- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2011,12:07) Keith,
At least I have an understanding of the creeds. The trinitarians that are around today don't understand and just say that it is a mystery.
Hi KathiDo you? Isn't your view somewhat of a “mystery” also since you say the Son was always in the Father but was not the begotten son until he was brought forth, what ever that means? I am just trying to get a handle on how all this comes together for you.
When you first came to this sight it seems to me that you and I had a big debate on the attributes of God and I had said part of his nature was he is eternal, and you rejected that his attributes were intrinsic to his nature. But now you agree it seems.
WJ
Kathi
I am sorry for interrupting your discussionn with JA. I have to admit he seems like a different person and I like the New JA.
You don't have to answer my post right away because I know it gets overwelming when you get more than one person coming at you. I always hate it when I am having a deep discussion with Mike and someone (not to mention any names) just pops in with a flooding post of how the “Trinity” is false and it originated by so and so and Blah Blah Blah. It really can interupt the flow of things.
I guess that is why we have the debates thread though.
Blessings Keith
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 23 2011,12:19) Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2011,12:07) Before He was begotten, He existed ready to help the Father. See the difference?
Hi KathiNo I don't understand.
Was Jesus “another being” in the Father?
If begotten to you does not mean “concieved”, “born”, or “procreated”, but “brougth forth” then why couldn't his begetting be after he came in the flesh or was resurrected?
It seems to me that if he was not “concieved”, “born”, or “procreated”, then he could not be a litteral Son.
Was the Father the unbegotten God before Jesus was begotten?
WJ
Keith,
A being is a person with their own mind and will, as I understand it, and so, the Son WAS another being within the being of the Father. The best analogy to that is the offspring within the body of the mother which shows one being within another being. This is not a perfect analogy because God is not restricted to be like a human so don't give me an argument which insists on this.As I said in my last post to you, the Son is like a 'tool' that the Father owns and accesses, although this 'tool' is a person, an only Son with His own perfect mind and perfect will and perfect holy spirit.
Also, you are correct, I have revised my view on the nature of God and now consider it essential to a deity nature. I remember that you pointed that out to me. Thank you. Reading the early church father's writings helped me to see this.
And yes, I agree that JA is doing well. I hope it keeps up. He does ask good questions.
Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2011,12:52) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 23 2011,12:19) Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2011,12:07) Before He was begotten, He existed ready to help the Father. See the difference?
Hi KathiNo I don't understand.
Was Jesus “another being” in the Father?
If begotten to you does not mean “concieved”, “born”, or “procreated”, but “brougth forth” then why couldn't his begetting be after he came in the flesh or was resurrected?
It seems to me that if he was not “concieved”, “born”, or “procreated”, then he could not be a litteral Son.
Was the Father the unbegotten God before Jesus was begotten?
WJ
Keith,
A being is a person with their own mind and will, as I understand it, and so, the Son WAS another being within the being of the Father.
Hi KathiSo [a] God was within God?
So what changed when he was “brought forth”?
Can you answer this question…
Was the Father the unbegotten God before Jesus was begotten?
WJ
Keith,
I forgot to address this:Quote If begotten to you does not mean “concieved”, “born”, or “procreated”, but “brougth forth” then why couldn't his begetting be after he came in the flesh or was resurrected? I do believe that begotten means 'born' but not by labor and delivery for that is human. He was born by some way, maybe by even the command of God He came out. That is still a mystery, so yes, there still is mystery but I understand a whole lot more than I used to and I am comfortable to call myself a trinitarian according to the early church views, not necessarily according to the 'whole lot' of your views though, as you know.
What was that term we were discussing…about one being and the Son and Spirit coming from that one being? I agreed with that definition and you did not seem to but maybe you did, not sure.
Kathi
Keith,
Quote So [a] God was within God? So what changed when he was “brought forth”?
Can you answer this question…
Was the Father the unbegotten God before Jesus was begotten?
A God, as Son, was within God the Father. A God, as Father, was not within another God who is God the Father.
The Father was always unbegotten, He was the begetter of the Son. The Son was not always unbegotten, He was begotten before the ages. I think better terms for the Son are pre-begotten/begotten. The Son was never the begetter of another like the Father was. The Son created, He didn't beget except in a born again spiritual type of way when He gave the promise of eternal life to believers.
What changed when He was brought forth? He wasn't waiting to work any longer, He was put to work. He created which was the first works of God the Father through God the Son.
Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2011,13:07) That is still a mystery, so yes, there still is mystery but I understand a whole lot more than I used to and I am comfortable to call myself a trinitarian according to the early church views,…
KathiWow I am glad to hear you are “comfortable to be called a Trinitarian”, so you are one step closer to being in the camp.
But didn't you scold me and Jack big time for not being “True” Trinitarians but instead apostates because we didn't hold to every detail the early church and Forefathers believed? Just asking and not trying to start a fight. I don't think your statement is accurate because one of the “Main” tenets of the Forefathers faith was the belief that the Holy Spirit is the third person.
