Search Members

[hybrid]

cubes,

paul and peter clearly did not refer to jesus here as “a” god… but their great god. (mine too)

Titus 2:13-15
13 while we wait for the blessed hope-the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

15 These, then, are the things you should teach.
NIV

2 Peter 1:1
To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:
NIV

thinking about jesus as a lesser god than the father has also pagan parallelism (in greek mythology)

also the hundred and so usage of the word theos in NT refers to deity (supreme being), with the exception in cor when it was use to refer to satan as the god of this world.

so i think it is also common sense that the word god refer to jesus was within the general rule of the usage of the word in the whole NT.

if you want to believe that the usage of god that refer to jesus was the exception to the rule, that's your call…

.

[hybrid]

Quote (Cubes @ Mar. 06 2006,16:18)

Hi Is, No I don't feel that you are trying to trap me but I do feel though that we're going off on a rabbit trail and off topic when we focus on WHEN Jesus became a son, rather than the thing that matters to our salvation:  that he is the Son of God.  That's all I am saying. Jesus was born of Mary some 2,000 years ago and it may well be that he became God's Son on that day.  I am called to believe that he really is the Son of God and I do.   Speculatively, it could be that God called him “my son” about 14 months before the day that he was born on earth.  If so, technically, he was a Son 14 months earlier but was revealed to men in the Manger.  Some even didn't know about it till some thirty or so years later during his ministry years.   I feel that there is little to be gained by dwelling on this line of thinking. I have to run but would continue shortly.

gee cubes,

it's well and good to believe that jesus was the son of the living god.

but john, thomas, paul, hebrewa and peter never stopped there, and went a little further….

Titus 2:13-15
13 while we wait for the blessed hope-the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

15 These, then, are the things you should teach.
NIV

2 Peter 1:1
To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:
NIV

John 20:28
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
NIV

John 1:1
and the Word was God.
NIV

Heb 1:8-9
But about the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”
NIV

the scriptures were too numerous to ignore….

that jesus christ was indeed god in the flesh.

.

[hybrid]

Quote (t8 @ Feb. 24 2006,06:44)

That's right. He is the Logos of God and he came in the flesh. So he came to us as a man, but he was the Logos/Word.

hiya t8,
how come i know you even if  i really don't know you? i mean i never met you neither i knew what you looked like. but because of your posts, i think i knew that you exists. i know your beliefs, your sense of humor, your aspirations, your sarcasm, the things you  agree and disagree, etc.

so you see ,to me your posts represents who you are. to me your posts were essentially you.

and so i confess, from the beginning was your post and your posts was with you and your posts was you.

.

[hybrid]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Feb. 23 2006,08:09)

Quote You cannot fill one person with another 2 CORINTHIANS 13:5 5Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you–unless indeed you fail the test? What do you make of this verse Ramblinrose?

Mark 16:19-20
After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. -NIV

Col 3:1
1 Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God-NIV
[/B]

if christ was at the right hand of God in heaven and in our hearts on earth, it meant that he can be at two place at the same time.

is that what you called omnipresence?

[hybrid]

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 17 2006,20:25)

When Yahshua came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the son of man am? And they said, Some [say that you are] Yahchanan the immerser: some, Yliyah; and others, Yeremyah, or one of the prophets. He said unto them, But whom say you that I am? And Simon Kepha answered and said, You are the Messiah, the son of the living Yahweh. And Yahshua answered and said unto him, Blessed are you, Simon son of Yahnah: for flesh and blood has not revealed [this] unto you, but my Father Who is in heaven. And I say also unto you, That you are Kepha, and upon this rock I will build this house; and the gates of sheol shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of Yahweh: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then he gave his disciples a strict warning that they should tell no man that he was Yahshua the Messiah. From that time forth began Yahshua to show unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Yerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. (Mattithyah 16:13-21) Hmmm! Is it not strange that no man thought that he was “God” or Father Yahweh back then? Certainly he was the son of the living Yahweh just as Yahshua's Father Who is in heaven had revealed to Kepha!

isn't it not strange also that noone thought of him as an angel or just a mere man also?

hmmmm…

.

[hybrid]

hi t8,

Okay, a couple of thoughts, lining up in my mind…

1.As the father is divine, the son was also fully divine by virtue of his sonship. Does having the nature of his father made the son to also posses all the essential qualities and attributes of god his father?

2.we are also partakers of the same divine nature by the holy spirit thru the redemptive work of Christ and when he appears we will be like him as the son was like his father. By adoption therefore are we also to inherit the essential qualities and attributes of the father?

[hybrid]

hi whatistrue,

to your explanation on psalm 89:27, i agree with the former but disagree with the later. for this reason, let us go back to col 1:15 and ltes continue to 16:

Col 1:15-17
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For 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. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.NIV

though it was a fact that jesus the nessiah was indeed a man, It was obvious that paul was not talking about the “messiah not yet” when he talked about the SON being before all creation/things.

.

[hybrid]

thanks for the reply, t8 and david,

if the trinity doctrine is true, the father is said to be unbegotten, while the son was begotten by the father and father alone according to his deity and the spirit proceeds from the father and the son,

so the father being unbegotten will not qualify for  the title, while the holy spirit, coming from the father and son would be in 3rd by position, but not in degree, since the fulness of the father's divine essence was in the son and also in the spirit.

the trinitarian assertion of the former was therefore not entirely wrong. the son whether uniquely begoten or created can fittingly said to have supremacy over all god's creation. as to the other assertion that the son was not part of creation is the point of mi inquiry.

but considering the 30 biblical references to the word firstborn would make as to conclude that christ was the firstborn of all the believers in the house of god. is the word “prototype” of how we gonna be an appropriate term to use?

but with reference to the statement that “firstborn of beast are themselves animals” and considering again that the son was begotten by god in a “literal sense”… can also make us conclude that god begat god?

[hybrid]

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Feb. 01 2006,19:07)

Colossians 1:15 “15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.”

Col 1:15-20
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

does the verse meant he was the first to be created or he was supreme over all that is created?

[hybrid]

Quote (Sultan @ Feb. 01 2006,17:21)

Quote (hybrid @ Feb. 01 2006,11:12) hi guys, i have a question then about christ's being. was he begotten or created? . What do you mean”Christ's being”?

hi,

nothing, just to complete the sentence.

let me rephrase for you my question?

i have a question about jesus christ.

is he begotten or created?

[hybrid]

Quote (Adam Pastor @ Feb. 01 2006,17:35)

[/quote] hi, Hockeycowboy wrote: Isn't every conception,

conception speaks of the christ being begotten?

Quote

every newborn child …

new born means no pre-incarnate christ?

Quote

a new creation?

christ then a creature of god?

Quote

Christ, was no different!

meaning there is no differenciate between begotten from created?

.

[hybrid]

hi guys,

i have a question then about christ's being.

was he begotten or created?

.

[Author]

Posts