- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 01 2009,05:20) Marty sdaid to WJ: Quote The Spriit of God my Father dwells with in me by His Spirit as my helper and my Lord Jesus dwells within me by His Word. This looks like the trinity to me. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck.
thinker
Hi thethinker:A trinitarian brother brought me some material on yesterday so that I could study the doctine of trinity, and I found the following comments interesting:
“The most difficult thing about the Christian concept of the Trinity is that there is no way to adequately explain it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being being to fully understand, let alone explain. God is infinitely greater than we are; therefore, we should not expect to be able to fully understand Him. The bible teaches that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. The Bible also teaches that there is only one God. Though we can understand some facts about the relationship of the different Persons of the Trinity to one another, ultimately, it is incomprehensible to the human mind. However, this does not mean the Trinity is not true or that it is not based on the teachings of the Bible”.
And so, if it looks like a Trinity, but you cannot explain it or back it up by scripture. How do expect to convince me that it is the truth. I can explain what I believe.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (942767 @ Aug. 01 2009,06:18) Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 01 2009,05:20) Marty sdaid to WJ: Quote The Spriit of God my Father dwells with in me by His Spirit as my helper and my Lord Jesus dwells within me by His Word. This looks like the trinity to me. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck.
thinker
Hi thethinker:A trinitarian brother brought me some material on yesterday so that I could study the doctine of trinity, and I found the following comments interesting:
“The most difficult thing about the Christian concept of the Trinity is that there is no way to adequately explain it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being being to fully understand, let alone explain. God is infinitely greater than we are; therefore, we should not expect to be able to fully understand Him. The bible teaches that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. The Bible also teaches that there is only one God. Though we can understand some facts about the relationship of the different Persons of the Trinity to one another, ultimately, it is incomprehensible to the human mind. However, this does not mean the Trinity is not true or that it is not based on the teachings of the Bible”.
And so, if it looks like a Trinity, but you cannot explain it or back it up by scripture. How do expect to convince me that it is the truth. I can explain what I believe.
Love in Christ,
Marty
The Trinitarian you cited does not speak for me. Is Jesus King of Kings and Lord of lords. Yes or no? Answer plainly.thinker
Hi 94,
The binity became a trinity and it has never stopped evolving since then as far as human imagination can extend.
Naturally there is little agreement among them.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 01 2009,08:31) Hi 94,
The binity became a trinity and it has never stopped evolving since then as far as human imagination can extend.
Naturally there is little agreement among them.
Nick,
Is Jesus King of kings and Lord of lords? Yes or no?thinker
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 01 2009,08:53) Hi TT,
He surely is.
There is no greater authority under his God.
Show where God is Jesus' King. It's never said in Scripture that Jesus has a King over Him. God is His Father. A father is not a king.Chapter and verse please.
thinker
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 01 2009,08:59) Hi TT,
You doubt the sovereignty of The God of Jesus?
Jn20
Nick,
I made a simple request. Show that Christ's Father is King over Him. Show that you are a king over your son. As a child you had authority over your son. But even then you were not his king. Absolute sovereignty has no degrees. Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords. This is absolute sovereignty.thinker
Hi TT,
So if God is God also of Jesus[Jn20[] do you need to define the relationship between God and His Son in another way?Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 01 2009,08:15) Quote (942767 @ Aug. 01 2009,06:18) Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 01 2009,05:20) Marty sdaid to WJ: Quote The Spriit of God my Father dwells with in me by His Spirit as my helper and my Lord Jesus dwells within me by His Word. This looks like the trinity to me. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck.
thinker
Hi thethinker:A trinitarian brother brought me some material on yesterday so that I could study the doctine of trinity, and I found the following comments interesting:
“The most difficult thing about the Christian concept of the Trinity is that there is no way to adequately explain it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being being to fully understand, let alone explain. God is infinitely greater than we are; therefore, we should not expect to be able to fully understand Him. The bible teaches that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. The Bible also teaches that there is only one God. Though we can understand some facts about the relationship of the different Persons of the Trinity to one another, ultimately, it is incomprehensible to the human mind. However, this does not mean the Trinity is not true or that it is not based on the teachings of the Bible”.
