- This topic has 579 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Mike: Jesus is not God, Kathi, but one of God’s many heavenly sons – each one created with free will to either obey and align their wills with the will of their God – or reject their God like Satan and a third of God’s heavenly sons already did.
LU: Is Jesus the Son of God or merely a Son of God?
Jesus is one of God’s many heavenly sons. He is a son of God. Why? Do you believe that Jesus is God’s only son?
John 19:26… When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is the son of you.”
Jesus loved all of his disciples, and Mary had many sons. But despite this, John could rightfully call himself THE disciple that Jesus loved, and Jesus could refer to John as THE son of Mary.
I guess I’m not quite seeing your point yet. Please continue.
And in the meantime, please answer this question from before:
What particular word in Gen 1:1 indicates that there is a person (or persons) mentioned in that verse?
LU: My point with the coin analogy is about how one side requires the existence of the other side to be the side it is. In other words the Father requires the existence of the Son to be the Father that he is. The Son requires the existence of the Father to be the Son of God that he is. It is together, as in existence, not necessarily location, that they are who they are.
One does not exist without the other.
We’re all familiar with flipping a coin and calling heads or tails. I agree that without a “tails” side of a coin, the term “heads side” would be senseless. For example, you’d have to come up with different terms in the case of a coin that had a head on both sides of it. But in general, the existence of a heads side of a coin requires a “not-heads side”. It cannot be the “heads side” if there is no “not-heads side”.
I also agree that the term “father” is meaningless unless there is at least one offspring involved. And I agree that a man doesn’t BECOME a father until that first offspring comes into existence.
We are actually told about the moment that this event occurred with God and His firstborn Son Jesus in the scriptures…
Psalm 2:7… I will proclaim Yahweh’s decree: He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father.”
We learn from this psalm that there was a time when God had no son, and therefore wasn’t a father. On the day that Yahweh (one person) produced His first son, Yahweh (still one person) became a father while His first offspring simultaneously became Yahweh’s (one person) first son.
Yahweh was already Yahweh before He brought His first son forth into existence. At that point, Yahweh remained Yahweh as before – but now also had the title “Father”.
Again, I’m apparently not seeing any significance to your claims that heads can’t be heads without a not-heads, or that a father can’t be a father until there is an offspring. These things are obvious, and I’m not seeing any link to a “Yahweh Unity”.
LU: It seems that Mike is trying to use “dia” in your verses as if it is with an accusative Greek formed word that follows it… However, the creation verses that you used do not have “dia” followed by an accusative word but by a genitive word.
Did you notice in your screenshot that the definition is still through (not “by), even when followed by a genitive? Here’s another example of dia being followed by a genitive…
Matthew 7:13… Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
All underlined words are genitive. Certainly this doesn’t mean that the gate is the “instrument” that does the actual entering for us, right?
Kathi, you haven’t made a valid argument against what I showed Berean, but have only unnecessarily muddied the waters. If you want to defend Berean against my scripturally-backed arguments, then you should probably start by giving him a valid (ie: explicitly supported by scripture) explanation to why Peter and John, in their prayer in Acts 4, identify Jesus as the servant of the God who created the heaven, earth, sea, and all that is in them – not the Creator of those things… and as the anointed one of the Yahweh against whom the nations rage – and not Yahweh Himself.
Simplified Version:
If the nations rage against Yahweh and His anointed one, then Yahweh’s anointed one is clearly someone other than Yahweh.
If Jesus is the holy servant of the God who created all things, then God’s servant Jesus is clearly someone other than the God who created all things.
This is simple God-given common sense. Comprehension 101.
Hi LU,
I answered your remaining questions.
You can find my answers in #post-931992
Do you have any comments?God bless
Mike,
You said:
We are actually told about the moment that this event occurred with God and His firstborn Son Jesus in the scriptures…
Psalm 2:7… I will proclaim Yahweh’s decree: He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father.”
We learn from this psalm that there was a time when God had no son, and therefore wasn’t a father. On the day that Yahweh (one person) produced His first son, Yahweh (still one person) became a father while His first offspring simultaneously became Yahweh’s (one person) first son.
Psalm 2:7 actually is about the Davidic/Son/king Covenant when the offspring of David is installed as king in line with the promise to David. It is not about the firstborn sonship before creation. So we are not told when the firstborn became the firstborn before creation. But as I have said many times in the past, a birth requires someone to already have existed in order to be birthed. For instance, babies exist for about 9 months before they are begotten/born. Even if the passage that says “Today I have begotten thee” was when Jesus became the firstborn, which it isn’t, it wouldn’t mean that “today you began to exist and yesterday you didn’t exist.” A begetting does not mean “to begin to exist.”
Danny,
Thank you for this post of answers to my questions:
Hi LU,
In this post I will answer the remaining questions from your list.
Is the Lord Jesus and God the father one? Yes or No.
Yes. John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Danny, can you tell me of a higher unity in heaven or on earth?
No. Jesus and His Father are the highest unity there is.
Do you think that the Father and the Son are united in the rule and reign of creation?
