- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
T8,
I have never said that Yeshua is not begotten. I have simply said that the term begotten does not mean “born before the creation of the universe”. It has a spiritual meaning:
Acts 13:33
God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up [Yeshua]. As it is also written in the second Psalm: 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.'You have yet to address the Deuteronomy 13:1-6 passage or the Isaiah 44:24 passage, so you should be mindful about issuing challenges to other people. (Or should I just assume that Nick speaks for you?)
Oh, and you haven't produced a verse that talks about two uncreated beings either.
Nick,
You already know that I whole heartedly disagree with the idea that the NT interprets the OT. I believe that NT is supposed to fulfill the OT. Let's not go down that road again.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Feb. 06 2005,18:00) I have never said that Yeshua is not begotten. I have simply said that the term begotten does not mean “born before the creation of the universe”. It has a spiritual meaning:
Begotten means to come directly from God. Created means to come from God through the Logos/Christ.I am created.
Yeshua is begotten.
God is everlasting to everlasting.This is what I teach.
So the head of Christ is God, the head of the man is Christ and the head of the woman is the man. Christ came from God, Man came from God through Christ, and the woman came from Man who came from Christ who came from God.
In this way the woman, man and even Christ are all images of God. But Christ is the original image, the prototype image.
Hi WIT,
Don't get me wrong. I also believe we cannot grasp the New Testament without reference to the Old Testament either. And I believe the Old is more carefully translated and agreed on where some strange influences have been allowed to enter into translation of the New.
But it is not one or the other but both working together we must use in our search for truth. It is that amazing consistency and harmony between the New and Old that shows the influence of our God in the formation of the Bible that I love.'A wise man can take new and old things out of his storeroom'
The other thing is that Yeshua is the 'only begotten' Son of God – not two words but one – in Greek. The Greek is 'monogenes'.
No other Son of God is described in this way. This is a totally unique description. Yeshua was begotten of the Spirit and Mary, but 'only begotten' and derived from the Father alone in the beginning.Hi WIT,
I guess you are not suggesting from Acts 13.33 that Yeshua was begotten of God when he was resurrected by the Father. Paul had limited resources to call on in the OT compared with the NT to show that Yeshua was the Son of God and so chose Ps 2 but that did not directly relate but showed who he was by the fact of his resurrection.The verses in Deut 13.1-6 are interesting.
Surely you do not accuse Yeshua of being a false prophet by him stating he was the Son of God. Surely you do not agree with the Pharisees that he deserved death?
He was present with the Father in the beginning and sent by the Father. He showed signs and wonders but did not come to reveal himself as an alternative deity to be worshipped.
His followers certainly recognised who he was and how glorious were his divine origins. They realised how awesome he was in his own right. Surely you do not accuse them of idolatry either? Or are the translators all evil men distorting the truth and stronger than the Spirit's role in preserving the Word?
You seem determined to find idolatry here looking solely from the OT viewpoint. That is what the Pharisees thought too when they did not listen to Yeshua. But the whole message of Yeshua is to respond to his words. That is how we show love of the Father. It is impossible to avoid judgement unless we respond to the Words of Yeshua in the New Testament. He is the watershed as far as judgement goes.
Jn 3.17
” For this is the judgement, that the light is come into the world and men loved darkness rather than the light.”He did not draw people after him to worship him but revealed the Father to them and drew people to be reborn into him so they could worship and serve the Father.
t8,
Please do not underestimate the value Christian gathering together.
Matthew 18:20 “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”
Hebrews 10:25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.
Micah 4:1-2 And it will come about in the last days That the mountain of the house of the LORD Will be established as the chief of the mountains. It will be raised above the hills, And the peoples will stream to it. Many nations will come and say, “Come and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD And to the house of the God of Jacob, That He may teach us about His ways And that we may walk in His paths.” For from Zion will go forth the law, Even the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.
God has always wanted his servants to be an organized group (for example, take ancient Israel and its laws). Christians in the first century were an organized group. If you are saying that it is not important to gather together with fellow Christians and one can easily stand by himself – then you are expressing your point of view not the Bible's.