And so, if it looks like a Trinity, but you cannot explain it or back it up by scripture. How do expect to convince me that it is the truth. I can explain what I believe.
Love in Christ,
Marty
The Trinitarian you cited does not speak for me. Is Jesus King of Kings and Lord of lords. Yes or no? Answer plainly.thinker
Hi Thethinker:Yes, but how does that explain the “Trinity”?
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (thethinker @ Aug. 01 2009,08:57) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 01 2009,08:53) Hi TT,
He surely is.
There is no greater authority under his God.
Show where God is Jesus' King. It's never said in Scripture that Jesus has a King over Him. God is His Father. A father is not a king.Chapter and verse please.
thinker
Hi thethinker:What do you say about the following scripture:
Quote 1Ti 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, [be] honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (thethinker @ July 31 2009,11:51) Lightenup said: Quote Jesus was the only begotten Son of God before He was resurrected too. You miss that over and over. Kathi,
I don't “miss it.” I deny it. There are only three passages in the new testament that tell us WHEN Christ was begotten and they ALL say it was at His exaltation. You simply have no case. Sola Scriptura!Quote As for Micah 5:2 the word for “from everlasting” is strong's #5769 and is translated as “of old” or “distant past” also. I have double checked this and when “olam” refers to the past it is not the limitless past. It simply means “long ago.” So I will concede to you on “olam” as it has reference to the past. HOWEVER…
The words “goings forth” are Strong's# 4163 & 3318 and refer to the ancient line of family descent from which He came.. In other words, it is saying that Christ as to His human origin came from an ancient line.
Sorry, your view that God “reproduced” fails. As to His divine origin He said, “Before Abraham was I AM.” He did not say, “Before Abraham was I became.”
You failed to prove it Kathi.
thinker
Thinker,
If you would, put up your three scriptures that you refer to regarding when He was begotten please. Read them carefully though because I do not think they are telling you when the “today” was.Also, thanks for conceding on the Micah 5:2 verse.
Regarding the statement “Before Abraham was, I am,” Abraham's father and mother could have said the same thing if they were still alive when Jesus was saying that. It means that He existed even before Abraham was born as we see in another passage. He doesn't say that before Abraham was born I always existed. In fact no where does it say that He always existed.
Quote The words “goings forth” are Strong's# 4163 & 3318 and refer to the ancient line of family descent from which He came.. In other words, it is saying that Christ as to His human origin came from an ancient line. I disagree with what you said in the above quote. It is not speaking of His human origin because that would be pointless since every man at that time had their origins from Adam and Eve-“ancient times.” If it means as you say then it would be a “so what…Him and everyone else comes from an ancient line of family descent?” Show me where that phrase is applied to any other man. All other men come from an ancient family tree now don't they.
Kathi
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:14 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.Joh 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Joh 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.1Co 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.Hi CB,
So if the Word was with God, God gave power to Jesus, we must believe in God and Jesus, who is the image of God and God's Son why would you teach God is a trinity of which Jesus is a part??
Sure the philosophers and those enamoured with vain deceits have blinded your eyes?Jesus Christ opened my eyes nick, I see just fine and I will continue to pray for you. I pray that you will begin to show evidence of salvation and that you will no longer be confused by all the perverted versions of scripture that you read.
Hi CB,
Did he show you stuff that he did not say when he with us?
Then if was not the Spirit of Christ you heard.
[jn14-16]Lighternup said:
Quote Thinker,
If you would, put up your three scriptures that you refer to regarding when He was begotten please. Read them carefully though because I do not think they are telling you when the “today” was.Kathi,
This annoys me. We have been over this several times. I would rather you have said “I know the scriptures you are referring to and I disagree.” The scriptures are:Acts 13:33-35:
Quote 33 God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘ You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.’34 And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus:
‘ I will give you the sure mercies of David.’
35 Therefore He also says in another Psalm:
‘ You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption.’
