct that “ginomai” doesn't mean begotten, my bad. It doesn't mean unique or only either. I know that monos means that but not ginomai.

The word “begotten” is a correct translation of monogenes as it speaks of an only son or daughter coming into existence. That is what the Firstborn suggests-a first son or daughter coming into existence by birth from the womb.

The NET scholars say the the word “begotten” is misleading because they can't see the metaphysical relationship which I can and accept.

I see most things that are born as part of the creation because the first of their kind was created. The first of the Son of God's kind (God the Father) was not created, so therefore the Son that was born of Him is not part of a created kind. He is part of His creation but as the creator and not the creature.

You speak of John 1:18 in the NASB as an isolated verse. I believe that Jesus being called the “Son of God” throughout scripture supports the verse, also the term firstborn in Col., and also Christ being referred to as our God. I know that you believe that He was called the Son of God only as post incarnate. I believe there is much more to it.

[Not3in1]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 29 2008,13:27)

I don't have time now Mandy but hope to be able to address your post later, I need to answer Jodi's post since she refuses to answer my questions I thought I will bring them up one more time.

Never any rush to get back to me. I'll be here.

I quit setting forth actual argumets a long time ago. Since I stopped I've seen the same argument come around at least a dozen times. I doubt I could ever bring anything original to any thread.

Take care and good luck with Jodi – she seems to have done her homework!
Love,
Mandy

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Tiffany @ Aug. 29 2008,13:44)

W.J. However, scriptures say that the mysteries of God has been given to His Saints. Col. 1: 26 the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His Saints. Question however still consist if we are His Saints now? I let you answer that. But not only that if we have Gods Holy Spirit we are to understand the things of God, are we not? Peace and Love Irene

Irene

You are totally missing my point.

Maybe you just want to be contentious I don't know.

Is there anything in my post that says we cannot have some understanding of him?

Of course we can know the mysteries of God by his Spirit.

Can you fathom how high the heavens are above the earth?

They are infinitely higher.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isa 55:8, 9

Now just imagine that by and through the hand of Yeshua all these things were made, (John 1:3, Col 1:16, Heb 1:10),  and that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge is hid in him, (John 14:6, Col 2:3), and that all these things are held together by the word of his power, (Heb 1:3), and that he is before all things and by him all things consist, (Col 1:17) and that he is all and filleth all in all, (Eph 1:23, Col 3:11), and that this same Yeshua is seated far above the heavens, which is infinitely higher than the earth, (Eph 4:10), and that from that place he rules over all things by the seven Spirits of God which are his eyes going through out the earth, (Rev 5:6).

Yes without a doubt Yeshua is my Lord and my God and it is only by him through the Holy Spirit that I know my Father.

Blessings
WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

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:

Hi Mandy

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 29 2008,01:00)

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!”

Do you think Mary would be unhappy about being chosen to fulfill Heb 1:5?

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 29 2008,01:00)

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).

Mandy, God is Spirit, Yeshua is Spirit. He is not defined by flesh and blood. Flesh and blood will not enter the kingdom. The flesh and blood is our Temple that houses our Spirits which is the real us. Our bodies are the Temple of God.

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 29 2008,01:00)

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

Yes he is unique. But he is not a demi-god. His Spirit, the Word that came in the flesh is either all God or not God at all.

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 29 2008,01:00)

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

I realize you doubt the scriptures and the scholars, and that you are not certain about anything you believe.

Jesus didn't doubt the Hebrew scriptures either, (which BTW, he didn't have original copies either). But, you also doubt them.

But most believers do not hold your view concerning the inspired scriptures.

Blessings WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 29 2008,01:12)

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

Mandy

Obviously you are not reading my post.

For I have answered those questions many times.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 29 2008,01:15)

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?

Mandy

The Word which was with God and was God is Spirit.

The Word did not change its nature and become flesh.

Jesus said…

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:6

Scriptures are clear about Yeshua who is and was Spirit came in the likeness of sinful flesh and was found in fashion as a man.

You are implying that the Word that was God ceased to be God.

If Yeshua ceased to be God, then he would no longer be the same person that was with the Father.

WJ

[Not3in1]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 29 2008,20:57)

Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 29 2008,01:12) 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 Mandy Obviously you are not reading my post. For I have answered those questions many times. WJ

No, I don't read all of them. I confess that I don't have the time. Further, if a post is really long I tend to get glossy eyed. But I'll go back and review if I really want the answers. Thanks, Mandy

[Not3in1]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 29 2008,21:06)

You are implying that the Word that was God ceased to be God.