Yes, I believe so. God said to His Son: “Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool” (Hebrews 1:13)
If a guy named Israel, had a son who he named Israel then Israel would be the name of a father, his son, and a unity-the nation of Israel. Would you agree with that statement? Yes or No.
Yes, I agree with that statement.
Many sons are named after their fathers, Danny. Do you agree? Yes or No.
Yes, of course.
You said that the Father and Son are the most high unity. Would that be a divine unity or not a divine unity?
Mike,
You said:
Matthew 7:13… Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
All underlined words are genitive. Certainly this doesn’t mean that the gate is the “instrument” that does the actual entering for us, right?
Mike, when the word following dia is genitive and a person, then “by” can be used. If something is done through a person, that person was instrumental in getting the thing done. God created through the power and wisdom of the Son.
LU: Psalm 2:7 actually is about the Davidic/Son/king Covenant when the offspring of David is installed as king in line with the promise to David. It is not about the firstborn sonship before creation. So we are not told when the firstborn became the firstborn before creation.
It appears that most of the commentators say it is about Jesus…
Benson Commentary
This day have I begotten thee — This also is applied by some to David… But this, it must be acknowledged, is a far-fetched and doubtful sense: and therefore not to be allowed by the rules of legitimate interpretation, since the words may, much more properly, be applied to Christ.
Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary
2:7-9 The kingdom of the Messiah is founded upon an eternal decree of God the Father. This our Lord Jesus often referred to, as what he governed himself by. God hath said unto him, Thou art my Son…
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
I will declare the decree – We have here another change in the speaker. The Anointed One is himself introduced as declaring the great purpose which was formed in regard to him… There can be no doubt that the word “I” here refers to the Messiah.
Pulpit Commentary
I will declare the decree. It is best to suppose that Messiah here takes the word, and maintains it to the end of ver. 9…
Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
The Anointed One himself now speaks… sudden transition from the speech of Jahve to that of His Christ.
But forget the commentators… the words are explicitly applied to Jesus in scripture… Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5, and Hebrews 5:5.
LU: Mike, when the word following dia is genitive and a person, then “by” can be used…
But “through” can also be used – and IS used MUCH more often than the handful of very old translations that have “by”, right?
But instead of straining the gnat and swallowing the camel, how about you address post #932011 – six posts above this one? Thanks.
I’m also waiting for you to tell me which particular word in Gen 1:1 refers to a person/persons. Thanks.
Mike,
You said:
It appears that most of the commentators say it is about Jesus…
It is applied to Jesus, for sure but in the sense as one of the kings in the line of the Davidic kings so, yes, it is applied to Jesus as the ultimate Davidic son turned king but it is applied to others in the line of the Davidic kings also.
Mike,
You asked:
…why Peter and John, in their prayer in Acts 4, identify Jesus as the servant of the God who created the heaven, earth, sea, and all that is in them – not the Creator of those things… and as the anointed one of the Yahweh against whom the nations rage – and not Yahweh Himself.
Like a missionary is a servant of the church in which anointed him/her to go, the missionary is not the church but is a member of the church.
Jesus is not the Yahweh unity that created the heaven and the earth, etc. but is a member of that unity and participated in creation.
Mike,
You asked:
I’m also waiting for you to tell me which particular word in Gen 1:1 refers to a person/persons.
elohim
Mike,
You asked:
Jesus is one of God’s many heavenly sons. He is a son of God. Why? Do you believe that Jesus is God’s only son?
Is Jesus the only begotten son of God or one of many begotten sons of God?
Hi LU,
Yes, they are a unity but I don’t think
they are a Yahweh unity.
Because Yahweh is the Father. Jesus is His Son.
Two separate individuals.
Are they a divine unity? Well, Jesus is certainly now divine.
So you can say that.
But I have to be honest with you.
At the moment I’m leaning towards Unitarianism.
Maybe I’m wrong.
I still try to figure out if our God is a Trinitarian, Binitarian
or Unitarian God.
Please bear with me.God bless
Hi Danny,
You said:
Yes, they are a unity but I don’t think
they are a Yahweh unity.
Because Yahweh is the Father. Jesus is His Son.
Two separate individuals.You do realize that I agree that the Father and the Son are two separate individuals, right? I happen to believe that the Father gave his name “Yahweh” to his son, like some fathers do (see John 17:11 below). That would make two separate individuals with the name Yahweh.
You have admitted that there are instances in the OT that speak prophetically of Yahweh which actually apply to Jesus in the NT, right?
You have also agreed that a son can be given the same name as his father which would give you two separate individuals with the same name, right?
You also agree that they are both divine and in unity, right?
You said that you are leaning towards “Unitarianism.” I’m not in favor of any of the “arian” endings, i.e. unitarian, binitarian, trinitarian, quaditarian, pentatarian, hexatarian (I made those last three up, haha), etc.
The idea of “unity” is a Biblical concept and is not limited to a number of members. Like the unity of believers is a unity of many members, an unspecified number, who are ultimately in unity with the Father and Son, through the unifying work of the Holy Spirit. Within the unity is a headship of Father and Son with the Son being subject to the Father.
