- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Scripture says that the Word existed with God in the beginning. What does beginning mean in Genesis 1. The point of creation. In other words he existed at least at the point of creation and we are also told elsewhere that this Word became flesh and that God made all things through his Word. Further, it says that God made all things for and through the son and that after the son came in the flesh and died for humanity, he went back to the glory that he had with God before the cosmos. And indeed we read that he is seated at the right-hand of the majesty on high in unspeakable glory.
The view the Bible seems to point to and this same view is how the early church fathers saw it is more akin to God being the Father and the son coming from him. Jesus often said things like: “if God were your Father, you would believe that I came from God“. If Jesus or the Word did not come from God, then you could speculate that the son has always been in the same way as the Father. That would lend itself more to their being two Gods even if one of the Gods was greater than the other. In this case, scripture would be written differently. Instead of God being the gardener and Jesus the vine, both would be gardeners. Instead of the head of Christ being God, the head of Christ would be no one. Instead of God being the Father of Jesus, God would be more akin to Jesus brother albeit possibly an older brother.
Far be from it though, ‘Jesus is the son of God’. We are told in scripture (in a puzzling way) that those who deny the Father and the Son (such as what Islam does) that is the sign of the Antichrist. However, there are many other doctrines that deny the son more subtly than Islam. One is to say that Jesus is God and then by that definition, he cannot be his own son, thus indeed the doctrine itself denies the son.
I use to think it weird that the Antichrist spirit denies the son. I reasoned that surely there are much worse things than denying Jesus as the son. However, there are many religions, philosophies, and doctrines that deny the son and their fruit is not good when you look back in history. After all, Peter declared to Jesus that he was the son of the living God and the messiah after Jesus asked who do people say I am and then asked Peter who he was. Jesus commended his answer saying that this was revealed to him by the Father. Jesus then spoke the foundation of the Church into being. “Upon this rock, I will build my Church“. He then said, “and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it“. So it seems that Hell itself is the thing that is trying to deny this important revelation and truth.
@t8
One way that people deny the Son is by saying that He is NOT the same type of being as the Father-an eternal being. A true offspring is the same type of being as their father…always.
The offspring of a dog is another dog.
The offspring of a fish is another fish.
The offspring of a human is another human.
The offspring of a god is another god.
John 1:1 tells us that God is with God in the beginning. God is perfect in every way. A perfect son would be in perfect submission to his perfect parent at all times. An offspring is PART OF a parent and when the context in scripture is emphasizing the oneness of God, the offspring is assumed as part of that oneness yet also like the parent in type and distinct from that parent while always remaining a part of that parent.
I think the reason people have a hard time seeing an offspring as part of a parent is because human offspring are IMperfect yet God’s only offspring was/is/will be completely perfect forever more. That is why the perfect Son can do nothing without the Father, not because He is less than His Father in ability but because He is a perfect Son who is ALWAYS in submission to His perfect Father.
Lu
The offspring of a god is another god.
John 1:1 tells us that God is with God in the beginning. God is perfect in every way. A perfect son would be in perfect submission to his perfect parent at all times. An offspring is PART OF a parent and when the context in scripture is emphasizing the oneness of God, the offspring is assumed as part of that oneness yet also like the parent in type and distinct from that parent while always remaining a part of that parent.
that is why John 1;1 ;should read ;Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God.
and not GOD only
Perfection with perfection is God with God in John 1:1. Some make it as Perfection with less than perfection thus missing truth and denying the Son who would be the same type as His Father, imo. Perfect Father with Perfect Son=God with God. The perfection is equal, the relationship is different. For instance, a perfect father begotten of no one, is in submission to no one. A perfect son, begotten from a perfect father is going to be in submission to his perfect father because he is a perfect son, not because he is incapable of anything or less perfect than his father.
The ‘a’ that you add is insignificant if the theos you are referring to is perfect in every way. Every person that is referred to as ‘the’______ is also an ‘a’_____. For example, the king is also ‘a’ king. Or ‘the’ president is also ‘a’ president. Too much emphasis has been made over the article ‘the’ or ‘a.’ For example, many times in scripture, the God of Israel that is spoken about in the NT does not always have the article ‘the’ to go with the word ‘God.’
As an example of that: John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name
The verse here in John 1:12 does not have an article ‘the’ with the word ‘God’ but there is no doubt that the God written about is a true God.
Lu
but no one talks like that ,not even in scriptures only bias translators do that to create confusion and then claim what is not truth ,
John was not talking to perfect people he talked to people that will be saved by believing the truth ,and so are ;Paul,Peter,Jude,JTB,Jesus,the prophets,Luke,Mark,Matthew, and John letters ,all have one spirit of truth ;
and all things have to be understood through their written words for Jesus says ;Jn 17:20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message,
so I cannot see John explaining what you say to his fellow members in Christ ;
for he also says ;Jn 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was “a” God.
Jn 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us,now you can see that John is talking about Jesus Christ the only begotten son of God and so it as to be with a “a” for the THE ONE THAT IS WITH GOD IS ANOTHER THAN GOD THAT HIS WITH HIM ;
so that it says ;the son that his with the royal king is also a royalty in line to become a king ,
for the english word “GOD” really means “almighty one ” many people get confused with the word “GOD”
One way that people deny the Son is by saying that He is NOT the same type of being as the Father-an eternal being. A true offspring is the same type of being as their father…always.
