- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi,
If I was to say to you that my foot is united with my leg you would look at me sideways and say
“So what?”
It would be a different story if I had just had it reattached after an accident.If makes no sense to state that is naturally one is united. Of course if we said that the National Party is united with the Labour Party on an issue that would be news as they are certainly not one by nature.
So when Jesus says
” My father and I are one”
it only makes sense because a father is not naturally one with a son. They are two. The same word “one” is used to describe the unity between man and wife “the two shall become one” as men and women are separate beings and unity beyond the physical level is a challenging process for both. They both have separate wills and life in themselves just as the Father and Son have.Jesus also prayed that we would be “one” as he and His Father were “one”.The disciples became one , but not one in substance or being and not as close as a husband and wife's unity in some ways. They were united in Spirit and in Will and purpose.
That is the unity between the Father and the Son.They were separate from the begetting in the beginning and by total submission in will the Son was united with his Father.
Nick,
Can you explain to us all how the Father can beget a son with a different substance? You might want to start by defining the word. I will be interested to see what you come up with.Hi DVD,
Apparently a rock from Mars was discovered on our planet.
Where was it from?-Mars.
Are they the same? Well only in derivation.Mars,as you know, is a planet even bigger than earth but you could hold this rock in your two hands.
What was it made up from?-100% Mars constituents.
Did it contain all the constituents of Mars?-unlikely but it all of it's constituents derived from Mars.
Was it of one substance with Mars?Well that depends what you mean by “of one substance”
In terms of derivation it is of one substance with Mars.
Do you mean are they completely united in that substance now?
Obviously not.
And they are not necessarily exactly the same in constitution.Does that answer your question?
No, not at all. BTW mars and earth share the same elemental constituents.
So, DVD, when you say the Son of God is of one substance with the Father do you mean they just share the same constituents or are they the same by their eternally combined constitution?
FYI said they have a compound unity-do you agree? Are they separate or have they never been separate in your view?
Do you understand what “compound” means?
Im still waiting for this:
Quote Nick,
Can you explain to us all how the Father can beget a son with a different substance? You might want to start by defining the word. I will be interested to see what you come up with.Hi DVD,
You need to recheck my post. Do you not understand compound or substance that you would ask me? Why ask me? These are not scriptural words and that is where the “substance”of my answers come from. Perhaps an expert on trinity theory can help you?Hi,
It is interesting that Jesus calls himself the vine and the Father the vinedresser. How are they one? Well the vine serves the vinedresser but is not part of Him.Hi,
To have unity you must start with more than one. Unity is to do with agreement. Of course there is unity in one and so it does not apply to one.Hi,
The Glorious Creator God has visited his people in Christ by His Spirit. He dwells still among His people as the Spirit of God. His unity with his servant Son is forever.Hi,
Unity defines a state of close relationship between beings not naturally described as one.
Unity cannot exist unless there is more than one involved in the relationship.
God is one, not two or three.
The Son is not that God.
The Son is begotten of God.
The Father and the Son are as one.
The Father and Son are so united they are one.
The Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father.Unity is similar to the word unit, like godly is similar to the word God.
Unity usually refers to multiple identites who are one in spirit. Not one identity. One identity is a unit or singular word.
Who we are and what we are are often confused.
God is a who. He also has a nature that he shares. Those who share in his nature are gods, that is what they are, not who they are. God begats after his own kind. Who we are is our identity.
Names are used to describe identities. YHWH is suppose to be a name. God/god is a what, not a who.
John 17:21
that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.So we can see here that the identities are the Father, Jesus, and those who belong to God. The oneness is of the Spirit. This flies in the face of the Trinity doctrine, for we too will be one with God. This oneness is not an exclusive club for 3 persons.
Yes t8,
Jn 8.29
” And He who sent me is with me; He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him”
So the Father sent Jesus.
The Father is different to the Son.
They are not one God together.
They are not the same God in different manifestations.
The Son pleases the Father.
The Father could be separate from Jesus and Jesus would be alone.
But the Father chooses to stay with him.That describes an intimate united relationship between two beings.
Hi,
Jn 3.11
“Truly, Truly WE say to you, WE speak of what WE know and testify of what WE have seen, and you do not accept OUR testimony”
This is unity. The Father living in the Son he has sent, by His Spirit.Nick…I have managed to lose the thread!!!!
So I weill post this here instead! Sorry about that.Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 05 2006,02:50) Hi tb4u,
How was the Word with God in the beginning?
Who is the only begotten Son of God?
What does”only begotten” mean?
When did the Son of God become a son?
How is it that the Son proceeded from God and was sent into the world?
How was he the Son before Abraham and David and JTB?
How do you explain the parable of the vinegrower?
Who came in the flesh and what does this mean?
How did all creation come through the Son?
What was the glory the Son said he had with the Father before the foundation of the world?
What did he give up before he partook of flesh and what does this mean?
Which other prophets are described as he is in these ways?
Why did the Son say he had descended from heaven?
