Readers.....let's do as God's word tells us before commenting and replying on this post. Let's put aside doctrine that is not supported by scripture and do as the word of God tells us;
"And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live."
"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
Let's use every word and ALL scriptures to come up with a biblical answer for the question presented. ALL of the words of God are to be used for reproof AND correction. This is where we are to get our doctrine. So let's begin.....
Did Jesus Christ go from being 100% God, to 100% Flesh and Blood man, and BCAK to 100% God? Of course He did!
Was He ever BOTH at the same time? That's impossible!
Now let's prove this with scriptures.......
Let's start at the beginning....
John 1
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2] The same was in the beginning with God.
[3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
So in the beginning was the Word. And whoever this Word was, He was with God AND at the beginning He was God. Well.....let's find out just who is this one that is called the Word....
[14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Ok....NOW we have some information we can work with. Whoever this person was that was called the Word, went from being God to being made flesh. He was also the only begotten of the Father. Let's find more information on this one called the Word.
Luke 1
[35] And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
John 3
[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
[17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
[18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
And just to further confirm...let's not forget what else was said about the one called the Word; "...All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
Col.1
[13] Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
[16] For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
[17] And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Heb.1
[1] God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
[2] Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
So now we have proved exactly who the one called the Word is; It is Jesus Christ, the only begotten of God, the one that created everything that was made. Now that we know the Word is Jesus Christ and now that we know He was made flesh....let's define just what this flesh is that Jesus became. Let's also determine what Jesus was BEFORE becoming flesh.
Isa.31
[3] Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit. When the LORD shall stretch out his hand, both he that helpeth shall fall, and he that is holpen shall fall down, and they all shall fail together.
God makes a distinction above. Horses are NOT spirit...they are flesh. God let's us know that a flesh being is NOT the same as a spirit being. Let's continue with our search....
Gen.6
[12] And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
[13] And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
[17] And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
[19] And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
So not only are Horses flesh....but everything that God made that breaths upon this earth is also flesh.
Gen.7
[21] And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
So man too is considered a flesh being. And we also know that flesh is NOT spirit and is NOT God. So what is God? Let's read....
John 4
[24] God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
And what did the scriptures tell us the Word was BEFORE coming in the flesh?; "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
And let's confirm again what Jesus was in the beginning....
Phil.2
[5] Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
[6] Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Now we are getting to see a difference. God's word tells us that man is flesh and blood and that God is a Spirit. Jesus was God in the beginning and then was born flesh and blood man. It is becoming clear that God, a spirit being is NOT the same as man, a flesh and blood being. Let's find out more about spirits....
Heb.1
[7] And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
[14] Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
So now we know that angels too are spirits. So angelic beings are of the same family as God. BOTH are spirit beings, as opposed to man, flesh beings. Let's confirm this with scripture....
1 Cor.15
[35] But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
So the question is asked, "What type of body will those that raise from the dead will have?". Let's find out...
[39] All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
Now we already know what flesh beings are from reading Gen. chap's 6 & 7. And above we read the same thing. There are different types of flesh...but ALL of the above are flesh beings. Let's continue.....
[40] There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
And now we find that there is a difference between a flesh being and a spirit being.
[42] So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
[43] It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
[44] It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
When man is born of woman he is born a flesh being and man then dies. When man is raised he will no longer have a flesh and blood body, he will no longer be a flesh being.....he will be a spirit being. Man is born a flesh being but will be raised as a spirit being. Once this happens, man will have been born into the family of God, he will be as God...a spirit being.
Let's continue. Let's find why Jesus came to this earth....
Heb.2
[5] For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
[6] But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
[7] Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
Above we find that man was made just a little lower than the angels. Was there any other that was made just as man? Let's read...
Heb.2
[9] But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
[14] Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
[16] For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Phil.2
[7] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
[8] And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
1 Peter 3
[18] For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
Now a greater picture is coming together. We find that Jesus was born NOT as a spirit being, for He, just as man, was made lower that the angels. Jesus was born of a woman. Jesus did NOT take on the spirit nature of angels, but was born as a flesh and blood being just as you and I.
And why did Jesus have to take the form of a flesh and blood being? The scripture already told us;
"...for the suffering of death...", "...And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.", "...being put to death in the flesh..."
How many times must God's word tell us that Jesus was born a 'flesh and blood' being and NOT a spirit being and also WHY He was born a flesh and blood being?
Think about this for a moment..... God is a spirit being. Angels are spirit beings. Can a mortal man kill a spirit being? Can man kill a God? Spirit beings CANNOT die. That is why God had to make a place called hell for their punishment. You cannot kill a spirit being but God has to in some way punish those that trnasgress....thus 'HELL'! Let's continue to read and see how Jesus went from flesh and blood to spirit.
Here is a description of Jesus BEFORE His death...
1 John 5
[6] This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
1 Pet.4
[1] Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
And now a description of Him after His death but BEFORE becoming a spirit being....
Luke 24
[39] Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Above we find that Jesus was yet a flesh and blood being AFTER His resurrection. With His own words He tells us He had not been made into a spirit being, for He still had a flesh body, something He tells us a spirit being does not have. At this point He had not ascended to heaven, the dwelling place of the Father.
But when He ascended to the Father as our redeemer He was made a spirit being once again. Let's read what Jesus asked of the Father
John 17
[5] And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Jesus asked to be as He was with the Father before the world was. And what was Jesus before the world? What was Jesus in the beginning? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Jesus was God!
And what is God? "God is a Spirit:..."
Christ was made a spirit being before entering into heaven. He had to, hence the scriptures;
1 Cor.15
[50] Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
So for those that believe Jesus is YET a flesh and blood man dwelling in the kingdom of God....re-read the above scripture......can't happen!
Jesus could not enter heaven with a flesh and blood body. Something that He clearly tells us He had above in Luke 24:39. So sometime after His resurrection BUT before entering heaven, God the Father granted Jesus request; "glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."
Jesus had to go through the same transformation that each and every one of us hope and pray for. Jesus had to be 'born again'! Jesus had to be born BACK into a spirit being so that He could be accepted by the Father and sit at His righthand.
Spirit beings are not made up of the same substance as flesh and blood beings. Why is knowing this important? Because in order for mans sins to be forgiven BLOOD HAD TO BE SHED! And that is why Jesus came to this earth. To shed His blood for the remission of sins. Had Jesus been a 100% spirit being He would not have been able to accomplish what He came to do. Had Jesus been 100% God how would He have been able to save mankind? Something HAD to die to save mankind of his sins! And God cannot die! Only flesh and blood beings die....Jesus was just that; flesh and blood.
Let's review...
- Jesus was God in the beginning. John 1:1
- Jesus was then born flesh and blood of a woman. Luke 1:35, John 3:16-18
- Flesh and blood beings are NOT spirit beings. Isa. 31:3
- God and the angels are spirit beings. John 4:24, Heb. 1:7&14
- Flesh and blood beings are not made of the same substance as spirit beings. 1 John 5:6, Luke 24:39
- Jesus and man were made lower than the angels. Heb. 2:7&9
- Jesus took on the nature of man for the suffering of death. Heb. 2:9
- Jesus asked to be as He was in the beginning. John 17:5
- Jesus was born with a spirit body before entering heaven. 1 Cor.15:45-46, 50
- God is a spirit. John 4:24
- Jesus is now God, a spirit being as He was in the beginning. John 1:1
Now let's read of those that do NOT believe Jesus Christ was born of Mary as 100% flesh and blood man...