Your post proves one thing, you are not paying attention.
I will try and simplify it further so we don’t get these kinds of misinformed posts.
Jesus existed in the FORM of God. He emptied himself, humbled himself, died for our sins, rose from the grave, and was raised up to be back at the right-hand of God in the glory that he had before the cosmos.
Note the part where he existed in the FORM of God and then note that he partook of flesh (form of man) and now he has returned to the same glory he had before.
I will now give you the Adam and Eve version.
From Adam came Eve. Eve was not Adam (the person) but was in nature adam (a person). Note: ‘adam’ is the word ‘man’.
Again it is a nature vs identity issue. Adam is identified as the the first man and Eve can never be Adam. But her nature was from him, thus we read in scripture, God created man (adam) male and female.
So Yeshua is not God himself, but existed with his nature. So yes, the same kind as God, but not God himself.
Be careful about what you ask next. Make sure you understand my points before asking a naive question. Usually I am quite patient with people in explaining stuff, but if a person cannot grasp what I am saying, then the best advice is to just move on to something you do understand and ask God for understanding. It is wisdom after all to know your own limitations.
Perfection with perfection is God with God in John 1:1. Some make it as Perfection with less than perfection thus missing truth and denying the Son who would be the same type as His Father, imo.
You were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created, till iniquity was found in you.
So before his fall, and according to your view, we have to add in another who was God. Obviously your statement is flawed LU.
My opinion is that we shouldn’t teach that which we do not understand. Teachers incur a harsher judgement, but of course also receive great reward if their teaching is truth. We should be careful about tackling subjects we do not understand. That can only lead to error.
@t8
you said:So Yeshua is not God himself, but existed with his nature. So yes, the same kind as God, but not God himself.
He is NOT God the Father himself, but He is God as the Son, the only eternal offspring of the Father.
you also said:
So before his fall, and according to your view, we have to add in another who was God. Obviously your statement is flawed LU.
Wrong, satan is not an offspring in the same sense as Jesus. The kind of offspring that Jesus is would be the same type of being as His Father-an eternal being. Satan is not that type of offspring because he was created. You are missing important details. Please be careful not to compare Jesus to satan in their type of being.
and here you said:
From Adam came Eve. Eve was not Adam (the person) but was in nature adam (a person). Note: ‘adam’ is the word ‘man’.
Again it is a nature vs identity issue.
Poor analogy, sorry. No one is saying that Eve is the Adam and no one is saying that Jesus is the Father. What I am saying is that both Jesus and His Father are eternal beings, one is the son of the other. Btw, eternal beings that created the world and saved the world and have dominion over all creation for ever and ever are what most consider to be their God. If those qualifications are not good enough for you, do you have someone else that you serve that is greater than that?
lu
What I am saying is that both Jesus and His Father are eternal beings, one is the son of the other. Btw, eternal beings that created the world
but what is wrong in your theory is that it is not found in scriptures ,so you may believe that and say that ,but that view his yours ;not from scriptures ;and that is my point ;
saved the world and have dominion over all creation for ever and ever are what most consider to be their God. If those qualifications are not good enough for you, do you have someone else that you serve that is greater than that?
I do not see were you got this idea for God was ready to destroy ALL creation ;ans now you come up that He want to save it ;?
are you working on a doctors degree teases ? that you have to come up with some kind of weird view where you have to show of your human ego ?all you said as no source in scriptures , but to lost minds it would be appealing i guess .
He is NOT God the Father himself, but He is God as the Son, the only eternal offspring of the Father.
I see, so Jesus is the son of God and the Father is ‘the Father of God’?
No. For us, there is one God the Father. And we believe that Jesus is of God too. As the son of God. You see there is no Father of God. He is just God. It is the son who is OF or FROM God.
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”.
See, you disbelieve Jesus because he said that God is the Father, and that he (Jesus) came from God and that God also sent him.
Okay, so your theology looks ridiculous right, because now Jesus came from himself, and he sent himself. The truth of course is that he was sent by the Father and came from the Father. Father – son right. But note, that he doesn’t even say Father. He says God.
God is the one true God. He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus said: “eternal life is this, that they may know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent“.
You won’t see me giving up eternal life for a Binity doctrine from some woman who comes from America that I have never met in person. lol. Do you really think I would give up the faith for your deceiving doctrine? And for what exactly? I wouldn’t even do it for 1 billion dollars. You don’t really have a chance. I wouldn’t even trade eternal life for the whole world. What can you offer in exchange for eternal life exactly? Nothing.
@t8
As you admit, Jesus is a theos and God the Father begat Him. Why do you deny that God the Father is the Father of the theos who is the Son?It is rather simple to accept that the one who beget a son is the father of what that son is.
To know who Jesus is seems to be essential to having eternal life. I’m trying to help you know Him. Since you deny that the Father is the father of the only begotten theos, then you do not ‘know’ Jesus Christ whom the Father has sent. In fact, you do not know who the Father is in a way to have eternal life if you believe He is not the Father of the only begotten theos.
