- This topic is empty.
- Posts
So born, begotten, begat does not mean come into existence?
The son comes from the Father because he was begotten.
But your view is that Jesus is an extension of God. Another limb or something.
Perhaps a substance that contains two persons like the Trinity with one less member.
But the head of Christ is God and the head of the woman is the man.
Would you argue that the woman is eternally begotten from the man?
@t8
You asked (numbers added by me to correspond to my answers):
1.So born, begotten, begat does not mean come into existence?
2.The son comes from the Father because he was begotten.
3.But your view is that Jesus is an extension of God. Another limb or something.
4.Perhaps a substance that contains two persons like the Trinity with one less member.
5.But the head of Christ is God and the head of the woman is the man.
6.Would you argue that the woman is eternally begotten from the man?
My answers:
1.Correct, born, begotten, begat does not mean come into existence.
2.The Son comes out from the Father because he was begotten.
3.Jesus is an extension of God as an offspring.
4.Perhaps a substance that contains two persons “like” a parent cell with it’s identical offspring cell within it.
5.But the head of Christ is God and the head of the woman is the man. Yes. So? The Father has always been the head of the Son, yet the two are equal in essence, one in Spirit and all things possible.
6.The woman is not eternal, the first woman was begotten from the man as the LORD took the rib from the man and formed the woman.
1)
born
bɔːn/Submit
adjective
existing as a result of birth.
“she was born in Aberdeen”
having a specific nationality.
suffix: -born
“a German-born philosopher”
having a natural ability to do a particular job.
“he’s a born engineer”Yes we existed before being born. We were conceived.
conceive
kənˈsiːv/Submit
verb
past tense: conceived; past participle: conceived
1.
create (an embryo) by fertilizing an egg.
“she was conceived when her father was 49”
2.
form or devise (a plan or idea) in the mind.
“the dam project was originally conceived in 1977”
synonyms: think up, think of, come up with, dream up, draw up, devise, form, formulate, design, frame, invent, coin, originate, create, develop, evolve; MoreBut to say that born rules out any interpretation of coming into existence is wrong IMO.
2)
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me.
If Jesus came from God, then how can he be God that he came came. Sure he will be like him and perhaps even have his nature. The revelation of Jesus Christ’s origins in scripture is that he is of God. He is referred to as the visible image of God, the son of God, the exact representation of God, Word of God, wisdom of God, glory of God, the messiah, and the one whom God made both Lord and Christ.
The real reason that there is a Trinity Doctrine and other derivatives such as yours is to dismiss the scriptural descriptions of who Jesus is. If you say he is God, then the other stuff is irrelevant. Of course that doesn’t stop pride from forcing a way to encompass Jesus as God being these other things too. This is imperative if the Jesus is God camp is to look like they have credibility. However, let’s just be honest here. If you believe that Jesus is God, then you cannot really believe those other things about God. You can only pay them lip service in order to retain a look of credibility.
The whole point in scripture about revealing Jesus identity is to believe who he is. He is the son of God, the messiah, and the Lord. Our testimony is the same as Peter’s declaration to Jesus upon whom Jesus built his Church. Both John and Paul teach who Jesus is. And of course, Jesus has the last word on who he is and he never said he as God, but agreed that he is the son and the messiah. But there is an even greater witness as to who Jesus is besides Jesus own witness. That is his Father who is God who said: “this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased”.
He is the son of God. Get over it LU. Opposing this with wayward doctrines is not going to give you a good reward. Those who teach men to break commandments are at best, the least in the kingdom.
3)
Jesus is not God’s leg. He is the son.
The son is a sentient being. He is not God or a non sentient extension of God. He was born of God and is a unique person.
Likewise we can be born of God and not be God. We are sentient beings too and not God and never will be.
We are sons of God. Jesus in truth is a son too, but the prototype son.
Your doctrine is indeed a strange one. But you seem to be the only one to hold it. Or perhaps it is a main teaching from one of the denominations/cults? If so, then perhaps not too strange. But not true.
4)
God is a person or identity. He has a nature and is spirit.
Most of these wayward doctrines that define God as being a substance put his nature first and identity second.
This is wrong. He is primarily a life, not a thing or substance.
I do not define the members of my family as flesh that contains multiple persons.
They are people/lives first. Their nature is not who they.
God in scripture is a HE because he is one LORD.
Not THEY because he is a substance or blob containing multiple persons.
Yes all these false doctrines put substance first. Perhaps an indication that the authors do not know God.