1 John 4
[2] Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
[3] And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2 John 1
[7] For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Please understand what is being said above.....the scriptures did NOT say that Jesus was both God and Man, the scriptures did NOT say that He was some sort of being that was a mixture of Spirit and Flesh and Blood!
The scriptures are very clear on the nature of the one that came to save mankind;
Jesus was born a flesh and blood being and nothing else!
Jesus was 100% flesh and blood man when born of Mary!
Jesus Christ; from 100% God, to 100% Flesh and Blood man, to 100% God...... again!
.
Except for the fact that all the time he was 100% human he was ALSO 100% God.
: DaveW Thu Jan 09, 2014 - 11:23:19
Except for the fact that all the time he was 100% human he was ALSO 100% God.
Dear brother Dave,
While I agree with your statement I think you raise another question; "How is it possible?". Perhaps it would be beneficial to explain 'HOW'.
Your brother in Jesus,
Leroy (thefixer).
: thefixer Mon Jan 13, 2014 - 12:44:47
: DaveWExcept for the fact that all the time he was 100% human he was ALSO 100% God.
Dear brother Dave,
While I agree with your statement I think you raise another question; "How is it possible?". Perhaps it would be beneficial to explain 'HOW'.
Your brother in Jesus,
Leroy (thefixer).
There is no explanation. He is God and beyond any limitations, physical or logical.
: DaveW Thu Jan 09, 2014 - 11:23:19
Except for the fact that all the time he was 100% human he was ALSO 100% God.
1 John 4
[3] And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2 John 1
[7] For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Now that we know from which spirit you you are......let's look at some more scripture that show that Jesus was NOT 100% God after being born of Mary:
Matt.26
[53] Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
Why would "God" have to pray to "God" for help?
Mark 13
[32] But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
Why would one that is 100% "God" NOT know the hour of His return?
We can read over and over again that Jesus was NOT born a spirit being as the angels and the Father are, but was in fact born just as all of us were born.....a flesh and blood being.
We can also read where Jesus asks that He return to being as He once was.....a spirit being!
But NO WHERE can we read that Jesus was both a spirit being AND a flesh and blood being at the same time.
If God's word says so......please present scriptures that PROVE it!
.
: Eccl12vs13 Sat Nov 23, 2013 - 17:10:04
Jesus was 100% flesh and blood man when born of Mary!
Since you believe that Jesus is God, do you also believe that Mary, is the mother of God?
: Tolasonn Tue Jan 28, 2014 - 09:45:58
: Eccl12vs13 Sat Nov 23, 2013 - 17:10:04
Jesus was 100% flesh and blood man when born of Mary!
Since you believe that Jesus is God, do you also believe that Mary, is the mother of God?
No God has no mother. He has always excisted, wheras Mary is like us, a created human being used by God as a vessel to carry His Son to birth.
: Eccl12vs13 Sat Jan 25, 2014 - 17:47:16
But NO WHERE can we read that Jesus was both a spirit being AND a flesh and blood being at the same time.
If God's word says so......please present scriptures that PROVE it!
Colossians 2:9 (NASB) For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells
in bodily form,
The fullness of God in a human body.
Your OP is riddled with errors
1.
: Eccl12vs13 Sat Nov 23, 2013 - 17:10:04
Readers.....let's do as God's word tells us before commenting and replying on this post. Let's put aside doctrine that is not supported by scripture and do as the word of God tells us;
"And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live."
"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
Let's use every word and ALL scriptures to come up with a biblical answer for the question presented. ALL of the words of God are to be used for reproof AND correction. This is where we are to get our doctrine. So let's begin.....
Scriptures do not contain ALL the words of God. Scripture itself tells us that (e.g. Jn 21:25, 2Thess 2:15)
Scripture does not tell us to get our doctrines from scripture.
Where do you think the Apostles got their doctrines from?
2.
: Eccl12vs13 Sat Nov 23, 2013 - 17:10:04
Isa.31
[3] Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit. When the LORD shall stretch out his hand, both he that helpeth shall fall, and he that is holpen shall fall down, and they all shall fail together.
God makes a distinction above. Horses are NOT spirit...they are flesh. God let's us know that a flesh being is NOT the same as a spirit being. Let's continue with our search....
Your quote says that
horses are flesh and not spirit. It does not say that
all flesh is not spirit. You are extrapolating invalidly.
3.
: Eccl12vs13 Sat Nov 23, 2013 - 17:10:04
Heb.1
[7] And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
[14] Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
So now we know that angels too are spirits. So angelic beings are of the same family as God. BOTH are spirit beings, as opposed to man, flesh beings. Let's confirm this with scripture....
Angels are not of the same family as God otherwise they would be God.
There is only one God.
Humans and dung beetles are both "flesh" but they are not the same family
4.
: Eccl12vs13 Sat Nov 23, 2013 - 17:10:04
Think about this for a moment..... God is a spirit being. Angels are spirit beings. Can a mortal man kill a spirit being? Can man kill a God? Spirit beings CANNOT die. That is why God had to make a place called hell for their punishment. You cannot kill a spirit being but God has to in some way punish those that trnasgress....thus 'HELL'
Of course spirit beings can die. Only God is immortal of himself.
God created the angels and he could destroy them.
5.
: Eccl12vs13 Sat Nov 23, 2013 - 17:10:04
And now a description of Him after His death but BEFORE becoming a spirit being....
Luke 24
[39] Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Above we find that Jesus was yet a flesh and blood being AFTER His resurrection. With His own words He tells us He had not been made into a spirit being, for He still had a flesh body, something He tells us a spirit being does not have. At this point He had not ascended to heaven, the dwelling place of the Father.
But when He ascended to the Father as our redeemer He was made a spirit being once again.
What nonsense. Jesus was not made into a "spirit being" sometime after his resurrection. He was raised in a spiritual body.
1Cor 15
[44] It is sown a physical body,
it is raised a spiritual body.Jesus was raised a
spiritual body. It doesn't say he was turned into a spiritual being.
6.
You say:
: Eccl12vs13 Sat Nov 23, 2013 - 17:10:04
But when He ascended to the Father as our redeemer He was made a spirit being once again. Let's read what Jesus asked of the Father
John 17
[5] And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
He said that before the Resurrection
1Cor 15
[43] It is sown in dishonor,
it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.
Jesus received his glory when he was raised – not some time afterwards.
It is correct to call Mary the mother of God since she is the mother of Jesus, who is God.
That does not mean that she is older than God, or the source of Jesus' divinity.
It is also correct to say that God died on the cross. If Jesus was not God and therefore God did not suffer and die then we are still in our sins because someone who is only man could not atone for our sins.
Another point worth considering in this debate is that if the Second person of the Trinity stopped being God and became only a man then we no longer have a Trinity but some sort of Duplicity (is that the right word?) for 33 years and then a Trinity again. What sort of whacky theology is that?
Mary is not the Mother of God, that's allegory created by Catholics.
Why is it so difficult to accept that God simply chose an acceptable and 100% human woman to birth His fleshly existence?
: Alan Fri Jan 31, 2014 - 10:19:25
Mary is not the Mother of God, that's allegory created by Catholics.
Allegory?
: Alan Fri Jan 31, 2014 - 10:19:25
Why is it so difficult to accept that God simply chose an acceptable and 100% human woman to birth His fleshly existence?
Mary is the mother of Jesus
Jesus is God
Therefore, Mary is the mother of God
It's simple logic. If you deny that Mary is the mother God, you are denying the divinity of Jesus which is what the author of this thread is trying to do.