A son is not his father although they share the same nature.

[Oxy]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 28 2008,18:14)

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>.

You have spoken wisely in that you recognise the difference between the Word of God and the words of God. Jesus is the Word of God according to Scripture. Always has been, always will be. In Old Testament times the Word of God spoke the words of God, as did the prophets. In New Testament times the Word of God, now called Jesus still spoke the words of God. In these days the words of God are still spoken by the Word of God, the Holy Spirit and the prophets, according to Scripture.

[Not3in1]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 29 2008,21:06)

The Word did not change its nature and become flesh.

What do we do with the Son of God AND the Son of Man, then?

I know you don't think much of Mary's contribution, but she did give something to Jesus other than just skin. If she didn't she was just a skin-doning-factory for an incarnation! IMO

[Worshipping Jesus]

Hi LU

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 29 2008,16:31)

I truly see Christ as existing before His incarnation, not as “the Christ” yet, but as the “firstborn”, God's Holy One.  Since I see Him as the literal firstborn, naturally I see Him as the Son of God.  Since I see Him as the actual Son of God I accept that God begat God.  I believe that He has the nature of His Father.  I do not believe that nature has anything to do with age.  I do see that the God who always existed is unique to the God that came from Him even though the nature can be the same.  Obviously the God who always existed would be greater than the one who had a beginning.

And this is where we part. There is no unambiguous scripture that says the pre-incarnate Yeshua had a beginning.

Blessings WJ

[dirtyknections]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 30 2008,12:10)

Hi LU Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 29 2008,16:31) I truly see Christ as existing before His incarnation, not as “the Christ” yet, but as the “firstborn”, God's Holy One.  Since I see Him as the literal firstborn, naturally I see Him as the Son of God.  Since I see Him as the actual Son of God I accept that God begat God.  I believe that He has the nature of His Father.  I do not believe that nature has anything to do with age.  I do see that the God who always existed is unique to the God that came from Him even though the nature can be the same.  Obviously the God who always existed would be greater than the one who had a beginning. And this is where we part. There is no ambiguous scripture that says the pre-incarnate Yeshua had a beginning. Blessings WJ

Proverbs 8 does

[david]

Quote

Proverbs 8 does

Of course, many would argue that it's ambiguous.

Let's put some stuff down:

“Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I came to birth; before he had made the earth, the countryside, and the first elements of the world.” (Proverbs 8:12, 22, 25, 26, NJB)

“Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago….Before the mountains themselves had been settled down, ahead of the hills, I was brought forth as with labor pains…When he prepared the heavens I was there; …then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I cam to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time,…and the things I was found of were with the sons of men.”
(Prov 8:22-31)

Could this passage merely be talking about divine wisdom or wisdom in the abstract?

The Wisdom that is here described was “produced,” or created, as the beginning of Jehovah’s way. Jehovah God has always existed and has always been wise. (Ps 90:1,2) His wisdom had no beginning; it was neither created nor produced.
It was “brought forth as with labor pains.” Furthermore, this wisdom is said to speak and act, representing a person. (Prov 8:1)
(Some say that the holy spirit is spoken of in that manner and so the holy spirit must be an individual. Well, the same reasoning would apply to this scripture then.)
Depicting the Son of God as wisdom is appropriate, since he was God’s Word or spokesman and was the one who revealed Jehovah’s wise purposes and decrees. Elsewhere, he is described as being “the power of God and the wisdom of God,” and also the “wisdom from God.” (1 cor 1:24,30)

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 29 2008,20:10)

Hi LU Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 29 2008,16:31) I truly see Christ as existing before His incarnation, not as “the Christ” yet, but as the “firstborn”, God's Holy One.  Since I see Him as the literal firstborn, naturally I see Him as the Son of God.  Since I see Him as the actual Son of God I accept that God begat God.  I believe that He has the nature of His Father.  I do not believe that nature has anything to do with age.  I do see that the God who always existed is unique to the God that came from Him even though the nature can be the same.  Obviously the God who always existed would be greater than the one who had a beginning. And this is where we part. There is no ambiguous scripture that says the pre-incarnate Yeshua had a beginning. Blessings WJ

Hi WJ,
There is nothing that clearly says that whatever He was before He became in the flesh always existed.

Sorry that we have to differ. Maybe someday our paths will converge and better sooner that later. I would like that!

Take care Keith,
Kathi

[Author]

Posts