If I referred to my wife as a flesh thing all the time, then people would be correct in assuming that I do not truly know her as a person and individual living being.
We are not our bodies or our nature. We have them, but are not them.
I never think of my kids as a flesh blob containing two kids. lol.
5) You say
5.But the head of Christ is God and the head of the woman is the man. Yes. So? The Father has always been the head of the Son, yet the two are equal in essence, one in Spirit and all things possible.
Was Adam always the head of Eve? Was Eve the same age as Adam? Then how can you derive your meaning when relating to God and Christ in this context. You have merely just appended your view to this scripture with absolutely no justification.
6) You say:
The woman is not eternal, the first woman was begotten from the man as the LORD took the rib from the man and formed the woman.
Yet when it comes to the son of God, you say that the son is eternal and this is part of the meaning of begotten, even though in your above words, you admit that the woman was begotten and was not eternal.
That is a discrepancy. Remember you are the one who said: “Correct, born, begotten, begat does not mean come into existence”.
Yet you say that the woman came into existence when she was begotten.
I guess you could fix this by adding a patch. Perhaps say that the woman is an extension of Adam and Adam and extension of God who is eternal making her eternal.
But probably better just to accept the truth because there is no discrepancy there too.
Problem solved.
A ‘Son of God’ is one who does the work that the Father appoints him.
‘Son’ in scriptures relating to God does not mean ‘Offspring’. Such offspring refers to the created beings of humanity: Pro-Creation.
God creates – God does not Pro-Create.
Before creation of the Angels and the world God was just God. God then created which makes him ‘Father’ of all creation.
When God created human, different to all other objects of his creation, God made man in his own image so that man would reflect his glory. This first man was called ‘Adam’, which means ‘Man’ in Hebrew.
Adam was indeed a reflection of God in that he had power and authority over all of the rest of creation (excluding the Angels, of course).
So Adam was, at that point, ‘True Son of God’. This point seems lost on almost all debaters, discussioners, and Christian scriptural professors: they REFUSE to acknowledge a fundamental and comprehensive truth.
Since this first son of God (Luke 3:38) went on to sin, God required the blood of another to offset that sin… It’s all in the scriptures – and anyone who doesn’t know this SHOULD NOT BE DEBATING on issues of ‘Sonship’ in the Christian scriptures.
Because none of Adams ‘offspring’ (uh-oh!!! Replace with ‘PROCREATIONS’) could fulfil the role, God ‘CREATED’ a new (another) ‘Son’ in the SAME MANNER as the first man: a SECOND ADAM (Also quite rightly classed as the LAST ADAM, for obvious reasons!!) Don’t be dismissive of this truth: The first Adam was created sinless and holy – the spirit of the lifeless body was supplied by the Holy Spirit.
The second/Last Adam was created likewise.
This second/Last Adam was named ‘Jesus’ as a way to reflect his objectives (‘Jesus’ is an English modification of the Hebrew name ‘Joshua’ – Yeshua – which means ‘God saves’ …(trini’s, does this mean Joshua was God?) just as ‘the first Joshua’ brought the children of Israel into the promised land. Jesus is to lead humanity into the promised kingdom of his Father and Almighty God)
As for ‘Eve’… Eve is originally an extension of Adam in that Eve was taken out of Adam. The traits and aspects of a woman are were originally in Adam. Think about it: many, even professors and scholars in Christian studies, cannot read that Adam was created and Eve taken out of him…they continue to say, ‘God created them equal…at the same time!’!!!.
Think about this: before Eve, how would Adam procreate? Hmmm….!
All the ways of woman were in Adam – God took them out in majority and made them into another ‘man’ – a ‘Wombed Man: Wo’Man) who would REQUIRE a companion to join to in order to be a full as-created human being: The biological reproduction elements put into the female so a male in union is required (hence homosexuality is a sin!). Vanity… Yes, God is vain but controlled vanity. Nurture… Compassion … Love… Subordination… These are some aspects that are highly prominent in a woman over anything like the equivalent in a man (male).
I know LU won’t like that last part – but truth doesn’t have preference over who should believe it.
t8
You did well to get to this point: you said, “Yes we existed before being born.”
This is also what I said about the matter:
If the act of begetting takes something that exists and moves it to another place, then obviously the actual begetting does not make something come into existence.
You said: “But to say that born rules out any interpretation of coming into existence is wrong IMO.”
I did not say anything exactly like that. I would say that anything born alive was already alive before it was born regarding living organisms.