Nick….some of your questions I can answer, others I cannot. Try as one might, and I have been studying for many decades (more than I care to admit!), there is still much room for confusion and misunderstanding.1. The “Word” (actually “logos” in the Greek) is merely the spoken word of God (Yahweh)…..it should not be capitalized at all. of speech
Logos: [Strong's 3004, 3006]
3006: a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea
what someone has said
a word
the sayings of God
decree, mandate or order
of the moral precepts given by God
Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets
what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim
discourse
the act of speaking, speech
the faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking
a kind or style of speaking
a continuous speaking discourse – instruction
doctrine, teaching
anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative
matter under discussion, thing spoken of, affair, a matter in dispute, case, suit at law
the thing spoken of or talked about; event, deed
its use as respect to the MIND alone
reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating
account, i.e. regard, consideration
account, i.e. reckoning, score
account, i.e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment
relation, i.e. with whom as judge we stand in relation
reason would
reason, cause, ground3004: to say, to speak
affirm over, maintain
to teach
to exhort, advise, to command, direct
to point out with words, intend, mean, mean to say
to call by name, to call, name
to speak out, speak of, mention2. Yashuah (alt.: Yeschua)….or in modern English, “Jesus,” which is actually a corruption of the Greek/Latin Iesous.
3. When he was born of Mary, or perhaps more accurately, when conception through the actions of the holy spirit occurred.
4. Figuratively the Son proceeded from God, because he was conceived via the actions of the holy spirit, as directed by God.
5. Good question….this is one of the ones depends on “interpretation,” and I have no idea “which” interpretation may be correct. I, personally, prefer the figurative, in the sense that because Jesus was conceived through the actions of the holy spirit, there is a “spiritual connection” to Abraham, David, etc. There also seems to be some question of the “authenticity” of the text (as, for example, the ISBE indicates nearly every N.T. book has been rewritten, edited, added to, taken away from, altered, etc), which would really make it difficult (if not impossible) to analyze.
6. Gospel Reading : John 15: 1-10 — Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me (v. 4). Is this what you mean? I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here.
7. Jesus came in the flesh (born of Mary)….through the actions of the holy spirit, and that means Jesus was/is the Messiah.
8. Good question….and apparently this concept is a product of the Roman Church's evolving theology in the late 3rd through 5th centuries, and the texts were altered to reflect (and support) this evolving theology. [This is the period during which most of the “trinity” verses were added, for example….although there were also later additions right up through the 16th century, such as 1st John 5:7.] I, personally, do not think Jesus had a “pre-existence” before being born of Mary, unless it would be in the sense of a connection with the “holy spirit,” but I think that would be really pushing it!
9. I believe here we are back in the realm of considering something for which there is much question as to the authenticity of the text. I, personally, do not believe in the “pre-existence” of Jesus, and I find it much more likely that the verses/passages supporting such pre-existence are spurious alterations/additions made by the Roman Church [many of which the Roman Church has already admitted].
10. You ask: “What did he give up before he partook of flesh and what does this mean?” I'm not sure where you are going with this…please elaborate.
11. You ask: “Which other prophets are described as he is in these ways?” In what ways? (Please elaborate.)
12: I think this is figurative, and is taken from his baptism at the hands of John, and the descending of the spirit upon him.
The above reflect “MY” own views and understanding, not those of any particular “church.”
Nick, there are HUGE problems with Bible study and research, and I doubt if most Christians have even the foggiest idea just HOW “huge” some of these problems are! At this point, after decades of study, I wouldn't give one thin dime for the supposed “accuracy” of the texts we see on the Christian Bookstore shelves today; anyone who thinks they can just pull one of the HUNDREDS of “versions” off the shelf today and be reading an “accurate text” is nuts!
Bible study, in depth, requires a LOT of time and effort, linguistic studies, historical studies, research into the history of the “church” itself (and Christianity in general)….I have colleagues who have spent a lifetime researching ONE “book,” for example…..and I, personally, would claim only that I “know” a little more than the average person regarding the Bible….even after decades, I do not consider myself an “expert” by any stretch of imagination, and I have changed opinions and views several times as new research shows new things to consider. The GREATEST DIFFICULTY in “Bible study” right off the top is to determine what constitutes an “AUTHENTIC TEXT.” The cold hard fact is, the ENTIRE Bible has been copied, recopied, rewritten, edited, added to, taken away from, altered, and revised so many times it is now virtually impossible to say with any amount of certainty what is, or isn't, “authentic text.” There are many alterations and changes we DO know about, yes; but there are also many that we have no direct knowledge of, other than that implied by textual criticism based on internal evidence, or by external evidence that shows a conflict in the text, or where different passages supposedly concerning the same incident/event show glaring discrepancies/contradictions that we are forced to acknowledge that “all” those passages cannot be correct, and it may even be that “none” are truly correct!
I, personally, am getting to the point where I am tem
pted to simply say “As long as you understand the message of salvation, and the requirements for salvation, don't even worry about the rest of the Bible!!” And who knows, perhaps that is, after all, the best thing to do?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