Hebrews 1:3-6:Quote 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. The Son Exalted Above Angels
5 For to which of the angels did He ever say:“ You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You”?And again:
“ I will be to Him a Father,
And He shall be to Me a Son”?6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:
“ Let all the angels of God worship Him.”
Hebrews 5:5-6:Quote 5 So also Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest, but it was He who said to Him: “ You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.”6 As He also says in another place:
“ You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek”Acts 13 says that the promise of salvation was fulfilled at the time of Jesus' exaltation when He was begotten. Hebrews 1 also puts the begetting at the time of His exaltation. Before the begetting He was “lower than the angels.” If he had been begotten before His incarnation as you say then He was never lower than the angels. This destroys your view. And the Hebrews 5 passage says that He was begotten contemporaneously with His becoming our High priest. Chapter 4 indicates that He became our High Priest when He passed through the heavens.
Quote Also, thanks for conceding on the Micah 5:2 verse. When you're right you're right!
Quote Regarding the statement “Before Abraham was, I am,” Abraham's father and mother could have said the same thing if they were still alive when Jesus was saying that. It means that He existed even before Abraham was born as we see in another passage. He doesn't say that before Abraham was born I always existed. In fact no where does it say that He always existed. Your statement is unintelligible.
Thinker said to Kathi:
Quote The words “goings forth” are Strong's# 4163 & 3318 and refer to the ancient line of family descent from which He came.. In other words, it is saying that Christ as to His human origin came from an ancient line.
Kathi replied:Quote I disagree with what you said in the above quote. It is not speaking of His human origin because that would be pointless since every man at that time had their origins from Adam and Eve-“ancient times.” If it means as you say then it would be a “so what…Him and everyone else comes from an ancient line of family descent?” Show me where that phrase is applied to any other man. All other men come from an ancient family tree now don't they. So it is convenient for you to call on Strong when you agree with Him. But when I call on Strong you won't concede. Strong says that the first word “goings” means family descent and the second word 'forth” means “root.” It is simply saying that the Messiah as to His human origin was from an ancient family line.
Your argument that this would be pointless because all men came from Adam is invalid because the passage specifically has reference Messiah's “brethren”, that is, Israel (vs.3).
Strong says that the word “goings” means “family descent.” I conceded on your point from Strong and so should you.
THERE IS MORE THAN ONE WAY TO BE BEGOTTEN.
love,
thinkerQuote (thethinker @ Aug. 01 2009,04:30) Lighternup said: Quote Thinker,
If you would, put up your three scriptures that you refer to regarding when He was begotten please. Read them carefully though because I do not think they are telling you when the “today” was.Kathi,
This annoys me. We have been over this several times. I would rather you have said “I know the scriptures you are referring to and I disagree.” The scriptures are:Acts 13:33-35:
Quote 33 God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘ You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.’34 And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus:
‘ I will give you the sure mercies of David.’
35 Therefore He also says in another Psalm:
‘ You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption.’
Hebrews 1:3-6:Quote 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. The Son Exalted Above Angels
5 For to which of the angels did He ever say:“ You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You”?And again:
“ I will be to Him a Father,
And He shall be to Me a Son”?6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:
“ Let all the angels of God worship Him.”
Hebrews 5:5-6:Quote 5 So also Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest, but it was He who said to Him: “ You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.”6 As He also says in another place:
“ You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek”Acts 13 says that the promise of salvation was fulfilled at the time of Jesus' exaltation when He was begotten. Hebrews 1 also puts the begetting at the time of His exaltation. Before the begetting He was “lower than the angels.” If he had been begotten before His incarnation as you say then He was never lower than the angels. This destroys your view. And the Hebrews 5 passage says that He was begotten contemporaneously with His becoming our High priest. Chapter 4 indicates that He became our High Priest when He passed through the heavens.
Quote Also, thanks for conceding on the Micah 5:2 verse. When you're right you're right!
Quote Regarding the statement “Before Abraham was, I am,” Abraham's father and mother could have said the same thing if they were still alive when Jesus was saying that. It means that He existed even before Abraham was born as we see in another passage. He doesn't say that before Abraham was born I always existed. In fact no where does it say that He always existed. Your statement is unintelligible.