That reminds me that I have noticed now you are calling the Holy Spirit a “he” or “him” and you even now worship the Holy Spirit, and again I specifically remember you and I having a strong debate about the Holy Spirit being a person and you insisted that the Holy Spirit was an “it” and not a person.
WJ
Hi All,
I voted “I don't know” because it differs from person to person anyway.
I will tell you what we all DO know though: There has never been a known occasion in the history of the world where someone who was brought forth into existence wasn't also subject to a time when he DIDN'T exist.
I exist now because I was brought forth. But because I was brought forth into existence, it also means there was a time when I didn't exist.
I see no scriptural reason whatsoever to just assume this wasn't also the case with God's firstborn Son.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 23 2011,13:27) Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2011,13:07) That is still a mystery, so yes, there still is mystery but I understand a whole lot more than I used to and I am comfortable to call myself a trinitarian according to the early church views,…
KathiWow I am glad to hear you are “comfortable to be called a Trinitarian”, so you are one step closer to being in the camp.
But didn't you scold me and Jack big time for not being “True” Trinitarians but instead apostates because we didn't hold to every detail the early church and Forefathers believed? Just asking and not trying to start a fight. I don't think your statement is accurate because one of the “Main” tenets of the Forefathers faith was the belief that the Holy Spirit is the third person.
That reminds me that I have noticed now you are calling the Holy Spirit a “he” or “him” and you even now worship the Holy Spirit, and again I specifically remember you and I having a strong debate about the Holy Spirit being a person and you insisted that the Holy Spirit was an “it” and not a person.
WJ
Keith,
I would appreciate it if you classified me as a Christian with the 'early trinitarian' understanding if you are going to classify me. I made a thread on the 'early trinity' a while back.here:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….64;st=0The early church often spoke of the begotten God and you cannot accept that phrase. I can.
I am not comfortable to be in the trinity camp of today and so I am not a Christian who agrees with a contemporary three equal persons, each equally God in one God mindset as is spoken of today.
Yes, I remember when I said that you and Jack are not true trinitarians because you did not agree that the Son was begotten before the ages which was in the Nicene Creed and I thought that was necessary to be considered as a trinitarian, I still do. I agree with the Nicene Creed. It seems that you have changed your mind on this. Jack has not changed his mind on this. I still don't know how he considers himself an orthodox trinitarian. He mentioned to me that he has gotten kicked off of trinitarian message boards for his stance, so I am not the only one who questions his claim to be an orthodox trinitarian. Maybe he doesn't use the word 'orthodox.'
Kathi
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2011,13:51) Hi All, I voted “I don't know” because it differs from person to person anyway.
I will tell you what we all DO know though: There has never been a known occasion in the history of the world where someone who was brought forth into existence wasn't also subject to a time when he DIDN'T exist.
I exist now because I was brought forth. But because I was brought forth into existence, it also means there was a time when I didn't exist.
I see no scriptural reason whatsoever to just assume this wasn't also the case with God's firstborn Son.
mike
What do you mean it differs from person to person? Have you not had biology 101? Do some people become the biological father after conception, some before conception? Please explain Mike.Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2011,15:34) The early church often spoke of the begotten God and you cannot accept that phrase. I can.
KathiWhere does that come from?
Of course I agree with the term however I do not agree with your “Use” of the word begotten and I do not believe the majority of the Forefathers do.
For your information the “Athanasian Creed” is the foundation of the “Orthodox Faith”.
Of which and with the Nicene Creed I fully accept.
So rather it is you that does not accept the “Early Orthodox Trinitarian view” for the majority of the early Fathers did not believe in more than one Divine being or to “divided his substance' which was a term to address the “Arians” and their belief that Jesus was merely “a god” who had a beginning as a begotten son from God.
In fact how can you claim that you are an “early Trinitarian” when they believed that the Holy Spirit was the third person?
I am not trying to attack you I am just pointing out what I see thats all.
WJ
Keith,
You have argued endlessly over the term 'begotten God' and now you are acting like you didn't. What is your use of the word 'begotten' as a verb?So the Nicene Creed is not the foundation of the orthodox faith. Can you show me where the foundation of the orthodox faith began?
Did I ever say that I accept early 'orthodox' trinitarian views or did I simply say that I agree with an early trinity view? The early church and I agree that there was one essence and they use the term 'being' to mean essence at times. They all spoke of more than one person which I consider a being. Therefore, according to my use of the word 'being,' they all agree to more than one person/being and one essence.
Not all of the early church fathers mentioned that the Holy Spirit was a person. Not all early church father's agreed on everything either, in fact not all 'orthodox trinitarians' or contemporary trinitarian pastors agree on everything.
The Holy Spirit is not listed as a person here:
The Trinity
10. I have sufficiently shown that we are not atheists since we acknowledge one God, who is uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable. He is grasped only by mind and intelligence, and surrounded by light, beauty, spirit, and indescribable power. By him the universe was created through his Word, was set in order, and is held together. , for we also think that God has a Son.