Can you give me an example of any living organism that is/was born that did not exist in a living way before it was born?
@t8 you have made things so complicated. Just keep it simple, my friend. That which is begotten, existed before it was begotten. I think we have agreed on this point.
Now with that understood, we can acknowledge that the Son existed before He was begotten before creation.
Since a fatherless, eternal father is an oxymoron, we can understand that since there is an eternal Father, there must be an eternal Son. He can’t be a father without an offspring or he wouldn’t be a father.
1John 1 tells us that from the beginning the eternal life (which is the Son) was with the Father and was made manifest to us (which was according to the flesh).
You would do well to focus on the unity of the Father and Son together with their Spirit. This is a unity of perfection. No flaws within the unity. God the Father is God within this unity, not apart from it. You try to separate Him from this unity.
Our saving creator God is Father, with His Son and their Spirit. This is not something a cult believes. This is early church Christianity, my friend.
There NEVER was a time when the this unity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit did not exist.
My husband is the head over me to protect me, to love me, and serve me well as Christ does for the church. Why would I have a problem with that protocol, unless the husband failed in that position and was abusive in some way, but if he does as he was designed by God to do, well, there are no complaints from me. Before I was married, my father did that and he protected me and loved me and served me well. In fact, he did that from a distance in conjunction with my husband. I love my hubbie and my father, who is in the presence of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit now. Hallelujah, I shall see my father again!!
Lu, why are you telling me personal details? What purpose is this to the points raised in this thread?
Jael
Because of what you said here:
Nurture… Compassion … Love… Subordination… These are some aspects that are highly prominent in a woman over anything like the equivalent in a man (male).
I know LU won’t like that last part – but truth doesn’t have preference over who should believe it.
Now with that understood, we can acknowledge that the Son existed before He was begotten before creation.
My view has nearly always been that the son existed before creation. He is the Word. So yes, he existed before being begotten or being born into this world.
Since a fatherless, eternal father is an oxymoron, we can understand that since there is an eternal Father, there must be an eternal Son. He can’t be a father without an offspring or he wouldn’t be a father.
God obviously became a Father when he begat a son. I agree that a Father must have a son or at least some offspring. He has existed from eternity to eternity as God. And he is the Father of all spirits, not just his son.
Colossians 1:3
We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you.God is the Father.
“My view has nearly always been that the son existed before creation. He is the Word. So yes, he existed before being begotten or being born into this world.”
Lu, you MUST DITCH wrongful ideology.
You idea is wrong wrong wrong…
God is ‘FATHER’ because the word and term means, ‘He who creates, he who brings forth, he who is the head…’
God is Father of creation… He brought forth the Angels as spirits and creation as a product of his wisdom and power. He brought into existence a limited PHYSICAL version of his own being which is called ‘Adam’ (Or Mankind).
God is SPIRIT… God CREATES…
God (Spirit) does not PROCREATE.
Lu, mankind is flesh, physical elements – scriptures in Genesis (By Moses) calls this ‘Dust of the earth’, so don’t get hecked up if I say that the egg in a woman is just ‘dust’ – Adam was created from the ‘dust’ of the earth and God blew the spirit into the lifeless body and the [lifeless] man became a LIVING SOUL.
Lu, the lifeless egg of Mary was brought to life when the Holy Spirit infused it and brought it into life.
This then identifies the child from Mary as the SECOND ADAM (or LAST ADAM) – no other human has been brought to life in such a manner : HOLY AND SINLESS.
By this, a holy and sinless man, holding true to Almighty God, can be called, ‘SON OF GOD’.
Adam, in the day of his creation, and until he fell away in sin, WAS ALSO ‘SON OF GOD’.
Lu, this is WHY there was a need for a SECOND ADAM.
Lu, a question: How do you link a pre-existent ‘GOD’ with the creation of a (second) human being in the likeness of the first man.
Lu, a simple, silly second, in humour question? If God is three persons, and this three person God made man in his likeness, his (their??) image… why is man not THREE PERSONS as well…?
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.…
But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature, upholding all things by His powerful word. After He had provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.…
The above doesn’t say that Jesus or the Word has always existed as its own being or identity, but certainly before creation this is true.
@t8
Of course there is this passage to tell us that the Son was eternal from the beginning:
1 John 1
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.