However, it is not good enough to belong to any Christian group.
John 4:24 “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.“
Ephesians 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
Then how can we know who are the true followers of Jesus?
Jesus explained to us how we can identify false Christians:
Matthew 7:16 You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?
John 13:35 “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”
James 2:20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?
So it is not just who speak God's words but also who obey them.
About which Christian group can you tell the following?:
Fully base their beliefs on Bible, not traditions (2 Tim 3:16)
Preach the Kingdom of God in whole world (Mat 24:14; Acts 19:8)
Recognize God's name (Acts 2:21; Ps 113:2, Mat 6:9)
Recognize Jesus as the only head of the congregation (Col 1:18)
Make disciples and teach them (Matt 28:19-20)
Have love among themselves (John 13:35)
Hated by the world (2 Tim 3:12; John 15:18-19)
Obstain from idols (Ex 20:4, John 4:24)
Not from this world (1 John 2:15)
Full agreement and no division among themselves (1 Corinthians 1:10)Quote (Human @ Feb. 07 2005,08:48) God has always wanted his servants to be an organized group (for example, take ancient Israel and its laws). Christians in the first century were an organized group. If you are saying that it is not important to gather together with fellow Christians and one can easily stand by himself – then you are expressing your point of view not the Bible's.
Human,
I don't often agree with your posts but I wholeheartedly agree with you on this one. Especially this:
Peace and God's blessingsQuote (Human @ Feb. 07 2005,08:48)
Human,
I don't often agree with your posts but I wholeheartedly agree with you on this one. Especially this:Quote God has always wanted his servants to be an organized group (for example, take ancient Israel and its laws). Christians in the first century were an organized group. If you are saying that it is not important to gather together with fellow Christians and one can easily stand by himself – then you are expressing your point of view not the Bible's. Peace and God's blessings
I have not had a chance to read through everything on this thread yet but much that T8 had to say in his 2000 Thesis resonates with me. I was struck by the fact that we could read the bible and arrive at the same conclusions inspite of the mainstream views on God.
My question to t8 and others of our view is, where do we fellowship? Do you know of any people or groups that believe as we do? Also, were there any non-biblical early christians that you know of?
Look forward to hearing from you and being a part of this board.
Welcome Cubes,
It is great that we can share certain understandings. That of itself cannot lead to true fellowship however. Unless we become part of the same body we will only divide again.We have to break fellowship with Satan[2Cor 6.14]. We have to come out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light.To do that we have to have fellowship with the Son of God through repentance and baptism into his death, in his Name.
[1Jn 1.6, 1 Cor 1.9]That leads to fellowship with OUR Father and fellowship in His Spirit.[1Jn 1.3, 2Cor 13.14, Phil 2.1]
Only then can we have true fellowship with one another.[1 Jn 1.3, 1 Jn 1.7, Acts 2.42]. Man puts greatest emphasis on his relationship with his fellow man and that is why different denominations develop.
“Seek ye first the kingdom of God and everything else will be added to you”
I prayed for fellowship and was sent here.
T8,
Quote God is uncreated and he created all things through Yeshua.
So neither God, nor his son can be created if the above is true.Have you simply ignored my entire discussion with Nick about this very issue – about the meaning of Isaiah 44:24? There was only One involved in creation, not two. Yahweh says so Himself in Isaiah 44:24!
You have a unique way of only discussing what you want to discuss while avoiding many of the challenges issued to you. It is very frustrating.
Nick and T8,
Here is an excerpt from some info that crossed my path recently. (The quote is from a Trinitarian, so his views about Yeshua are closer to yours than they are to mine.)