Let no one think it stupid for me to say that God has a Son. For we do not think of God the Father or of the Son in the way of the poets, who weave their myths by showing that gods are no better than men. But the Son of God is his Word in idea and in actuality; for by him and through him all things were made, the Father and the Son being one. And since the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son by the unity and power of the Spirit, the Son of God is the mind and Word of the Father.
But if, owing to your sharp intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire further what is meant by the Son, I shall briefly explain. He is the first offspring of the Father. I do not mean that he was created, for, since God is eternal mind, he had his Word within himself from the beginning, being eternally wise. Rather did the Son come forth from God to give form and actuality to all material things, which essentially have a sort of formless nature and inert quality, the heavier particles being mixed up with the lighter. The prophetic Spirit agrees with this opinion when he says, “The Lord created me as the first of his ways, for his works.”
Indeed we say that the Holy Spirit himself, who inspires those who utter prophecies, is an effluence from God, flowing from him and returning like a ray of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear those called atheists who admit God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and who teach their unity in power and their distinction in rank? Nor is our theology confined to these points. We affirm, too, a crowd of angels and ministers, whom God, the maker and creator of the world, appointed to their several tasks through his Word. He gave them charge over the good order of the universe, over the elements, the heavens, the world, and all it contains.http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.x.iii.iii.html
Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2011,14:43) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2011,13:51) Hi All, I voted “I don't know” because it differs from person to person anyway.
I will tell you what we all DO know though: There has never been a known occasion in the history of the world where someone who was brought forth into existence wasn't also subject to a time when he DIDN'T exist.
I exist now because I was brought forth. But because I was brought forth into existence, it also means there was a time when I didn't exist.
I see no scriptural reason whatsoever to just assume this wasn't also the case with God's firstborn Son.
mike
What do you mean it differs from person to person? Have you not had biology 101? Do some people become the biological father after conception, some before conception? Please explain Mike.Kathi
Some people think a impregnated egg is not a person, so therefore the “father” is not yet a father of anything. And many people differ on the age that the fetus actually becomes a “son/daughter”. I personally view it as one becoming the father when the child comes forth from the womb and takes it's first breath.But like I said, opinions vary.
Maybe you could answer my point. If God begot a Son and “brought him forth as the first of His works”, then it stands to reason that this Son didn't exist until he was brought forth into existence.
mike
Quote (Istari @ April 23 2011,14:44) Mike,
'God's FIRSTBORN Son'… That is interesting…Who is God's SECONDBORN Son?
Istari,Scripture doesn't tell us who God's second born son is. It does, however, tell us that Jesus is His firstborn, and the only Son He has that was begotten.
Is this on topic?
mike
Mike,
You may not have realised it but the actual thread topic is AGREED therefore the thread is open.
EVERYONE AGREES that the Father is the Father at the time of birth… Even you!
The direction of the thread discussion has changed in case you hadn't noticed!
Begotten IS to do with the Father having a child to his name, is it not?The question was of interest as your quote raised the point : if Jesus I'd the Firstborn Son – who is the Secondborn?
You rightly cannot answer – therefore what is the VALUE of 'Firstborn' as a Son of God IF he is The ONLY [Begotten] SON of God?
See Mike, it doesn't make sense…
Now, if there were OTHER BEGOTTEN SONS, then being the FIRSTBORN of those other BEGOTTEN SONS then makes sense – see it, Mike?
And where does it say and who does it say in Scriotures will be BEGOTTEN SONS OF GOD, brothers to Christ and HEIRS to God?
Was Jesus HEIR to God before he came as Man? Prove it from Scriptures – Mike.
Istari,
I'm not really following you here. Are you saying that because we don't know who the next to be created after Jesus was, Jesus cannot be the first?
Mike,
The point of saying 'Firstborn' is to emphasise that firstborn from the other 'Borns' else just say 'One and Only'.'One and Only' emphasises singularity and uniqueness that 'Firstborn' does not.
I notice you use a lot of argument that involves ” Does that mean 'cannot possibly be'? “. This is weak argument and generally used as a position retainer as it simply opens up the argument to speculation!
Do you agree that FIRSTBORN indicates the idea of OTHERS in a way that ONE AND ONLY does not?
Yes or no…(Only joking! please answer as you please)And Mike, did you intend to answer my other questions in that same post two above this one?
I'm fascinated to hear what you have to say regarding them.
Mike! I like to answer Istari's question, don't be upset. The Angels were created next, through Jesus. They too are called the Son's of God. There are ranks as far as the Angels are concerned. The cherubs or Archangels are higher then the regular Angels, But all are called the Son's of God, Michael, Gabriel and Lucifer, who became Satan. The Bible doesn't reveal who came next, of the Angels…. But Jesus is the firstborn…. Just like we have a firstborn Son.
Peace and Love Irene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