: winsome Fri Jan 31, 2014 - 10:28:15
Mary is the mother of Jesus
Jesus is God
Therefore, Mary is the mother of God
It's simple logic. If you deny that Mary is the mother God, you are denying the divinity of Jesus which is what the author of this thread is trying to do.
You are putting God in a box believing that logical conclusion applies to His Kingdom, God is above your interpretation of Logic.
Philosophical argumentation does not always stand up to the test of correctiveness.
example;
Premise 1: All birds lay eggs.Premise 2: Platypuses lay eggs.Conclusion: Platypuses are birds.
example 2
Premise 1: All mammals have fur.Premise 2: Platypuses have fur.Conclusion: Platypuses are mammals.
Sometimes there is a need to further define each premise, example;
Premise 2 should read "Jesus is God and Man" since this is more true.
: Alan Fri Jan 31, 2014 - 10:50:51
: winsome Fri Jan 31, 2014 - 10:28:15
Mary is the mother of Jesus
Jesus is God
Therefore, Mary is the mother of God
It's simple logic. If you deny that Mary is the mother God, you are denying the divinity of Jesus which is what the author of this thread is trying to do.
You are putting God in a box believing that logical conclusion applies to His Kingdom, God is above your interpretation of Logic.
Translation: I have no answer to that.
: Alan Fri Jan 31, 2014 - 10:50:51
Philosophical argumentation does not always stand up to the test of correctiveness.
example;
Premise 1: All birds lay eggs.
Premise 2: Platypuses lay eggs.
Conclusion: Platypuses are birds.
example 2
Premise 1: All mammals have fur.
Premise 2: Platypuses have fur.
Conclusion: Platypuses are mammals.
Sometimes there is a need to further define each premise, example;
Premise 2 should read "Jesus is God and Man" since this is more true.
False philosophical arguments do not stand up to the test of correctivesness.
Both of your examples have logical errors.
Can you show a logical error in my argument?
You can substitute your version of Premise 2 if you like but it makes no difference to the logic.
: Alan Fri Jan 31, 2014 - 10:19:25
Why is it so difficult to accept that God simply chose an acceptable and 100% human woman to birth His fleshly existence?
Well, because people don't give birth to "fleshly existence". They give birth to
persons.
Other than that, we have no dispute with the "acceptable and 100% human woman" part. That's exactly what Mary was/is.
: winsome Fri Jan 31, 2014 - 11:02:48
Can you show a logical error in my argument?
You can substitute your version of Premise 2 if you like but it makes no difference to the logic.
The error is the incomplete statement, "Jesus is God"
"Jesus is both God and Man" is not defined in the statement.
I'll show you a simpler example that you may be able to comprehend easier.
1-The earth contains oxygen
2-Man requires oxygen to survive
Conclusion: Man survives by oxygen
You can see by limiting the premise by not entering all the facts that the conclusion will be flawed, much like your conclusion.
Jesus was both God and Man, not just one or the other.
: Alan Fri Jan 31, 2014 - 12:38:55
: winsome Fri Jan 31, 2014 - 11:02:48
Can you show a logical error in my argument?
You can substitute your version of Premise 2 if you like but it makes no difference to the logic.
The error is the incomplete statement, "Jesus is God"
"Jesus is both God and Man" is not defined in the statement.
I'll show you a simpler example that you may be able to comprehend easier.
1-The earth contains oxygen
2-Man requires oxygen to survive
Conclusion: Man survives by oxygen
You can see by limiting the premise by not entering all the facts that the conclusion will be flawed, much like your conclusion.
Jesus was both God and Man, not just one or the other.
Of course Jesus was both God and man, not just one or the other
Please explain how this makes a difference to the logic of my argument.
You example bears no relationship to the logic of my argument. It is just faulty logic.
: winsome Fri Jan 31, 2014 - 12:47:37
Of course Jesus was both God and man, not just one or the other
Please explain how this makes a difference to the logic of my argument.
You example bears no relationship to the logic of my argument. It is just faulty logic.
The point is that the information in your premise is incomplete and thus the conclusion is flawed, much the same as the example I gave you.
: Alan Fri Jan 31, 2014 - 14:12:38
: winsome Fri Jan 31, 2014 - 12:47:37
Of course Jesus was both God and man, not just one or the other
Please explain how this makes a difference to the logic of my argument.
You example bears no relationship to the logic of my argument. It is just faulty logic.
The point is that the information in your premise is incomplete and thus the conclusion is flawed, much the same as the example I gave you.
There are many things about Jesus Christ that are not included in the premises but that does not make the conclusion flawed. It would only be false if the data were necessary for the conclusion.
In the example you gave me the first premise was not used in the conclusion and therefore was irrelevant. That makes the structure of your argument false. Therefore your argument is false.
Please show how incomplete data in my premise makes the argument false.
: winsome Fri Jan 31, 2014 - 14:32:15
It would only be false if the data were necessary for the conclusion.
That's exactly the point I've been attempting to make here, your premise is incomplete, lacking in data.
: Alan Fri Jan 31, 2014 - 14:59:35
: winsome Fri Jan 31, 2014 - 14:32:15
It would only be false if the data were necessary for the conclusion.
That's exactly the point I've been attempting to make here, your premise is incomplete, lacking in data.
Of course it is incomplete concerning Jesus Christ. John said at the end of his gospel:
There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.
What you need to show is that the incompleteness matters to the conclusion.
Please show me how the data you think should be in the premise makes any difference to the conclusion.
I think you are just playing around. You know perfectly well that the logic is sound but you are not prepared to accept the conclusion for reasons that have nothing to do with the logic.
The conclusion would result in Mary being the mother of God and man, which only leads back to Jesus since the only reference we have to God and man is Jesus himself.
Again, Mary was a simple, mortal human being like the rest of us, chosen by God to give birth to His son in the flesh. Mary did the human part, the Holy Spirit provided the other.
Please do not undermine me, I am most certainly not playing around.
: Alan Fri Jan 31, 2014 - 15:30:58
The conclusion would result in Mary being the mother of God and man, which only leads back to Jesus since the only reference we have to God and man is Jesus himself.
Saying it leads back to Jesus is not relevant to the argument.
The issue is = Is the conclusion true?
You could expand the conclusion to say that Mary is the mother of a person who is both God and man but that still means that Mary is the mother of God.
You have not shown that the extra data is relevant to the conclusion.
Let me give you an example:
All birds lay eggs
A duck is a bird
Therefore ducks lay eggs
There is data missing, such as ducks have webbed feet and wings, but that makes no differece to the conclusion and is therefore not relevant whether it is included or not.
: Alan Fri Jan 31, 2014 - 15:30:58
Again, Mary was a simple, mortal human being like the rest of us, chosen by God to give birth to His son in the flesh. Mary did the human part, the Holy Spirit provided the other.
That point is not relevant to the argument of whether the logic of my premises and conclusion is correct or not.
: Alan Fri Jan 31, 2014 - 15:30:58
Please do not undermine me, I am most certainly not playing around.
I don't mean to undermine you but IMO you seem to give the impression of trying to avoid a conclusion you do not like by raising irrelevant points.
The only method to disprove a Valid Logical Argument is to disprove one of the premises. You are correct in your duck example, but if the duck was much more than simply a duck then that data would indeed be necessary to validate the argument.
Take the argument to a professor, even William Lane Craig agrees that each premise has to be complete and precise.
If no man had ever heard of God or Jesus would it be correct to say Jesus is God without further explanation?
: Alan Fri Jan 31, 2014 - 16:32:38
The only method to disprove a Valid Logical Argument is to disprove one of the premises. You are correct in your duck example, but if the duck was much more than simply a duck then that data would indeed be necessary to validate the argument.