Quote The key element to remember in deriving the meaning of monogenes is this: it is a compound term, combining monos, meaning only, with a second term. Often it is assumed that the second term is gennasthai/gennao, to give birth, to beget. But note that this family of terms has two nu’s, νν, rather than a single nu, ν, found in monogenes. This indicates that the second term is not gennasthai but gignesthai/ginmai, and the noun form, genos. G. L. Prestige discusses the differences that arise from these two derivations in God in Patristic Thought (London: SPCK, 1952), 37-51, 135-141, 151-156. Genos means “kind or type”, ginomai is a verb of being. Hence the translations “one of a kind,” “one and only,” “of sole descent.” Some scholars see the -genes element as having a minor impact upon the meaning of the term, and hence see monogenes as a strengthened form of monos, thereby translating it “alone,” “unique,” “incomparable.”
An example of this usage from the LXX is found in Psalm 25:16,
turn to me and be gracious to me,
for I am lonely (monogenes) and afflicted: (NASB)(White, The Forgotten Trinity [Minneapolis, MN, Bethany House Publishers, 1998], pp. 201-202, fn. 27)
Another example of 'monogenes' clearly being used to mean “unique” is Hebrews 11:17-19:
By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only [monogenes] son, even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.(Note that Abraham actually had two sons.)
Your doctrine rests on a mistranslation of the Greek. Many modern English bibles correct this mistranslation that started with the KJV. (English versions of the NT prior to the KJV did not translate “monogenes” in this faulty way either.) Of course, you may, (and probably will), cling to your doctrine that Yeshua was “begotten before the world began” despite the fact that there are no verses that say so.
Nick,
Read Deuteronomy 13:1-6 again, and consider this question:
When Yeshua was revealed to Israel, was he revealed as a deity that they had not heard of before, or simply as the promised Messiah?
Deuteronomy 13:1-6 tells me that there can only be one answer.
Hi WIT,
I have no problem with the Son of God being 'unique' among the sons of God.Unique in that he was firstborn derived directly from the Father.
Unique in that all creation came through him.
Unique as greater than all as the image of the Father and of his own divine nature which he gave up for a time to become less than the angels.
Unique as being totally selfless and obedient.
Unique in sharing our human tent\body being born of Mary.
Unique in being the firstborn from the dead.Deut 13. 1f
” If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder and the sign or wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you saying
'Let us go after other gods [whom you have not known]and let us serve them'
you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for your God is testing you to find out if you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall follow the Lord your God and fear Him;and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice , serve Him and cling to Him.
But that prophet or that dreamer shall be put to death..”So regarding Yeshua. He was one of the sons of God who rejoiced to see the foundations of earth laid in Jb 38 and had godlike nature so is mentioned in Genesis 3.22 as 'One of Us' He is not new but from the beginning and able to be discerned by careful searchers of the OT.
He was not the God of the Jews but the Son of that God. He was sent as Messiah and a prophet. He did signs and wonders but not to prove his mission but because there were needs and he had the ability to do so in his Father's name and will. He did not seek worship or draw others to worship himself or other gods but revealed their only God to them.
Neither did his followers do these things. They did the same as the Master. I ask again-are they to be judged by you as idolatrous because of how they related to and wrote about the Son of God? Is that what you find unacceptable?
Or cannot you separate divine nature greater than human and angelic nature from the worship of the Deity-the Father?
God allows prayers to false gods to be answered and false wonders to be performed to test us. We do not worship any other deity but God.
Nick,
You miss the point on both issues that I brought up.
1. You keep saying that Yeshua was “derived directly from the Father”, but you have no scriptural proof. You have used the Greek word “monogenes” many times in the past to prove that Yeshua was “begotten”, but such usage is faulty.
2. I am not saying that the apostles were idolaters. Scripture says that anyone who loves and honors a deity other than Yahweh is an idolater. None of the apostles claimed to love or honor any deity but Yahweh.
By the way, sons of God are not deities, so your attempts to force a Son Deity into passages that talk about God's angels is extremely unbiblical, or as you like to say “going beyond scripture”.
liljon,
Since you will not read the info that I linked previously about the development of the Trinity doctrine, I will post an excerpt of it here for you, and for anyone else who missed it.
