- This topic has 3,120 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hi T8,
Are you suggesting that the term “only begotten” refers to a special preexistent state.
There is no evidence to suggest that is what the term means at all; unless you have some,
do you? Why can’t it instead simply mean that Jesus had no human biological father?In Hebrews Isaac is referred to as Abraham’s only begotten son. (ref. Heb 11:17)
Yet we know, Abraham also had a son named Ismael, who by the way
was the FIRSTBORN. So the term only begotten CANNOT mean firstborn.___________
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEdj.
Understand that God is a spirit.This means that God himself is of spirit existence.
Dont confuse that with God’s driving force. God’s will power.
The Holy spirit is also God’s driving force which is Holy; therefore called the Holy Spirit.
God created all things by the power of his speech. And in His speech is always truth.
The spirit in our words can also make things happen; for or against us.
A powerful king’s speech has more power than his subordinates,depending on his image.
wakeup.
Hi Wakeup,
God’s spirit and God’s word aren’t other people and other things.
___________
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgMike,
Kerwin, didn’t Philo call the logos a “demigod”? And isn’t a demigod a half man half deity being? Wasn’t Jesus both a god and a man?
Providing my source is correct he called the logos a sacrificial demigod. It also claims he called it Superior to angels, a second divinity, first-begotten Son of God and a whole lot more. Many insist he was stated he was not speaking of a person and yet other still believe he was. I do know I have been told he had trouble with the literal minded people of his age. In my opinion Philo and John both spoke in mysticisms that can confuse us of this time because we are not familiar with their way of speech. Their intended audience were Jews of a particular subculture and those Gentiles that joined that subculture.
From what I see he seem to also believed in a per-existent law but equated that law to the logos. John seems to use a similar idea in his writings.
Note: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cv/pch/pch48.htm
Note: The link is grayed out in the visual view panel and does not work in the text view. I also attempted to paste it in both and it does not show in either and deletes it in the visual when I submit it.T8…… If you say while we may reach the fullness of Christ and the say CHRIST reached the fullness of God , you are incorrect, there is no scripture that I recall that say’s christ Jesus reached the fullness of God. While God did dwell IN HIM, that in no way is saying the he (Jesus) ever reached to the FULLNESS of GOD. In fact Jesus himself said the Father was GREATER then HE WAS.
In fact you very own words prove my point , you have the same view of Jesus as all Christianity dose , that he is your God , and you worship him as such, because to you , you say Jesus is the Full measure of a GOD the FATHER , you put Jesus on equal footing as a God . No different the a trinitarians does and all preexistences do. IMO
The difference between us is I do HONOR JESUS, TO THE GLORY “OF” GOD. While you HONOR JESUS TO THE GLORY “OF” JESUS.
This is a BIG DIFFERENCE in OUR UNDERSTANDING, I deal with Jesus on a IDENTICAL HUMAN LEVER ! WHILE you MOVE JESUS away from YOURSELF and can’t even relate with him on a human level. I see Jesus’ accomplishments as a WORK of GOD in the MAN Jesus who I relate with as a fellow human being a brother in he house hold of his and my GOD, his and my GOD. You can’t do that because Jesus is your God. IMO
PS…..T8. There is a book written by a professor of religious studies at the university of North Carolina , Chapel Hill. He is a scholar on early Christian writings , he has written a book entitled How Jesus Became GOD , his name is Bart D. Ehrman , I highly recommend you and everyone here get this book and also The Orthodox CORRUPTION of Scriptures
peace and love to you and yours…………………………….gene
To Geneb.
How do you explain this scripture Gene?
By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them BY THE BREATH OF HIS MOUTH..wakeup.
Ed J wrote:As long as as you are making God’s word into his I see no distance gained.
My word is not someone else, my word is not my son, my word is ME.Ed, there never will be any distance gained until you come to understand that Jesus isn’t called “the Word” because he is, or was, a literal word spoken by God. He is called “the Word of God” because he is God’s main spokesman.
Just like the King of Abyssinia had a spokesman called Kal Hatze – which means “The Word of the King”.