Take the argument to a professor, even William Lane Craig agrees that each premise has to be complete and precise.
Your problem is that you seem unable to disprove my premises. Not having superflous data in a premise does not invalidate a premise - as I showed in the duck example.
You have consistently failed to show what the addition of Jesus being both God
and man makes to my premise
: Alan Fri Jan 31, 2014 - 16:32:38
If no man had ever heard of God or Jesus would it be correct to say Jesus is God without further explanation?
But we have heard of God and Jesus. This is a Christian discussion forum. So your point is not valid.
I'm not going to go on with this exchange. Your reactions are just perverse.
However I will add a few more comments for those who may be following this (if anyone has lasted this long)
Let me modify my original statements
Mary is the mother of Jesus
Jesus is God
incarnateTherefore, Mary is the mother of God
incarnateThis gives a better understanding of in what sense Mary is the mother of God.
Firstly it implies that Mary did not exist from the beginning, or before God. Mary became in a mother relationship to God at a point human history.
Secondly (although this is already implied in being the mother of
Jesus) it makes it clear that Mary's motherhood relates to the Second Person of the Trinity, not the Father, nor the Holy Spirit.
That takes nothing away from the correctness of saying that Mary is the mother of God.
In relation to this thread this is important to defend the divinity of Jesus. If Mary being the mother of Jesus is not also the mother of God (
incarnate) then it is accepting that Jesus, while on earth, was only 100% human and not also 100% God.
A final point - when it was defined as doctrine at the Council of Ephesus that Mary was
Theotokos (literally God-bearer) it was not to glorify Mary but to make the very point we are discussing here, namely that Jesus was fully God and fully man. Again it was in defence of the divinity of Jesus against a heresy (Nestorianism).
Scriptures do not contain ALL the words of God. Scripture itself tells us that (e.g. Jn 21:25, 2Thess 2:15)
Scripture does not tell us to get our doctrines from scripture.
Where do you think the Apostles got their doctrines from?
WinSome, you and your church are in error on this point, and that's why you can justify so many of your errors. The word of God is all that God was pleased to share with us concerning
his testimony of any given truth that the church of Jesus Christ should believe and teach. Any doctrine that can not be supported by the word of God is to be rejected by the chosen and faithful saints of God. You have been convinced of this, (that is~ traditions, specially Catholic's) but you will never convinced God's elect that this is so,
never~ you are wasting your time and breath. Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4; "Catholic traditions" are not above, or even equal to the words of God, that he has graciously left his little ones to trust in, you can believe that lie, but the children of the kingdom know their true bread, and that bread is not fit for dogs.
Jesus Christ; From 100% God, to 100% Flesh and Blood Man and BACK to 100% God!
This statement
is riddle with errors.Jesus did not go from a 100% God to flesh! Jesus was God's Son
conceived in the womb of a young virgin woman named Mary. Before he was conceived, he
did not exist! That is the corrupt doctrine of creeds supported by Catholics, and believed by most of Christendom. Was Jesus a complex person, both man and God?
Yes. But only in this sense: his incarnation, and not in any other sense. The Catholics are dead wrong believing that Word in the beginning was Jesus! They believe that God's Son was eternally generated by God, and that the Spirit
proceeded from them! Read the Nicene creed that they so trust in. We have dealt with this corruption already in another thread at length.
Mary did not give birth to God! She gave birth to the Son of God. In the beginning was God,
period! God is a Spirit with no beginning and no end. The Son was NOT the Word in the beginning! The scriptures does not say that, man does. The Word in the beginning was God, and THAT WORD
joined himself to the tabernacle of the Son of God, and walked and preached among men. Jesus was indeed both God and man. His complex natures were totally separated in him. His human nature needed sleep, food, and needed to grow in wisdom and knowledge, not so with his Divine nature. In his Divine nature, he was before Abraham, yet in his flesh, afterward! In his Divine nature, he created the worlds, yet in his human nature, he learned to be a carpenter with his father, Joseph. In his human nature, he could suffer and die for the sins of his people, not so in his Divine nature, he is from everlasting, to everlasting. We have a thread already dealing with this is depth. Mary did not give birth to Emmanuel, she gave birth to the Son of God, up until that point, God did not have a Son, only in his eternal purposes of doing so. This is a great mystery of godliness!
1 Timothy 3:16 BACK to 100% God!
That is not so.
1 Timothy 2:5"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, THE MAN Christ Jesus."There is a 100%
man at the right hand of God (or, a man exalted as high as one can be exalted) named JESUS! God is a Spirit, and will ever remain so, that can not ever changed. No man, or angels have ever seen God, for that is impossible, we see God in the MAN Jesus Christ, who is the
express image of who God is! Jesus has a glorified body of a man in heaven, that is far above all sitting on his glorious throne, being highly exalted by his Father, The Everlasting God, who is above all and over all.
Most words and phrases have at least 2 definitions: the denoted definition and the connoted definition. The denoted definition means how a word is defined in the dictionary. The connoted meaning includes many popular uses and shades of meaning, based on many different factors, including at times similarities in sounds with other words. It is why someone got fired a decade ago from the DC government when he described certain wealthy tax evaders (who were white) as "niggardly;" (misers) and it caused a major backlash in the black community because it sounded like a racial epithet. (the word itself is totally unrelated to the racial slur - coming from an entirely different language) It just sounded bad to them. In other cases it may be perceived that 2 words which have almost identical denotations have opposite "feels" to them; one "feels" more negative than the other.
In this case, the phrase "Mother of God" is being argued across this divide of denotation (Winsome) and connotation (Alan). Winsome is exactly right that the phrase is accurate. But in American English the connotation is taken to mean that she would be called the mother of God the Father. And that is entirely INCORRECT.
: DaveW Mon Feb 03, 2014 - 06:42:29
Most words and phrases have at least 2 definitions: the denoted definition and the connoted definition. The denoted definition means how a word is defined in the dictionary. The connoted meaning includes many popular uses and shades of meaning, based on many different factors, including at times similarities in sounds with other words. It is why someone got fired a decade ago from the DC government when he described certain wealthy tax evaders (who were white) as "niggardly;" (misers) and it caused a major backlash in the black community because it sounded like a racial epithet. (the word itself is totally unrelated to the racial slur - coming from an entirely different language) It just sounded bad to them. In other cases it may be perceived that 2 words which have almost identical denotations have opposite "feels" to them; one "feels" more negative than the other.
In this case, the phrase "Mother of God" is being argued across this divide of denotation (Winsome) and connotation (Alan). Winsome is exactly right that the phrase is accurate. But in American English the connotation is taken to mean that she would be called the mother of God the Father. And that is entirely INCORRECT.
I agree that to understand Mother of God as mother of the Father is incorrect.
The problem is that American Protestants seem to think that American English is the universal world language and that whatever they may understand by a word is the only valid one.
I remember one trying to tell me that Websters Dictionary was used by everyone all over the world. It's a very insular (and arrogant) attitude.
There are several disagreements between Catholics and Protestants (at least American Protestants) that are basically about the meaning of words.
And to be honest - some of the disagreements between various protestant groups come down to word meanings as well.
I remember one trying to tell me that Websters Dictionary was used by everyone all over the world. It's a very insular (and arrogant) attitude.
I do not know if you are familiar over there with a tv show M*A*S*H*. The setting is the Korean war in a US battlefield hospital camp.