Thinker said to Kathi:
Quote The words “goings forth” are Strong's# 4163 & 3318 and refer to the ancient line of family descent from which He came.. In other words, it is saying that Christ as to His human origin came from an ancient line.
Kathi replied:Quote I disagree with what you said in the above quote. It is not speaking of His human origin because that would be pointless since every man at that time had their origins from Adam and Eve-“ancient times.” If it means as you say then it would be a “so what…Him and everyone else comes from an ancient line of family descent?” Show me where that phrase is applied to any other man. All other men come from an ancient family tree now don't they. So it is convenient for you to call on Strong when you agree with Him. But when I call on Strong you won't concede. Strong says that the first word “goings” means family descent and the second word 'forth” means “root.” It is simply saying that the Messiah as to His human origin was from an ancient family line.
Your argument that this would be pointless because all men came from Adam is invalid because the passage specifically has reference Messiah's “brethren”, that is, Israel (vs.3).
Strong says that the word “goings” means “family descent.” I conceded on your point from Strong and so should you.
THERE IS MORE THAN ONE WAY TO BE BEGOTTEN.
love,
thinker
Hi Thinker,
Sorry to annoy you but that helped me. I want to show you that there is a difference between genneo (Strong's 1080) and monogenes (Strong's 3439). Both words mean begotten but the later, monogenes, takes on a specific emphasis. That specific emphasis is that the one referred to as begotten, monogenes, is a unique begotten or an only begotten or a one of a kind begotten.It is possible that Jesus was told that He became a begotten, genneo, son after He was resurrected in a similar way that Davidic kings were told they were a begotten son in the past. That would have made Him (Jesus) one of several that were told that. See the NET Bible note about that:
3 sn ‘You are my son!’ The Davidic king was viewed as God’s “son” (see 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 89:26-27). The idiom reflects ancient Near Eastern adoption language associated with covenants of grant, by which a lord would reward a faithful subject by elevating him to special status, referred to as “sonship.” Like a son, the faithful subject received an “inheritance,” viewed as an unconditional, eternal gift. Such gifts usually took the form of land and/or an enduring dynasty. See M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970): 184-203, for general discussion and some striking extra-biblical parallels.
However, before Jesus became the genneo son, He was the monogenes son. That means that He has a sense of be
ing “begotten” as a son in a way that no one else was “begotten” as a son (the Davidic kings). The Davidic Kings were genneo “sons” as was Christ, but they were not monogenes “sons” as also was Christ.You wrote:
Quote Acts 13 says that the promise of salvation was fulfilled at the time of Jesus' exaltation when He was begotten. Hebrews 1 also puts the begetting at the time of His exaltation. Before the begetting He was “lower than the angels.” If he had been begotten before His incarnation as you say then He was never lower than the angels. This destroys your view. And the Hebrews 5 passage says that He was begotten contemporaneously with His becoming our High priest. Chapter 4 indicates that He became our High Priest when He passed through the heavens. You seem to say that if He were a begotten Son before His resurrection then He couldn't have been made lower than the angels. You forget that the monogenes Son humbled Himself to take on the form of man and become a bondservant. It was then that He was made lower than the angels. He was higher than the angels before that, He became lower than them when He took on flesh, He was exalted even MUCH higher than them after His resurrection. IMO.
Quote
Quote
Regarding the statement “Before Abraham was, I am,” Abraham's father and mother could have said the same thing if they were still alive when Jesus was saying that. It means that He existed even before Abraham was born as we see in another passage. He doesn't say that before Abraham was born I always existed. In fact no where does it say that He always existed.Your statement is unintelligible.
What don't you understand about that? Do you not think that Abraham's parents existed before Abraham was born??? Obviously they did and so IF they were still alive during Jesus' time (which they weren't, but just for the sake of making a point I say it) they could also say what Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I am.” That wouldn't have meant that they always existed now would it? It just would have meant that they are thousands of years old. The Pharisees were thinking along the lines of age and if Jesus was saying that He was thousands of years old then He would be claiming to be some kind of god (since no man has ever lived that long) which the Pharisees considered blasphemy:
John 8:57-59
57 So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”
58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”
59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.