Quote TERTULLIAN THE FIRST TRINITARIAN,
and TRINITARIAN CHAMPION OF THE EASTTertullian came along in AD 150 and lived to become a lawyer and orator. He was converted to Christianity in his middle age in 195, and became presbyter of the church in Carthage, North Africa. Today he is referred to as the founder of Western theology (EH Klotsche, The History of Christian Doctrine, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979, 52-53).
He wrote Against Praxeas in 213 and attacked the modalist concept of God, bringing an explanation of his trinitarianism into view.
It must be noted that he began believing in only two persons of the Godhead as opposed to three. Since he joined the Montanists, who stressed the work of the Holy Ghost, he was made aware of his need to position the Holy Ghost into the Godhead as a person, also, in his doctrine.
Tertullian, the father of Trinitarianism, wrote in his book, Against Hermogenes,
That God was not yet Father before the time in which He begat the Son.
The Son was not eternal.
The Son was the Word and was Wisdom.
He was “born and created” of the Father, making the Father stronger, older and more noble than the Son.
Tertullian wrote of a “Trinity.”He said that God consisted of “three persons”.
These three persons were the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
God is “one only substance in three coherent, inseparable (Persons)”
He said that the three persons were three “beings” making up one God
He said that the Father and the Son were “two different Beings”
They were “distinct but not separate”
He said the Son was “another”
Tertullian taught the doctrine of subordinationism. This teaches that the Son is inferior to the Father. And he saidThe Holy Spirit was inferior to both the Son and the Father.
He wrote that the Son and the Spirit “have the second and third places assigned to them.
He taught that the Father and Son were both God, but when speaking of them together, one must call the Father God and call the Son Lord. “The Father is… greater than the Son”
He wrote that the Son is merely “a portion of the whole Godhead.”.
When He heard the modalists speak of his attempts to divide the substance of God, Tertullian replied that even the angels “are naturally members of the Father's substance”. And if angels could exist and be of the Father's substance but yet not destroy His oneness, why should the existence of the Son and Spirit destroy His oneness? (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), vol. 1 of The Christian Tradition: A Hisotry of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1971) 105.)Tertullian did not believe what trinitarians today believe. Modern trinitarians believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are coequal. Tertullian believed the Son and Spirit were progressively inferior to the Father.
Tertullian believed that the Father was eternal, but the Son was not.
He said the Father was not the Father until the Son came into existence at a point before creation.
Trinitarians today believe that the Son and Father were both eternal, and that the Son eternally comes forth from the Father.He taught that the persons had a beginning and that they would also have an ending!
He said, “The Monarchy… remains so firm and stable in its own state, notwithstanding the introduction into it of the Trinity, that the Son actually has to restore it entire to the Father”
Modern Trinitarians disagree and believe there will be no end to the existence of the Son and the Holy Ghost.Tertullian believed the Word was originally not a person.
This agreed with the Greek Apologists's ideas.
Both Tertullian and the Greek Apologists believed that the Son became personal when he was begotten.“Before all things God was alone… yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which he possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason…. God had not Word from the beginning, but he had Reason even before the beginning….For although God had not yet sent out His Word, He still had Him within Himself”.
Tertullian said that Word was begotten in Gen 1:3 “The Word also Himself assume[d] His own form and glorious garb, His own sound and vocal utterance, when God says, 'Let there be light.' This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds forth from God — formed by Him first….then afterwards begotten”.
Apparently, Tertullian even believed that each of the three beings, or persons of the Godhead, had a body since he said that all spirit beings have a body. This brings him incredibly close to tritheism – the belief in three gods.“For who will deny that God is a Body, although 'God is a Spirit?' For Spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form….Whatever, therefore, was the substance of the Word that I designate a Person, I claim for it the name of Son”.
Modern Trinitarians do not accept this view, although this view was proposed by the man who began the Trinity doctrine.
TERTULLIAN'S TRINITY MODERN TRINITY
Son and Spirit not eternal Father, Son, Spirit eternal
Father superior to Son Father, Son, Spirit coequal
Father Son and Spirit have bodies Only Son was given a body
WORD not orginally a Person Word is Son and eternally a second Person
Word became Son in Gen. 1:3 Son is eternalModern Trinity doctrine teaches that Subordinationism (Son inferior to Father) is a heresy. Tertullian, the man who first taught a Trinitarian concept, was a subordinationist.