Within the Unity of Yahweh, as I understand it, there is:
The headship of the Unity-Yahweh the Father through Yahweh the only Son whom He beget. Therefore I refer to the unity as the Unity of Yahweh or the Yahweh Unity.
The body of the Unity-The church, those who believe in and surrender to the headship of the Father through the Son who created them.
Believers are the created members of the Yahweh Unity. The Father through the Son are the Head and creators of the created members of the unity. That “unity” would have an open-ended number, unlimited. imo. The membership doesn’t have a cut-off in regards to number of members but open to all who believe and surrender to their headship.
How did the created believers become members of the Yahweh Unity, aka, the household of Yahweh? By the work of Jesus, Yahweh the Son, who became flesh and dwelt among man, fulfilling the commandments perfectly, was crucified taking on the sins of man on a cross, was buried, and rose again, making a way for mankind to be reunited to the Father through the Son, not apart from the Son.
Basically, that is why I don’t subscribe to the title of “Unitarian, Binitarian, Trinitarian”, etc. The Bible does not use those words. The Bible does use the concept of Unity but doesn’t define it with a limit of members. I understand the Unity as the Unity of Yahweh because Yahweh is the name of the Father and the Son who are at the head of the unity.
Read here:
John 17:11 …Holy Father, protect them by Your name, the name You gave Me, so that they may be one as We are one. 12While I was with them, I protected and preserved them by Your name, the name You gave Me.
Anyway, it is good that you are searching what you believe to be true. I pray the Holy Spirit of both the Father and the Son, guide you into all truth.
I would love your thoughts on what I wrote.
Blessings, LU
Hi LU,
Thanks. I can understand your position.
I only gave you my thoughts.
But, as I said, maybe I’m wrong.
Yahweh can surely be a family name of the Father and the Son.
I cannot deny that.
Anyway, thanks for your prayer.
I appreciate it.God bless
Hi Danny,
I’m glad that you feel you can understand my position. What do you agree with and what do you question/disagree with?
I’m happy to pray for your search 🙂
May the LORD bless you, LU
You are welcome, videos that show that are not rare. Many people get it, Danny.
I look forward to a post from you as to what you agree and/or disagree with from this post copied here:
You said:
Yes, they are a unity but I don’t think
they are a Yahweh unity.
Because Yahweh is the Father. Jesus is His Son.
Two separate individuals.
You do realize that I agree that the Father and the Son are two separate individuals, right? I happen to believe that the Father gave his name “Yahweh” to his son, like some fathers do (see John 17:11 below). That would make two separate individuals with the name Yahweh.You have admitted that there are instances in the OT that speak prophetically of Yahweh which actually apply to Jesus in the NT, right?
You have also agreed that a son can be given the same name as his father which would give you two separate individuals with the same name, right?
You also agree that they are both divine and in unity, right?
You said that you are leaning towards “Unitarianism.” I’m not in favor of any of the “arian” endings, i.e. unitarian, binitarian, trinitarian, quaditarian, pentatarian, hexatarian (I made those last three up, haha), etc.
The idea of “unity” is a Biblical concept and is not limited to a number of members. Like the unity of believers is a unity of many members, an unspecified number, who are ultimately in unity with the Father and Son, through the unifying work of the Holy Spirit. Within the unity is a headship of Father and Son with the Son being subject to the Father.
Within the Unity of Yahweh, as I understand it, there is:
The headship of the Unity-Yahweh the Father through Yahweh the only Son whom He beget. Therefore I refer to the unity as the Unity of Yahweh or the Yahweh Unity.
The body of the Unity-The church, those who believe in and surrender to the headship of the Father through the Son who created them.
Believers are the created members of the Yahweh Unity. The Father through the Son are the Head and creators of the created members of the unity. That “unity” would have an open-ended number, unlimited. imo. The membership doesn’t have a cut-off in regards to number of members but open to all who believe and surrender to their headship.
How did the created believers become members of the Yahweh Unity, aka, the household of Yahweh? By the work of Jesus, Yahweh the Son, who became flesh and dwelt among man, fulfilling the commandments perfectly, was crucified taking on the sins of man on a cross, was buried, and rose again, making a way for mankind to be reunited to the Father through the Son, not apart from the Son.
Basically, that is why I don’t subscribe to the title of “Unitarian, Binitarian, Trinitarian”, etc. The Bible does not use those words. The Bible does use the concept of Unity but doesn’t define it with a limit of members. I understand the Unity as the Unity of Yahweh because Yahweh is the name of the Father and the Son who are at the head of the unity.
Read here:
John 17:11 …Holy Father, protect them by Your name, the name You gave Me, so that they may be one as We are one. 12While I was with them, I protected and preserved them by Your name, the name You gave Me.
Anyway, it is good that you are searching what you believe to be true. I pray the Holy Spirit of both the Father and the Son, guide you into all truth.
I would love your thoughts on what I wrote.
Enjoy your weekend, LU
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
