- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Thinker…………..TRANSCENDENCE VERSUS IMMANENCE ?
Thats a good Catholic approach to simple truths, but then again if one is confused He must go to every trick and turn to try to turn something simple to complexity. Thinker dump the False teaching of the TRINITY and come to the Light of Simplicity of the GOSPEL Preached to us by Jesus our Brother, the Great King. Why do you trinitarians try so hard to complicate things, is it because your (MYSTERY) Religion doesn't work right?. IMOpeace and love to you and yours………………………….gene
Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 01 2009,12:01) Lightenup 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
Thinker,
Please show me where “begotten Son” is used as a proper name. Also, show me where the other Davidic kings that went through the “genneo” son ceremony are given “begotten son” as a proper name.Also, “Word” is not what the Son was throughout His existence before flesh. The Son had His own will before flesh. A word is an impersonal thing that does not have a will of its own. The Son also had the nature of His Father and was the image of His Father before flesh. That sounds like a Son of the Father not a word. BTW, the Son is called “The Word of God” not “the word.”
The Son is from the clan of Judah because He was the offspring of David but remember, He was also the root of David. He had a divine origin which allowed Him to be the root of David and He had a human origin which allowed Him to be the offspring of David. You just want to account for the human origin. You ought to see Matthew Henry's commentary and how he totally disagrees with you regarding the origin which is spoken about in Micah 5. See how trinitarians differ.
You say that you believe in the pre-existence of the Son but you have never proven an eternal existence which you believe as well although you believe that He was merely a word before the flesh. Why don't you try to prove to us that the one supposed to be the second person of the trinity was eternal in the past.
Kathi
Kathi,
Trinitarians never claim that God CAN'T reproduce, we claim that he DID NOT reproduce. We are not questioning God's ability here, we are merely stating what he did and what he did not do based on what Scripture tells us.
TC27
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 01 2009,13:38) Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 01 2009,12:01) Lightenup 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
Thinker,
Please show me where “begotten Son” is used as a proper name. Also, show me where the other Davidic kings that went through the “genneo” son ceremony are given “begotten son” as a proper name.Also, “Word” is not what the Son was throughout His existence before flesh. The Son had His own will before flesh. A word is an impersonal thing that does not have a will of its own. The Son also had the nature of His Father and was the image of His Father before flesh. That sounds like a Son of the Father not a word. BTW, the Son is called “The Word of God” not “the word.”
The Son is from the clan of Judah because He was the offspring of David but remember, He was also the root of David. He had a divine origin which allowed Him to be the root of David and He had a human origin which allowed Him to be the offspring of David. You just want to account for the human origin. You ought to see Matthew Henry's commentary and how he totally disagrees with you regarding the origin which is spoken about in Micah 5. See how trinitarians differ.
You say that you believe in the pre-existence of the Son but you have never proven an eternal existence which you believe as well although you believe that He was merely a word before the flesh. Why don't you try to prove to us that the one supposed to be the second person of the trinity was eternal in the past.
Kathi
Hi KathiWho do you believe the Word that was with God was?
Blessings Keith
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 01 2009,13:55) Hi TC,
And where does scripture tell you that He did not reproduce?
Thanks,
Kathi
Hi KathiAnd where does the scriptures tell you that he did?
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 01 2009,09:55) Hi TC,
And where does scripture tell you that He did not reproduce?
Thanks,
Kathi
Kathi,Where it says that Jesus existed in the very beginning.
Genesis 1:26-27
Quote 26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.Colossians 1:15-20
Quote 15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. *Firstborn here does not mean as in first to be born of God, or anything of the sort. It merely means that he is the owner of creation. It was Hebrew culture to give the properties of a land to the firstborn in the household. Therefore, this verse shows that he has the same right over creation as a firstborn does over his father's land.
John 8:58
Quote 58″I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” TC27
Hi TC,
Firstborn is commonly used in scripture of the FIRSTBORN.
Does the meaning of this word need to be changed to your idea for the sake of consistency?Quote (TrinitarianCalvinist27 @ Aug. 01 2009,14:11) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 01 2009,09:55) Hi TC,
And where does scripture tell you that He did not reproduce?
Thanks,
Kathi
Kathi,Where it says that Jesus existed in the very beginning.
Genesis 1:26-27
Quote 26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.Colossians 1:15-20
Quote 15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. *Firstborn here does not mean as in first to be born of God, or anything of the sort. It merely means that he is the owner of creation. It was Hebrew culture to give the properties of a land to the firstborn in the household. Therefore, this verse shows that he has the same right over creation as a firstborn does over his father's land.