So this discussion has NOTHING to do with any LITERAL word God ever spoke, thought, or whatever. And the sooner you come to know WHY Jesus has as one of his titles “The Word of God”, the better you’ll be able to understand what the scriptures really teach.
kerwin wrote:Providing my source is correct he called the logos a sacrificial demigod. It also claims he called it Superior to angels, a second divinity, first-begotten Son of God and a whole lot more. Many insist he was stated he was not speaking of a person and yet other still believe he was.
So a sacrificial demigod? Superior to the angels that were created through him? A second, lesser god? The first begotten Son of God? Sounds to me like Philo was right on the money, Kerwin. How people could look at all those descriptions and still insist he was NOT speaking of a person is beyond me. Perhaps those people were like you? Perhaps they did not WANT the answer that all of the evidence pointed to, and so came to irrational and illogical conclusions that the evidence could never actually support?
Ed J wrote:Hi Mike,
There is ONLY ONE exception, and that is “God”……..
Ed and t8,
PLEASE PAY ATTENTION, AND PROVE ME WRONG HERE.
Every king of Judah came into existence through David. Without David, not one single king of Judah came into existence.
Is that a true statement? YES.
But consider that Jehovah was the ULTIMATE King of Judah – even as David was ruling Judah from the earth. So Jehovah, although BEING one of the kings of Judah, is EXCLUDED from that very TRUE statement I made.
Also consider that David didn’t come into existence THROUGH HIMSELF. So David, although BEING one of the kings of Judah, is also EXCLUDED from my statement.
Ed, do you see how TWO are excluded, not just ONE?
We could do the same exact kind of TRUE statement with Adam, by saying EVERY human came into existence through Adam. Although Adam was indeed a human, he didn’t come into existence through himself, and so Adam is obviously EXCLUDED from the statement.
We know that the Word DID at some point come into existence. So when John 1:3 says that NOTHING came into existence apart from the Word, then there are only two choices:
1. The Word came into existence through HIMSELF.
2. The Word is EXCLUDED from the “all things” that came into existence through the Word….. like David and Adam were EXCLUDED from the statements above.
Which is the right one?
t8 wrote:If you also contend that begotten is just another word for created, then Jesus as the only begotten of the Father means that he is the only created of the God. Obviously that is not the case, so this is a weakness of your view.
I’d say the one that cannot address the other one’s points is the one with the “weak view”. I’m still waiting for the answer to this question:
YOU said the Word “came into existence by God”. John 1:3 says that “NOTHING came into existence apart from the Word”. How do you rectify that problem?
As for what you perceive as the “weakness of our view”, consider Hebrews 11:17, where Isaac is called the “only begotten” of Abraham, although we all know Abraham had other sons. So if “only begotten” doesn’t mean that Isaac was LITERALLY the only one Abraham begot, then perhaps “only created” wouldn’t mean Jesus was LITERALLY the only one God created.
Also consider that even if you insist upon “only begotten“, Jesus isn’t LITERALLY the only one anyway:
1 Peter 1:3 King James Version
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,1 John 5:1
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.1 John 5:18
We know that whosoever is begotten of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.And finally, consider that many experts think translating “monogenes” as “only begotten” is a big mistake anyway. As I showed you in the last post, “monogenes” comes from “monos” and “ginomai“. And “ginomai” has more a meaning of “create”. All those verses I just listed above have the word “gennao” translated as “begotten”…… not “ginomai”. And many experts believe that to get a translation of “only begotten”, the Greek word would have had to been “monogennao“, not “monoginomai“, like it is.
There is even a school of experts that believe the “genes” part of “monogenes” comes from “genus” – which means “kind”. This is why you see people saying that “monogenes” really identifies Jesus as a “one of a kind“, or “unique” Son of God….. and NOT as an “only begotten” son of God.
So you need to be aware of these things, t8…… because you are hanging your entire understanding on the fact that many older English Bibles translate “monogenes” as “only begotten”. But like I said, Jesus isn’t even LITERALLY the “only begotten” son of God, because the three scriptures above say that WE are also “begotten” of God. And don’t forget that Isaac also was not LITERALLY Abraham’s “only begotten” son.