NASUYou also wrote:
Quote Thinker said to Kathi:
Quote
The words “goings forth” are Strong's# 4163 & 3318 and refer to the ancient line of family descent from which He came.. In other words, it is saying that Christ as to His human origin came from an ancient line.Kathi replied:
Quote
I disagree with what you said in the above quote. It is not speaking of His human origin because that would be pointless since every man at that time had their origins from Adam and Eve-“ancient times.” If it means as you say then it would be a “so what…Him and everyone else comes from an ancient line of family descent?” Show me where that phrase is applied to any other man. All other men come from an ancient family tree now don't they.So it is convenient for you to call on Strong when you agree with Him. But when I call on Strong you won't concede. Strong says that the first word “goings” means family descent and the second word 'forth” means “root.” It is simply saying that the Messiah as to His human origin was from an ancient family line.
Your argument that this would be pointless because all men came from Adam is invalid because the passage specifically has reference Messiah's “brethren”, that is, Israel (vs.3).
Strong says that the word “goings” means “family descent.” I conceded on your point from Strong and so should you.
I am not disagreeing with Strong's definition. I believe that the Son of GOD has a family descent since He supernaturally was born of GOD Himself. I also believe that He, as the Son of Man had a human family descent also since He was born of Mary who came from the line of David. So you see, I have no disagreement with Strong's, I just believe that the family descent is the family made up of GOD Himself as the Father in Micah 5. The House of Jacob (the remnant in Micah 5) are the Son of God's brethren in a sense because the Father has made the nation of Israel, His child. The House of Jacob is also the Son of Man's brethren because of the Son came from the line of David who came from the line of Jacob.
Thanks for leading me to study,
KathiLightenup said:
Quote You seem to say that if He were a begotten Son before His resurrection then He couldn't have been made lower than the angels. You forget that the monogenes Son humbled Himself to take on the form of man and become a bondservant. It was then that He was made lower than the angels. He was higher than the angels before that, He became lower than them when He took on flesh, He was exalted even MUCH higher than them after His resurrection. IMO. Kathi,
You are mssing the point. The text says that by His “having become so much better than the angels He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent NAME than they.” When did He become better than the angels? The answer is at His exaltation. It was at this time He obtained the name He inherited. That name is “begotten Son.” The name “begotten Son” is the name He enjoys as exalted at God's right hand. Before this He enjoyed the name only by decree. The decree was fulfilled in real time when He was exalted to God's right hand.Psalm 2 explicitly says that Christ was begotten by decree and not by some reproductive process in God.
Quote “I will declare the decree:
The LORD has said to Me,
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.And the new testament repeatedly says that the decree was fulfilled at His exaltation. Your theory that God reproduced Himself is thoroughly unscriptural. The scripture has not said that the Son was in the beginning with God. It says that the Word was in the beginning with God. The Word became the Son by decree and that decree was fulfilled at His exaltation. Your personalized idea that God reproduced Himself is sheer nonsense!
Lightenup said:
Quote What don't you understand about that? Do you not think that Abraham's parents existed before Abraham was born???
Jesus did not say He “became” or was “born” before Abraham. He said, “before Abraham was I AM” (ego eimi). For saying this the Jews wanted to kill Him! Come on!Lightenup said:
Quote So you see, I have no disagreement with Strong's, I just believe that the family descent is the family made up of GOD Himself as the Father in Micah 5.
You must be kidding. The verse is speaking about His human origin from the families of Judah,Quote But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for Me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times (NIV)It clearly says that Messiah shall come from the “clans of Judah.” The family descent therefore refers to His human origin from Judah and not some “family descent of God Himself” as you say. Judah is the family of “ancient times” that is in view. Though I confess the pre-existence and divinity of Christ the text of Micah 5:2 offers no support for such.
The text certainly cannot be manipulated to teach that God reproduced Himself. This idea comes solely from your own imagination. You are putting your words “family descent of God Himself” into the prophet's mouth.
thinker
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