Your ‘signature message’ is what you hold up as your banner, yet you do not know the two who you claim you must know. Just because you put the names of Father and Son to two persons, does not mean you know them. There are many things that we don’t know about them but to utterly deny something that is true about them is different than not yet knowing. You utterly deny that God the Father is the father of the only begotten theos who is the Son.
Who do you think is the father of the theos who is the Son anyway? If you say “Well, God the Father, obviously” like Christians everywhere, then you do well. God the Father is the Father of the only begotten God who is the Son.
God the Father is indeed the Father of God the Son (the only begotten God.)
To whomever is may be concerned,
I find the argument that Jesus is the one true God is internally broken as well as not being consistent with Scripture.
The argument that Jesus is an angel or some such seems not to be internally broken though it is not consistent with Scripture.
Can you please include the scripture that states that “God the Father is the Father of the only begotten God who is the Son”? Because I do not remember ever reading any verse in scripture that actually says that.
Thanks! 🙂
~~~~~~~~~
Grasshopper@Grasshopper
John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.6There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.
9There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” 16For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
LU,
18No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
What version are you using?
What do you think the words “in the bosom” mean?
Luke 16:23Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
23 and in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
John 13:23Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
23 Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
I found this on this website: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/videos/john-1-18
*Disclaimer*
(As I stated previously, I do not subscribe to any denominational creeds or doctrines)~~~~~~~~~
Grasshopper
==================================================John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (KJV)1. As it is written in the KJV, there is no Trinitarian inference in the verse.
2. There are versions such as the NIV and NASB, however, that are translated from a different textual family than the King James Version, and they read “God” instead of “Son.”
NIV: “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.”
NASB: “No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”
The NIV and NASB represent theologians who believe that the original text read “ho monogenes theos” = “the unique, or only begotten God,” while the KJV is representative of theologians who believe that the original text was “ho monogenes huios” = “the only begotten Son.” The Greek texts vary, but there are good reasons for believing that the original reading is represented in versions such as the KJV. Although it is true that the earliest Greek manuscripts contain the reading “theos,” every one of those texts is of the Alexandrian text type. Virtually every other reading of the other textual traditions, including the Western, Byzantine, Caesarean and secondary Alexandrian texts, read huios, “Son.” The two famous textual scholars, Westcott and Hort, known for their defense of the Alexandrian text type, consider John 1:18 to be one of the few places in the New Testament where it is not correct.
A large number of the Church Fathers, such as Irenaeus, Clement and Tertullian, quoted the verse with “Son,” and not “God.” This is especially weighty when one considers that Tertullian argued aggressively for the incarnation and is credited with being the one who developed the concept of “one God in three persons.” If Tertullian had had a text that read “God” in John 1:18, he certainly would have quoted it, but instead he always quoted texts that read “Son.”
It is difficult to conceive of what “only begotten God” would have meant in the Jewish culture. There is no use of the phrase anywhere else in the Bible. In contrast, the phrase “only begotten Son” is used three other times by John (3:16 and 18; 1 John 4:9 – KJV). To a Jew, any reference to a “unique God” would have usually referred to the Father. Although the Jews of John’s day would have had a problem with “only begotten God,” Christians of the second century and beyond, with their increasingly paradoxical understanding of Christology and the nature of God, would have been much more easily able to accept such a doctrine.
The reason that the text was changed from “Son” to “God” was to provide “extra evidence” for the existence of the Trinity. By the second century, an intense debate about whether or not Jesus was God raged in Alexandria, Egypt, the place where all the texts that read “God” originated. The stakes were high in these debates, and excommunication, banishment or worse could be the lot of the “loser.” Changing a text or two to in order to “help” in a debate was a tactic proven to have occurred. An examination of all the evidence shows that it is probable that “the only begotten son” is the original reading of John 1:18. For a much more detailed accounting of why the word “Son” should be favored over the word “God,” see The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, by Bart Ehrman (Oxford University Press, New York, 1993, pp. 78-82).
3. Even if the original text reads “God” and not “Son,” that still does not prove the Trinity. The word “God” has a wider application in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek than it does in English. It can be used of men who have divine authority (See John 10:33 and Heb. 1:8). There is no “Trinitarian Formula” in this verse that forces a Trinitarian interpretation.
=======================================================
To whomever it may concern;
A lot of manuscripts seemed to have been found in Egypt, a country that is well known to consider it’s rulers to be both God and the Son of God.
This is from a Wikipedia entry about Ra
By the fourth dynasty the pharaohs were seen as Ra’s manifestations on earth, referred to as “Sons of Ra”.
To be sure the Bible has been changed many times, Babylon is where and when the OT books converted ordinary secular history into a miraculous fiction. And there were also many claims of Messiahs before and after Jesus. Some of the more central events in the life of Jesus are completely foreign to Judaism and the OT scriptures.
But still, Jesus resurrected himself from the dead Just as he said he would, his apostles were just as surprised as anyone. He then claimed to have all power and authority in heaven and on earth. One may not believe he is God, but the facts are what they are.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