So once you realize these things, you’ll know that what Pierre and I have been saying is not “weak”. It is the truth. The Word was the FIRST to “come into existence by God”, and then all OTHER things “came into existence” through that Word. Just like when 1 Cor 8:6 says all things came through Jesus – it doesn’t mean Jesus came through HIMSELF. It means all OTHER things. Likewise, when Col 1:16 says all visible and invisible things, whether in heaven or on earth, were created through Jesus – it doesn’t mean Jesus was created through HIMSELF. It means all OTHER things.
You don’t take those two scriptures into account when talking about John 1:3. You say the wording of 1:3 prohibits the Word from being a part of the creation that came through him. But Col 1:16 and 1 Cor 8:6 are not about “the Word”……. they are about “JESUS” – who you say IS a part of creation. So how can literally “all things” have been created through Jesus, when Jesus is a part of creation?
Can you scripturally refute anything I’ve said in this post?
Wakeup wrote:What is your driving force/spirit desire in your life?
Hi Wakeup,
Do mean what is my motivation?
My spirit is me; when this husk dies, I’ll be gone.
___________
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgGod’s spirit and God’s word aren’t other people and other things.
True.
You say “Yes”, but you really believe otherwise; don’t you?
Mike wrote:PLEASE PAY ATTENTION, AND PROVE ME WRONG HERE.
Every king of Judah came into existence through David. Without David, not one single king of Judah came into existence.
Is that a true statement? YES.
Hi Mike,
Not by any act David, but merely through David’s lineage. Your made up
example provides no evidence to the validity of your claim,
it just explains your belief. (which I already know)___________
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgWe could do the same exact kind of TRUE statement with Adam, by saying EVERY human came into existence through Adam. Although Adam was indeed a human, he didn’t come into existence through himself, and so Adam is obviously EXCLUDED from the statement.
…and how does God tie in to a second excluded participant in this example?
Mike wrote:Every king of Judah came into existence through David. Without David, not one single king of Judah came into existence.
Is that a true statement? YES.
But consider that Jehovah was the ULTIMATE King of Judah – even as David was ruling Judah from the earth. So Jehovah, although BEING one of the kings of Judah, is EXCLUDED from that very TRUE statement I made.
Also consider that David didn’t come into existence THROUGH HIMSELF. So David, although BEING one of the kings of Judah, is also EXCLUDED from my statement.
Ed, do you see how TWO are excluded, not just ONE?
Hi Mike,
Which are the two who are excluded here? David and who else?
David came through the lineage of Judah, but David was considered King of Israel.___________
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org(a)We know that the Word DID at some point come into existence. (b)So when John 1:3 says that NOTHING came into existence apart from the Word, then there are only two choices:
1. The Word came into existence through HIMSELF.
2. The Word is EXCLUDED from the “all things” that came into existence through the Word….. like David and Adam were EXCLUDED from the statements above.
Which is the right one?
a) Yea, when God spoke 🙂
b) a moot point, as your question is based on an incorrect assumptionMike,
Now, about the “characteristics” of this “preexisting Law of God”………… did this Law come to earth to serve others as their slave? Did this Law show humility? Did this Law come as God’s sacrificial lamb – to die for our sins? Is this Law the thing that John the Baptist came to testify about, and bear witness to? Is this Law the thing about which John said he was unworthy to untie the sandals? All these things and many more need to align, Kerwin. All those things align with Jesus, but not with some “preexisting Law”.
Being as Jesus is the word given the characteristics of a person it follows that anything Jesus did the word did. The question is whether Jesus did anything the word did before the word was given the characteristics of a person. It is possible Scripture does credit him with doing such things.
Mike,
So a sacrificial demigod? Superior to the angels that were created through him? A second, lesser god? The first begotten Son of God? Sounds to me like Philo was right on the money, Kerwin. How people could look at all those descriptions and still insist he was NOT speaking of a person is beyond me. Perhaps those people were like you? Perhaps they did not WANT the answer that all of the evidence pointed to, and so came to irrational and illogical conclusions that the evidence could never actually support?
It is known Philo used philosophical allegory in his writing and referring to a non-person as a person is one thing that can be done when using it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