There was an episode where one of the main characters ( a bit of a moron) is talking to a N. Korean prisoner very slowly in English. One of the other doctors informs him that the prisoner does not understand because he does not know English. He replies that "... they ALL understand English and the only reason they talk that other gobbledygook is just to confuse US. "
: DaveW Mon Feb 03, 2014 - 08:21:22
I remember one trying to tell me that Websters Dictionary was used by everyone all over the world. It's a very insular (and arrogant) attitude.
I do not know if you are familiar over there with a tv show M*A*S*H*. The setting is the Korean war in a US battlefield hospital camp.
There was an episode where one of the main characters ( a bit of a moron) is talking to a N. Korean prisoner very slowly in English. One of the other doctors informs him that the prisoner does not understand because he does not know English. He replies that "... they ALL understand English and the only reason they talk that other gobbledygook is just to confuse US. "
rofl rofl rofl
Thanks Dave for giving some new meaning and insight to a debate that I see now that could easily arise from a difference in opinion of how the phrase is intended to pan out, and I apologize to you winsome if I came across abrupt, prideful, or arrogant.
Peace and blessings, Alan
BTW Dave, was that Major Burns?
Yes indeed. ::smile::
"Frank Burns Eats Worms."
Now we're getting somewhere!
: Red Baker Sat Feb 01, 2014 - 04:16:18
Scriptures do not contain ALL the words of God. Scripture itself tells us that (e.g. Jn 21:25, 2Thess 2:15)
Scripture does not tell us to get our doctrines from scripture.
Where do you think the Apostles got their doctrines from?
WinSome, you and your church are in error on this point, and that's why you can justify so many of your errors. The word of God is all that God was pleased to share with us concerning his testimony of any given truth that the church of Jesus Christ should believe and teach. Any doctrine that can not be supported by the word of God is to be rejected by the chosen and faithful saints of God. You have been convinced of this, (that is~ traditions, specially Catholic's) but you will never convinced God's elect that this is so, never~ you are wasting your time and breath. Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4; "Catholic traditions" are not above, or even equal to the words of God, that he has graciously left his little ones to trust in, you can believe that lie, but the children of the kingdom know their true bread, and that bread is not fit for dogs.
Hi Red, please forgive if I am interjecting into a conversation, your response was to winsome, but I respond to you. You have written a lot in this post, with a wide variety of points, so I can't respond to them all or the conversation would get far too messy. Suffice it to say, in response to the paragraph above, that we disagree, and I also note that you haven't shared any scriptures that demonstrate that what he has written is not true. It is only if you interpret Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4 to be referring only to the Bible would the verses support what you say, but that implication is just your premise restated, not demonstrated.
: Red Baker Sat Feb 01, 2014 - 04:16:18
Jesus Christ; From 100% God, to 100% Flesh and Blood Man and BACK to 100% God!
This statement is riddle with errors.
Jesus did not go from a 100% God to flesh! Jesus was God's Son conceived in the womb of a young virgin woman named Mary. Before he was conceived, he did not exist! That is the corrupt doctrine of creeds supported by Catholics, and believed by most of Christendom. Was Jesus a complex person, both man and God? Yes. But only in this sense: his incarnation, and not in any other sense. The Catholics are dead wrong believing that Word in the beginning was Jesus! They believe that God's Son was eternally generated by God, and that the Spirit proceeded from them! Read the Nicene creed that they so trust in. We have dealt with this corruption already in another thread at length.
I respond with questions for you, to gain insight into what you believe so that I might respond with understanding.
1. What do you mean when you use the word "incarnation"? Who (as precisely as you can be) became incarnate? And what does "incarnate" mean in your understanding?
2. What do you believe the Bible is saying in John 1:1 when it said "In the beginning... the Word was
with God"?
3. What does the word "proceeded" imply to you, with regard to the Holy Spirit, and what about that is heretical in your view?
4. What do the words "eternally generated" imply to you, with regard to "God's Son", and what about that is heretical in your view?
: Red Baker Sat Feb 01, 2014 - 04:16:18
Mary did not give birth to God! She gave birth to the Son of God. In the beginning was God, period! God is a Spirit with no beginning and no end. The Son was NOT the Word in the beginning! The scriptures does not say that, man does. The Word in the beginning was God, and THAT WORD joined himself to the tabernacle of the Son of God, and walked and preached among men.
Again, more questions:
1. What, in your belief, is wrong with the idea that Mary gave birth to God?
2. Was the "Son of God" also "God"? If so, when?
3. Did "The Word" remain God when he became "incarnate"?
: Red Baker Sat Feb 01, 2014 - 04:16:18
Jesus was indeed both God and man. His complex natures were totally separated in him. His human nature needed sleep, food, and needed to grow in wisdom and knowledge, not so with his Divine nature. In his Divine nature, he was before Abraham, yet in his flesh, afterward! In his Divine nature, he created the worlds, yet in his human nature, he learned to be a carpenter with his father, Joseph. In his human nature, he could suffer and die for the sins of his people, not so in his Divine nature, he is from everlasting, to everlasting. We have a thread already dealing with this is depth. Mary did not give birth to Emmanuel, she gave birth to the Son of God, up until that point, God did not have a Son, only in his eternal purposes of doing so. This is a great mystery of godliness! 1 Timothy 3:16
1. What is a "nature" in your understanding? What does it mean for a human person to have a "human nature"?
2. For the sake of discussion, let us consider that a "person" is defined (simplistically) as "a rational being that can act". For example, you are a person. You have a human nature, which describes what you can do, but is not who you are, because I also have a human nature and I am not you. Is this reasonable to you?
3. If Jesus, in his divine nature, "created the worlds", but "did not exist before he was conceived" as you wrote above, how was that accomplished? If Jesus, in his divine nature "was before Abraham" but "did not exist before he was conceived", how was that accomplished?
: Red Baker Sat Feb 01, 2014 - 04:16:18
BACK to 100% God!
That is not so.
1 Timothy 2:5
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, THE MAN Christ Jesus."
There is a 100% man at the right hand of God (or, a man exalted as high as one can be exalted) named JESUS! God is a Spirit, and will ever remain so, that can not ever changed. No man, or angels have ever seen God, for that is impossible, we see God in the MAN Jesus Christ, who is the express image of who God is!
Jesus has a glorified body of a man in heaven, that is far above all sitting on his glorious throne, being highly exalted by his Father, The Everlasting God, who is above all and over all.
Final set of questions.
1. Would you say to someone that they should worship Jesus? Or would you say that worshiping Jesus is idolatry?
2. When did Jesus stop being both human and divine and start being just human?
3. What scripture do you use to support this claim that Jesus stopped being God?
4. If no man has ever seen God, then how can you say that Jesus was 100% God?
5. In your view, why does the scripture call Jesus "Emmanuel" which means "God among us"? And why is that significant, considering that God was already "among us" upon the Ark of the Covenant?
Thanks Red, I think your answers to these questions will go a long way in helping me understand where you are coming from.
Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ. 9 For in him
dwells the whole fullness of the deity bodily, 10 and you share in this fullness in him, who is the head of every principality and power.
Greetings Catholica,
You and I have went through the questions before, I beleive, but can not remember which thread, But will search and see. Nevertheless, I will address each and every question again if need be.
It is late in the evening for me, as most know that I generally do post after 6:00 pm EST. I am in bed before 8:00, but do rise very early in morning, the good Lord willing. I will consider these things tomorrow. Your post was well written and very well thought out, and most of all, orderly and easy to follow, which does not surprise me. Thank you for that.
