t8, you asked:

Does this not mean to you that he was the son of God at that point and possibly earlier?

Yes, that is why I questioned you because you had in the past been claiming belief that He was the son even before creation. That comment did not have much faith behind it, just that it was “possible.”

It is by faith in what I experienced and…[Read more]

So you don’t deny that he may have been a son before creation, you just don’t think that scripture can alone, make that clear.

I’m sure that we lack so much in reading the Bible without the understanding of the Hebrews of the day. I do believe that they had the “Word of YHVH” in mind when John wrote John 1:1. Their understanding of the “Word of…[Read more]

That’s my point. That is why I asked. It was a reasonable follow up question to your comment, not something that should be called ‘desperate’ by any means. Thank you for clarifying that you aren’t sure if you believe that He was a son before creation.

@t8

My comment was not desperate, it was in response to your comment here (particularly what I made bold)

The Word was with God in the beginning. The Word became flesh and was called Jesus. He was born the messiah, savior, and Lord. He was the son of God at his birth in a manger. So he was the son at this point in the least.

It was because you…[Read more]

t8,

Rolling my eyes here…It is obvious by your statement of what you think I believe, that you do not take me seriously if you think that I teach that Jesus is God the Father. I have never taught that. You do not understand the term ‘unity.’

For some reason you cannot seem to grasp the idea of an eternal father having within him an offspring…[Read more]

@t8

So, now are you saying that Jesus was not a “son” when He was the Word of the LORD in the OT? I disagree. I believe that the one who called Himself the “Word of the LORD” was the true Son and existed before creation. Later that Word who was “with” God in the beginning and “was” God,  did not consider this form “of God” something to be…[Read more]

@t8

Not confused. LORD is a name that is used for the name YHVH, and that LORD is God of gods and Lord of lords. We have one Lord of lords and that is Jesus, we have one God of gods and that is the Father. YHVH is both God of gods and Lord of lords, two entities in unity…a father and a son.

Jesus always was YHVH with the Father, and that…[Read more]

Jael,

All other sons were not begotten, they were created, they are not the same type as the Father , just one son is…Jesus.

@Jael

you asked:

Oh, to the supporter of ‘beget’ doesn’t mean ‘beget’…To the implier that beget implies something already existing:

Were Cain and Abel already existing when Adam begat them?

Beget does mean beget.  Adam took part in the conception of Cain and Able. Before that conception, they did not exist. From the moment of conception,…[Read more]

t8

I agree with Paul who tells us our God and our Lord are two entities, Father and Son. 1 Cor 8:6

Unless you believe that YHVH is not both God and Lord, then you will too come to understand that the Father and the Son are both YHVH in unity.

Jesus is the only son ontologically. We will never be. We are adopted. It is like saying that Jesus is…[Read more]

Gene,

We agree that we bow our knee to Jesus and call Him Lord to the glory of God his Father. What we don’t agree on is that YHVH is both God and Lord-two entities. Christians recognize that YHVH is both Father and Son-two entities. YHVH is one, a unity of two entities. Their Holy Spirit is their spirit that is united and extends from them while…[Read more]

@Jael

Hi Jael,

Did you realize that ontology has to do with the nature of a being and not their gender or their office?

The son of a human type of being would be another human type of being

The son of a particular animal, lets say a horse for example, would be another horse…and so on.

Jesus is clearly identified as the only begotten Son of…[Read more]

@t8

It has been almost a month since I posted my response to your post. Are you beginning to understand that you don’t have sufficient arguments to support your opinion that the Son wasn’t eternal in the past?

@kerwin

@GeneBalthrop

Do you plan on changing body type after you die and go on to everlasting life? Specifically, you have an earthly body now, are you hoping to have a heavenly body someday which is different than the one you have now? If so, how will it be different?

@kerwin

The spirit and soul of the Son is what would have taken on flesh. The spirit and soul had always existed, imo.

@NickHassan

you said:

God raised HIS SERVANT according to Acts 3.

Does this fit with your two god theory?

Absolutely!

@kerwin

What do you believe qualified the Son to take away the sins of mankind?

@NickHassan

You’re welcome! The word “Lord” is used towards Jesus in 3 different ways in the NT.

#1 as “sir”

#2 as “master/king”

#3 as the divine Lord.

Jesus, according to His flesh was made both Lord (#2) and Christ. David called Him Lord because He was his promised descendant to sit on the throne of David in the eternal kingdom.

@kerwin

you said:

The flaw here is that this just as broken as implying God can be tempted by evil as a being is either one kind of another not two kinds at one therefore Jesus is either 1) human as Scripture states, God, or a hybrid but not both the God kind and the human kind.

The eternal spirit of the Son indwells a flesh body which he…[Read more]

@NickHassan

Revelation 17:14

“These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.”