John 8:58
Quote 58″I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” TC27
Hi TC,
I fully agree that Jesus existed in the very beginning but not always. I do not believe that He was created but instead I believe that He was begotten in a supernatural way which would give Him the nature of His Father and be an actual Son and, yes an actual fully bonified firstborn.You mentioned that it was a common practice for the firstborn of the Hebrew families to receive the properties of the land. Don't gloss over the fact that the firstborn in those families for the most part was actually the first to be born into the family. There is nothing in Col 1 that absolutely prohibits that same meaning of “firstborn.”
Blessings,
KathiKeith,
You asked:Quote
Who do you believe the Word that was with God was?The true Light of the true LIGHT as an offspring, with an individual will and body, sharing the same nature of the LIGHT which He was from.
Thanks for asking (I have now told you that for the umpteenth time
),
KathiQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 01 2009,14:03) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 01 2009,13:55) Hi TC,
And where does scripture tell you that He did not reproduce?
Thanks,
Kathi
Hi KathiAnd where does the scriptures tell you that he did?
WJ
Keith,
Does GOD, the Father of Jesus, claim Him to be His only begotten Son? Yes! John 3:16
Does that son have the same nature of His Father? Heb 1:3
Yes again!How did GOD Himself design that to come about? Well, not by taking one thing and making something completely different. It was by reproduction…fruit from His own body. How that works in GOD I do not know but that doesn't matter how that works. He has a one-of-a kind Son who existed in the beginning, who shares His nature and was with Him. They are united in Spirit and love and purpose and both necessary for our salvation.
Bless you,
KathiHi LU,
The reason Jesus has the same nature as the Father is that the gifts and fruits of the Father's Spirit were fully given to him. He revealed the true nature of God among men. In him God visited His people.Hi LU,
God is spirit. There are no scriptures that say God has a body as far as I know.
I believe the sonship God focuses on is that of the rebirth of Jesus of the Spirit of God.Hi Nick,
Jesus was never separated from the Father and therefore did not need to be reborn to be restored to Him. Jesus was not “born again” in the sense that believers must be.Also, nature was not said to have been given Him. I just started a topic about what was given to Jesus and nature wasn't one that I found. Do you consider your human nature to be something given to you or merely inherent to you? It came with the territory. Nature is not listed as a fruit of the spirit or as one of the gifts of the spirit.
LU
Hi LU,
True.
Is His arm too short?[but his Son is as His arm and His spirit is as His finger]
We are made in the image of God but God is not flesh of the earth so the likeness is in other aspects.Quote (942767 @ Aug. 01 2009,10:24) 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,
Marty
Marty,
The expression “King of kings and Lord of lords” denotes absolute sovereignty. Therefore, Jesus is absloutely soveriegn. The implication is clear!thinker
Hi TT,
Your vain pursuit of your possible implications as a hope of proving Jesus is not God's son but God Himself is futility itself.
How much longer will you waste time charging at windmills instead of seeking truth?Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 01 2009,16:14) Keith,
You asked:Quote
Who do you believe the Word that was with God was?The true Light of the true LIGHT as an offspring, with an individual will and body, sharing the same nature of the LIGHT which He was from.
Thanks for asking (I have now told you that for the umpteenth time
),
Kathi
Hi KathiOK but you are not being specific.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 01 2009,16:14) The true Light of the true LIGHT as an offspring, with an individual will and body, sharing the same nature of the LIGHT which He was from.
So you are saying that the True Light is the Word who is the offspring of the True LIGHT?Sorry, but that is extra-Biblical termonology!
Light does not give birth to offspring! I realize this is a metaphor, but the metaphor has to have some resemblence to reality!
And as we have gone over this before, John used the same word “Theos” for John 1:1c as he did in John 1:1b which means that John did not mean to imply that he came into existence as a Son in the Beginning for it was not untill verse 14 he says “the Word (not the Son) became “ginomai” (to come into existence) flesh “sarx” (the body of a man) and dwelt “skēnoō” (abide, or live in a tabernacle) among us and we beheld his glory the glory as of the monogenes “Mono-ginomai” of the Father full of grace and truth. So he tells us when he became the “Only Son” “Mono-ginomai” Monogenes Son, in verse 18.
Mono – single of its kind, only
ginomai – to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
John does not use the word ginomai meaning come into existence until verse 14, 18.
For John 1:1 says the Word was with God and the Word was God!
No offence Kathi, but you accuse Trinitarians for using extra-Biblical language but your theory is full of implications and extra-Biblical Language!
Blessings Keith
Quote (942767 @ Aug. 01 2009,10:27) Quote (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,
Marty
Marty,
Verse 16 indicates that Paul is speaking about Jesus Christ. Jesus is the only King. It says that we are to believe in HIM. Then it says to this King ONLY be glory and honor forever and ever. You admitted that Jesus is King of kings. Then you say that the one identified as the “only” King must be someone else. This is contradictory.So make up your mind. Is Jesus King of kings or is someone else the “only” King? You can't have it both ways. God is Christ's Father and not His King.
thinker
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