RB
Hi Red, please forgive if I am interjecting into a conversation, your response was to winsome, but I respond to you. You have written a lot in this post, with a wide variety of points, so I can't respond to them all or the conversation would get far too messy. Suffice it to say, in response to the paragraph above, that we disagree, and I also note that you haven't shared any scriptures that demonstrate that what he has written is not true. It is only if you interpret Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4 to be referring only to the Bible would the verses support what you say, but that implication is just your premise restated, not demonstrated.
Greetings Catholica,
Just because it was addressed to WinSome, does not mean that you cannot comment. I know you disagree, as I said, we have went through his before, and I will go search (or you can and pm me with the thread) as I said I would, so that, I will not just keep repeating myself. In comments above, I did not go into much details, other than to state a few points. So let us get started~ I will break it down into some small post, keep from being too tedious to you and the other readers. I would appreciate if you can wait until I am finished, so that I can at least cover your questions and get them answered as you requested. I will quote Job 31:40 to let you know my words are ended.
1. What do you mean when you use the word "incarnation"? Who (as precisely as you can be) became incarnate? And what does "incarnate" mean in your understanding?
The Incarnation is indeed the Key in our understanding of the Sonship of Jesus the Son of God~ The Word, who is God,
joined a human nature in the person of Jesus of Nazareth
(John 1:1-3,14)~This is the great mystery of godliness – God Himself was manifest in the flesh (I Timothy 3:16). Jesus Christ is also known as Emmanuel – God with us
(Isaiah 7:14 cp Matthew 1:23). Jesus Christ is the human body and nature indwelt by the fullness of the Godhead
(Col 2:8-9). Simply stated:
God was manifested in likeness of sinful flesh~please note the words:
"Likeness of"!Incarnation is the Key to preserve the deity of Jesus Christ, it cannot be done in any other way, period! Jesus was truly and fully God – Scripture affirms plainly and unequivocally.
The Word is God without qualification; the Word
became Jesus of Nazareth
by joining His flesh. It is another straw man argument of Rome to accuse us of denying the full deity of Jesus Christ, for it is their doctrine of a begotten god that corrupts the Bible message of His full Godhead.
Incarnation is the Key that only can say that Jesus Christ's divine nature is fully Jehovah God
without qualification. They must say that His divine nature is begotten and generated, yielding a begotten God.
God is a Spirit. Jesus Christ had a body. Jesus Christ is God, but God is not Jesus Christ. The humanity of Jesus Christ – He is truly and fully man – Scripture also unequivocally teaches. Mary conceived and bore a human child similar to all other mothers
(Matt 1:18-20; Luke 2:23). The only mediator between God and man is the man Christ Jesus
(I Timothy 2:5 cp Job 9:32-33). God assumed flesh and blood to destroy Satan's work and be our high priest
(Hebrews 2:14-17). Jesus was made in the likeness of men after having been in the form of God
(Philippians 2:5-11). Incarnation is the hypostatic union combination of God the Word and a human nature in a single Being. God is a Spirit
(John 4:24), but a human body was prepared for God to possess
(Hebrews 10:5). This is the biblical Incarnation definition. Neither Christ's divinity
(John 8:58) nor His humanity
(Heb 4:15) was changed by their union. But He is not fully Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour without His body
(Luke 2:12; 24:39).
As we have said many times before~Jesus of Nazareth is the complex Person of God and man –
He possesses both complete natures. This point is very important to properly understand God's record of His Son Jesus Christ. The attributes of one nature are often ascribed to a name derived from the other nature. Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, so
His Person involves
divine and human characteristics. Jesus Christ fully experienced all the aspects of human growth, weakness, and temptation. Jesus Christ, referred to as God, a Spirit, purchased the church with His BLOOD
(Acts 20:28). Jesus Christ, the Son of God, DIED
(Gal 2:20). But only His humanity died
(I Tim 1:17; 6:16) Jesus, the Son of man, was OMNIPRESENT
John 3:13. Only His Deity could be so
(Jer 23:24). Jesus, the Son of man, WAS WITH GOD
(John 6:62). (This will answer one of your questions) Only His divinity could be so
(John 1:1). Jesus, the Son, is SUBJECT TO GOD
(I Cor 1:28). Only His humanity will be subject to God. Jesus, the Son, had a MOTHER NAMED MARY
(Matt 1:21).
Mary is not the mother of God! Jesus claimed to be BEFORE ABRAHAM
(John 8:58). Only His Deity was eternal
(Micah 5:2). Jesus grew in WISDOM AND STATURE
(Lu 2:52). Only His humanity was ignorant
(Col 2:3). Jesus slept
(Mark 4:38), but only in His humanity; for His Deity could not sleep
(Psalm 121:4). Jesus thirsted, ate, and did all the things a human nature does, but which Deity cannot do.
Consider our use of names or titles regarding actions or relationships prior to that name or title We may say, "Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees." But it was truly Abram, who left
(Gen 12:1,4). We may say, "The apostle Paul persecuted the church," but he was Saul at the time
(Acts 9:1). We may say of our wives, "My wife began kindergarten when she was only four years old." We may say of our parents, "My father was born in the Piedmont of North Carolina in 1917 ."
We may say, "Joe died and was buried"
(Luke 16:22). However, we know his soul still lives. With a retrospective view, we may Scripturally ascribe actions of the Word to Jesus Christ.
This should cover all of your question concerning how we understand the term
Incarnation, or the incarnate Sonship of Jesus, the Son of the Living God. The next fourteen questions I trust will be shorter.
Hi Red,
It will be hard to hold off to the end, but I will try. Thank you for your first installment. If I may, would you jump ahead to the questions regarding "what is a nature" and "what is a person"? I'm having a hard time understanding your use of these terms because they seem to be confused in your first response above, at least by the definition of the words which I have come to know.
Also, perhaps the question "should someone worship Jesus" would be a good one. Because I am more confused now. You seem to speak of Jesus as God in the present tense, but elsewhere you write that Jesus is just a man at the right hand of God.
Thanks,
Andre
just a man
God man! He is the True God and eternal life, but as much man as you and I, except, in a glorified body, that we too will have one day. And, he is as much God as his Father is, no different whatsoever, other than, God is an eternal Spirit that no man or angel has ever seen, or will see!
One day we will worship him as the King of kings, and Lord of lords. But, I will do as you requested. It will be much different that Catholicism teaches. But, that being said, I would
never use this a measuring stick to determine one's eternal standing before God~if I did so, then eternal life would depend on one's knowledge of spiritual truth, and that is not according to the truth.
Andre, I am convinced that you believe in God, that you love God, and fear him~ I have no reason to believe otherwise. Your godly words in your many post has convinced me of this, so regardless where this take us, it will not change my thoughts of you. I have given this subject many years of consideration, and you believe that you have history and church tradition supporting you, so let see where this shall go.
Thanks for the kind words. I am really just trying to understand what you believe about this. In your first post in the thread you wrote:
"There is a 100% man at the right hand of God"
that to me sounded like you were saying that Jesus is only a man now. Which you might be able to tell from my questions. But now I believe you are saying that Jesus has retained both his human and divine nature and has a glorified body in heaven. That he remains the God-man and same person but with a glorified body. If this is accurate then you can disregard several of my questions. In particular, questions #1-3 of my final set. Because that is what Catholics believe as well so I have no need to clarify any differences with regard to Jesus' nature as he is right now.
If this is accurate then you can disregard several of my questions.
It is accurate
3. What does the word "proceeded" imply to you, with regard to the Holy Spirit, and what about that is heretical in your view?
4. What do the words "eternally generated" imply to you, with regard to "God's Son", and what about that is heretical in your view?
Good morning Andre,
Let me go into details concerning these two questions, more so the fourth one, because herein is where so many good people are confused, and may have never even consider these two questions.