This commentary agrees as well as many other commentators:
1 John 1:2. For the life — The living Word; was manifested — In the flesh to our very senses; and we have seen it — In its full evidence; and bear witness — Testify by declaring, by preaching, and writing, 1 John 1:3-4. Preaching lays the foundation, writing builds thereon: and show unto you — Who have not seen; the eternal life — The eternal Word and Son of God, who lives himself for ever, and is the author of eternal life to us, John 10:28; Hebrews 5:9; which was with the Father — John 1:1-2; in his bosom, John 1:18; of the same nature and essence with himself, and was with him from eternity; and was manifested to us — With all the genuine characters of the Son of God and the promised Messiah. That the apostle speaks of his eternity a parte ante, (as they say,) and as from everlasting, is evident, in that he speaks of him as he was in and from the beginning; when he was with the Father, before his manifestation to us; yea, before the making of all things that were made, as John 1:2-3. So that he is the eternal, vital, intellectual Word and Son of the eternal, living Father. Now here was condescension and kindness indeed! that a person possessed of eternal, essential life, should put on flesh and blood, or the entire human nature; should assume infirmity, affliction, and mortality, in order to visit sinful mortals, to dwell among and converse with them; to reveal to them, procure for them, and then confer on them, eternal life; even felicity and glory unspeakable with himself for ever!
I love what Benson has to say about 1 John 1, especially this:
Now here was condescension and kindness indeed! that a person possessed of eternal, essential life, should put on flesh and blood, or the entire human nature; should assume infirmity, affliction, and mortality, in order to visit sinful mortals, to dwell among and converse with them; to reveal to them, procure for them, and then confer on them, eternal life; even felicity and glory unspeakable with himself for ever!
I totally agree with this!! Amen!!
I have read in many places where the trinity is supposedly explained – and exactly all of them cannot explain it.
Here is one trinity site (or, rather, webpage) that literally admits that trinity is a load of nonsense.
The text is long but if anyone reads it they will see that the trinitarian author admits that the words used to try to explain trinity are NOT ADEQUATE.
https://bible.org/article/trinity-triunity-god
The author further goes on to suggest different words (tri-unity, for instance, instead of trinity… Substance instead of Person…etc) as it is immediately obvious that the former words and terms cannot account for the convoluted and illogical and indiscriminate attempts of the past and present believers.
To parenthesise the argument, the author starts off his explanation by DEMANDING that the reader NOT UNDERSTSND the concept of the trinity (tri-unity). You will see this as a reflection from the Athanasian trinity creed which also demands that anyone who doesn’t believe in the trinity be destined to everlasting death.
And I thought belief was a free and open option!
The author also tries to distance the trinity from other pagan religions by claiming differences between them. Well, YES, OF COURSE there are differences… Satan knows well enough not to put all his eggs into one basket!!
What the author absences from his theory is THE SIMILARITIES between trinity and the pagan beliefs that he touched on: There are THREE ‘persons’ in all of them (more in others)
Now, even the most stalwart trinitarian will quote that ‘GOD IS ONE’… But they patently refuse to outline the circumstances of the saying, rather, they resort to some hitherwise unknown ideology of a ‘Hypostasis’ and that the three ‘Gods’ are not three gods. You will notice from the AThanasian trinity creed that those last words are ‘TACKED ON’ rather than being an absolute part of the teaching. Stands to reason that an observer at some time realised that a trinity of gods was proposed by the hurriedly put together creed and pointed it out to those involved in the EVOLUTION of the creed. The creed authors could not, nor had time to, fathom a way out of the delemma and tacked on ‘but these three are one God’ without any REAL attempt to show how such an unbiblical concept works.
Test it yourself:
1) ‘Jesus’ is of the same substance as GOD.
2) God is Spirit.
3) Do spirits have ‘substance’?
4) Jesus is EQUAL TO GOD
5) But GOD is ‘undivided, inseparable, interdependent my, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’!!
6) Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit must therefore be EACH OTHER AND THEMSELVES…
7) God is subordinate to no one: all three are EQUAL
8) Subordination is a major element in the trinity!
9) TRINITY God is a complete and unique COMPOUND of persons
10) The Son, in trinity, ADDS humanity to his ‘COMPLETENESS’… Does this make him GREATER or LESSER than the tri-person God he already is: a QUADRUPLET OF GODS?
I could go on…
Suffice it to say, ‘The LORD (YHWH), your God, is ONE GOD’. This is spoken to the Hebrews/Israelite nation who were surrounded and encountered many pagans nations who believed in multiple gods.
The God we believe in did not claim to be a God of multiple beings but instead declared: ‘I AM ONE GOD’.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