Read the rest, and discover how what you believe evolved considerably over time. Again, if the Trinity is so foundational, why did it take so long for the “church fathers” to get it right? Read the rest here:
http://mikeblume.com/modoldtr.htm
Nick, pay special attention to the fact that Tertullian did NOT believe that the “logos” was a person. That came later.
Hi WIT,
It is you who say Yeshua is a deity when you argue that two deities are worshipped. What is your scriptural basis for that assertion or are you going beyond Scripture? Thomas, John and Paul all called Yeshua their God. Surely you must protest to be consistent?What makes us sons in the natural world? We are sons because we have parents, a father and a mother.
What of Yeshua? He is described as Son of God and Son of Man. What makes him Son of Man, a term he used far more often of himself? Surely it was emphasising his partaking of human flesh and being born of Mary?
So what of Son of God? Surely it emphasises his sole derivation from the Father.The other sons of God in the OT -archangels and Adam. They did not have human mothers either did they? They also derived directly from God created through Yeshua.
Yeshau claimed to be 'before Abraham'. He is the 'monogenes' the 'only begotten' Son of God. John the baptist too, who was born before him, claimed that Yeshua was before him. Does that not say anything special about him to you? Are you suggesting he is not the firstborn Son and the other sons of God in Job were created before him and were not created through him?
That is unscriptural.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 07 2005,19:20) Welcome Cubes,
It is great that we can share certain understandings. That of itself cannot lead to true fellowship however. Unless we become part of the same body we will only divide again.We have to break fellowship with Satan[2Cor 6.14]. We have to come out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light.To do that we have to have fellowship with the Son of God through repentance and baptism into his death, in his Name.
[1Jn 1.6, 1 Cor 1.9]That leads to fellowship with OUR Father and fellowship in His Spirit.[1Jn 1.3, 2Cor 13.14, Phil 2.1]
Only then can we have true fellowship with one another.[1 Jn 1.3, 1 Jn 1.7, Acts 2.42]. Man puts greatest emphasis on his relationship with his fellow man and that is why different denominations develop.
“Seek ye first the kingdom of God and everything else will be added to you”
I prayed for fellowship and was sent here.
Thank you for your response, Nick. I will read through your scriptural references…and I understand where you are coming from to some extent, but I am also confronted with Hebrew 10:25 which cannot be abandoned.Hbr 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some [is]; but exhorting [one another]: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
Hi WIT,
That Oneness site you offer seems to suggest that John 1.1 is untrue. However I believe God is true though every man be proved a liar, and that God's Word is truth.” In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was god”
He denies that the Logos was with God in the beginning, blaming Greek influence for this perception, and instead teaches that Yeshua is his own Father.
How can I take you seriously when you support such nonsense? But perhaps you don't but you read widely and just want to share an insight thus found.
Nick,
1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. (NIV)
2) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NASB)
3) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (KJV)
4) The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God, (MES)
5) In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God. (NLT)
6) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (ESV)
7) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NKJV)
8) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (ASV)
9) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; (YLT)
10) The Word (Christ) was in the beginning. The Word was with God. The Word was God. (NLV)
Here are 10 versions of John 1:1 where the the translators chose to assign a capital 'G' to the last word. Why do you use a lower case 'G'?
Do you know the Greek better than all of them??
Hi MM,
Thank you for highlighting the matter. Many are confused by the word God being used twice in that verse. Some translate the second word as 'divine'. The simple matter is that 'The Word' is not the God of the Old Testament but is the Son of God. He existed with his Father in the beginning and had divine nature.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 08 2005,07:37) Hi MM,
Thank you for highlighting the matter. Many are confused by the word God being used twice in that verse. Some translate the second word as 'divine'. The simple matter is that 'The Word' is not the God of the Old Testament but is the Son of God. He existed with his Father in the beginning and had divine nature.
So ARE you saying that you know better than the New Testament translators?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