Give me a little time today to consider how to break it down and keep it short, but at the same time, get the truth out and errors expose. I thought your questions were very good, and needed to be discussed. Be back shortly, the Lord willing.
I am going to give my personal confession of whom Jesus is, before I say very much more, because, as with any truth, the truth is always without exception rejected by the majority as some strange doctrine. One would not think this would not be so after two thousand years removed from Jesus' time on this earth, but, I believe it more so now, than any time since he was here, because such scriptures as 2 Timothy 3:1-4:5. Truth is always in the minority, never with the majority. Truth has always been hated, and that will never change. Since the world begun, God's elect have been persecuted and hated, and killed, were the misfits of their society, and why should be expect anything different? There are ways that you can kill a person without actually taking their life. Matthew 5:21,22; Revelation 11
Jesus asked his apostles~ (Matt 16:13-17) "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven"
If the God of heaven does not reveal Jesus to a man, then they will spend their life in darkness and ignorant, thereby, without truth concerning Jesus Christ. I would dare say, that most who truly understands Jesus being the True God and eternal life, are much like the apostles, just plain ordinary men, men who for the most part, uneducated, and very simple, in comparison to mighty and noble men of this earth. 1 Corinthians 1:27-31; 12:3; and Luke 10:22
Jesus asked the Pharisees, the most conservatives Jews~(Matt 22:41-46)
"What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions".
Jesus identified Himself as David's Lord to these ignorant theologians from their own scriptures (Ps 110:1). Since He truly was the Son of David, biologically through Mary and legally through Joseph, the only way He could also be David's Lord was to be David's Creator God. The Pharisees could not answer His divine wisdom and neither can the many other false cults, the likes of: JW, Muslims, Mormons, and sad to say, many of God's own children are not a little confused, concerning Jesus' Deity, and how to protect it.
First, Jesus was no ordinary man. He was not even a special man. He was God in human flesh. One of His names was Immanuel, meaning, God with us (Is 7:14; Matt 1:23). Another prophecy by Isaiah called Him, "Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" (Is 9:6). Jesus is so much God that He was called, The mighty God, and The everlasting Father. There is no question about it ~ Jesus is fully Jehovah God.
In His human nature, He grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men (Luke 2:52). In His divine nature, or His deity, He created the worlds (Eph 3:9; Heb 1:2). In His human nature He is the only Mediator between God and men (I Tim 2:5). In His divine nature, He is the eternal God (Heb 1:8; John 20:28)
The divine nature of Jesus Christ is the Word of God, Who made all things, and without Him was not anything made that was made (John 1:1-3). In time the Word of God took on a fleshly human nature through the virgin birth of Mary (John 1:14; Luke 1:35; Gal 4:4). Men call this the incarnation, and it is a great mystery of the gospel, which can only be known by scripture and the Holy Spirit (I Tim 3:16).
Without God revealing Jesus, men will say and do terrible things against Him.
I Corinthians 2:7-8
"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (I Cor 2:7-8). "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" .
Confession to be continue
Confession completed............
My confession is the same as Peter's and it is~"As the Son of man, Jesus was the Son of God, conceived in the womb of a virgin named Mary, by the power of the Highest, the Holy Ghost. Thereby, his human nature was conceived, or, begotten~His Divine Nature, was the Word that was in the beginning with God, that had no beginning, and shall have no end. In and by his Divine Nature, all things were created, that are in heaven, in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him and for Him. He was before all things, and by Him all things consist, and have their being. Colossians 1:16,17~He made the worlds. Hebrews 1:2~When we shall see God according to Matthew 5:8; it will be Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whom his Father has made higher than the kings of this earth; for he is King of kings, and Lord of lords. He will be the Only God we shall ever see~the reason being is two fold: first, Jesus is the express image of whom God is, without any qualification, other than this, and this is the second reason: God is a Spirit that shall ever dwell in eternity, that no angel or man has seen or will ever see. Jesus Christ is indeed the TRUE GOD AND ETERNAL LIFE~1 John 5:21"
This is the sum of my confession. We earnestly contend that the human nature of Jesus was generated, or conceived by the power of the Highest in the womb of Mary~not his Eternal Divine Nature, which is the I AM THAT I AM! Emmanuel was NOT CONCEIVED, Jesus, the Son of God was. A tremendous difference.
Luke 1:31,32 is God's record concerning the conception of his only begotten Son. To believe and teach any other record, other than Luke 1:31-35, is heresy and one will destroyed Jesus' Deity, of being the I am That I am.
We believe and hold to the "Incarnate Sohship" of Jesus, and reject the eternal Sonship of Jesus. The Holy Ghost has given to us the record of how it took place, and WHEN it took place. The scriptures very carefully protect Jesus' Deity and so will we. Men have robbed Christ of his Godhead, by saying that he was eternally generated by the Father, and that the Spirit proceeded from them two! They use terms that they themselves can not explain; terms that are self contradictable.
I was taught the eternal Sonship (or, Jesus being eternally generated) and accepted it without ever considering the ramifications of the doctrine. I come to realized that I could not truly refute the JW's of Jesus being a begotten god, because the eternal Sonship defaults to that very same doctrine and actually gives it strength.
People betray shameful ignorance, or, very great dishonestly when dealing with the subject of when Jesus became the Son of God. All one needs to do is to read behind men, and even many great men in the faith and very godly, if I may add my opinion, for whatever that is worth. It's hard for men to break from tradition, not only Catholics, but, others well. Catholics get blame for things that others are just as guilty of, and maybe more so.
Many men betray a lamentable inconsistency when speaking of the Son of God being eternally generated by God the Father. I might add, that it get even more so lamentable, when they begin to explain to you how this act (Jesus being eternally begotten) actually happened. Read the great Jonathan Edwards' account of it and then listen to his discombobulated jargon as he trys explain the act of it, in eternity! I for one, do not believe that he was purposely laboring to deceive his followers, yet this good man was speaking outside of God's revelation to us concerning the birth of his Son, or when Jesus begin to be the Son of God in actuality, and according to God's testimony to us. All of God's children should reject anything that they cannot prove with the word of God, period. It cannot be called the TRUTH, if it cannot be supported by God's word. We should have the very same spirit that the apostle Thomas had, when he refused to believe without proof~regardless if we beleive that Thomas was right or wrong, his spirit was not going to be deceived by man's opinion of something. I for one, find that to be very noble~Acts 17:11. We live by every word that proceeds out of God's mouth, for he alone cannot lie.
I would like to give a few reasons why I reject creeds written by men, that have turned the church away from the truth concerning Jesus' Sonship.
To be continue...
: Red Baker Thu Feb 06, 2014 - 10:04:11
People betray shameful ignorance, or, very great dishonestly when dealing with the subject of when Jesus became the Son of God. .... Many men betray a lamentable inconsistency when speaking of the Son of God being eternally generated by God the Father. I might add, that it get even more so lamentable, when they begin to explain to you how this act (Jesus being eternally begotten) actually happened. Read the great Jonathan Edwards' account of it and then listen to his discombobulated jargon as he trys explain the act of it, in eternity! I for one, do not believe that he was purposely laboring to deceive his followers, yet this good man was speaking outside of God's revelation to us concerning the birth of his Son, or when Jesus begin to be the Son of God in actuality, and according to God's testimony to us.
People raised with a western mindset it seems are
afraid of unanswered questions so they go to great lengths to
make up an answer where none exists.
Why do we need to know WHEN or HOW the Son of God became the Son of Man? I read the word to say HE is the same, yesterday today and forever. That should be good enough.
Does any answer beyond that affect how I obey His word? How I pray? How I function in His body? No.
IOW - irrelevant to my walk with the Lord.
Paul writes in 1 Cor 13 that we see in a glass dimly/darkly. That means that not everything is revealed YET. We should be comfortable with that fact.
There is a Jewish folk tale about a man who runs into the synagogue one day before Shakarit (early morning prayers) [pronounced shock-uh-REET] and excitedly tells the Rabbi "I have just published a book with the answers to EVERY ONE of the questions of our faith!"
The rabbi takes the book from the man's hand and starts hitting him over the head with it. "You Idiot! Don't you realize that every question is worth MUCH MORE than the answer?"
Hi Red, thanks for giving your personal confession of who Jesus is. I think I understand your position better. And I believe that I understand the root of our differences. And I believe that that root is in the understanding of exactly the difference between what a "person" is and a "nature" is.
In my understanding, and I believe the classical understanding (where the term comes from), is that a nature describes what a being can
do, not what a person is
made of. That is, these are the powers of the soul, which are sometimes acted out through a physical body, but not always. For example God
has a divine nature. More precisely God
has the divine nature, as there is only one God, there is only one nature which is divine. All men (and women, using general language naturally) have a human nature. That is, they can do what a human can do. They can use reason. They can make choices. They can laugh and find humor in things.
A "person" (or more generally, a "being") is an entity which
has a nature. My dog, Mattie, is Mattie the dog. Mattie
has a dog nature. Someone else's dog, say "Fido" is Fido the dog. Fido also has a dog nature. However Mattie is not Fido. But they both have a dog nature.
Jesus is a special case, something that we struggle to understand, because Jesus had two natures, human and divine. Because he had a human nature, he had a human body and a human soul. And the power of the human soul contains an intellect and a will. Because he had the divine nature, he was in Spirit God and also had a divine intellect and divine will. One man, two intellects, two wills. But this is key:
he is not two persons. He is one person with
two natures.
I hope this distinction I have made clear as to what we believe. And if I were to re-write your confession as we believe, I would use more specific terms which clarify certain distinctions between Jesus the person and the natures Jesus has.
Certain paragraphs you wrote jump out at me. Allow me to rewrite to reflect the Catholic understanding.
Yours (differences highlighted in Red, for "Red" naturally):
In His human nature, He grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men (Luke 2:52). In His divine nature, or His deity, He created the worlds (Eph 3:9; Heb 1:2). In His human nature He is the only Mediator between God and men (I Tim 2:5). In His divine nature, He is the eternal God (Heb 1:8; John 20:28)
Catholic (differences highlighted in Green):
In His human intellect, He grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men (Luke 2:52). Through His divine nature, or His deity, He created the worlds (Eph 3:9; Heb 1:2). In His person He is the only Mediator between God and men (I Tim 2:5). In His person, He is the eternal God (Heb 1:8; John 20:28)
We believe that Jesus the person is a fusion between human nature and divine nature. Not separate in person, as if the two natures were operating with different persons at their control, but in one person.
And that person is the same person who is the second person of the Most Holy Trinity. A new person was not created on Earth to co-operate with the second person of the Trinity. But rather the Second person of the Most Holy Trinity assumed also a human nature, and thereby took flesh in the womb of the virgin, fusing humanity with divinity, in that moment, in the person which we call Jesus but could also call the Word, because they are the same person.
Another comparison, using the same format.
Red:
My confession is the same as Peter's and it is~"As the Son of man, Jesus was the Son of God, conceived in the womb of a virgin named Mary, by the power of the Highest, the Holy Ghost. Thereby, his human nature was conceived, or, begotten~His Divine Nature, was the Word that was in the beginning with God, that had no beginning, and shall have no end. In and by his Divine Nature, all things were created, that are in heaven, in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him and for Him. He was before all things, and by Him all things consist, and have their being. Colossians 1:16,17~He made the worlds. Hebrews 1:2
Catholic:
My confession is the same as Peter's and it is~"As the Son of man, Jesus was the Son of God, conceived in the womb of a virgin named Mary, by the power of the Highest, the Holy Ghost. Thereby, his human nature was assumed and the person we know as Jesus, begotten~His person was the Word that was in the beginning with God, that had no beginning, and shall have no end. In and through his Divine Nature, The Word created all things, that are in heaven, in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him and for Him. He was before all things, and by Him all things consist, and have their being. Colossians 1:16,17~He made the worlds. Hebrews 1:2
A person can not and does not "conceive" a human nature. A person can only "conceive" an individual being. The nature of that being comes along with that person
through conception but it is not correct to say that a nature is conceived. The divine nature which Jesus had is not a conceived nature, but is just the divine nature which is attributed to a person, we would agree in this at least, the person of "The Word". Where we differ, if you consider terms this way, is that Catholics believe that Jesus is that same person, "The Word", not two persons, and that The Word, a person, assumed flesh (a human nature) in the womb of the virgin and that the person Jesus was then "conceived" in the flesh of the womb.
The concept of "conception" also seems to be a differing point. I think that most people think of conception in the wrong way, which is that (for example) one being gives rise to another through some means within time, where it is assumed that the "parents" precede the "child" in time. But this should be re-examined for theological accuracy in light of the Bible and what we know about God.
We know, as Christians, and even some pagans have admitted this fact, and that is that the human person is both body AND soul. The soul is purely intangible, however, and therefore is not of the material realm, but of the spiritual realm, yet it is objectively necessary to have in order than anything on Earth is alive. And while reproduction definitely has a natural, material component, there can be no natural component which creates a new soul. It must be created by something of the higher nature, the spiritual realm. And we confess as Christians that the soul is created by God. At least I hope we do.
Something we are correct in as Christians is that one of the names we give to the participants in the conception is Father, and one of the words we correctly attribute to the one conceived is "Son". This is an important concept, because through it we can understand
part of the relationship between God the Father and His Son the person Jesus, though not all of it, even through our human relationships of Father and Son. The Father conceives a person who is the Son, and they have a Father-Son relationship.
However where we err is to believe that "conceiving" is equivalent to "creating". The JW's and Mormons believe that Jesus is a created being. Not so. That Jesus was
eternally begotten of the Father speaks to Jesus' uncreated-ness. Someone that is eternal has no beginning and no end. It rather speaks to their relationship that always exists, that is, exists out of time. Thereby we can still gain some understanding of God in calling part of that relationship in the Trinity as "being conceived" because it demonstrates that relationship, but we must not take the analogy too far, and the Catholic Church doesn't.
One could also take the analogy of the Word too far. In the beginning God
said: "Let there be light". Here you see, God creates with His Word, but that doesn't imply that before God "said" something, there was no Word. The Word existed eternally with the father. The Word should not be considered "everlasting" which precisely means/implies that the Word had a beginning and no end. No, the Word is eternal, which means, no beginning and no end, existing outside of time.
The Word proceeded from the Father from all eternity; there was never a time when He did not proceed and there will never be a time when He does not proceed. In this eternal procession, we can speak of the relationship as "eternally begotten". Or "eternally spoken" as we know that with the Word souls are still being created to this day.
It was only within space and time that the Word assumed a human nature. In assuming human that human nature God bound himself to humanity IN the person of Jesus. That is why Jesus the person, in his person, is the One Mediator between God and man: because Jesus himself is a fusion of both the human and the divine. Within his person: his blood! the new covenant exists, whereas before a covenant was between two parties, God and man, Jesus is perfectly both within himself and so is the Mediator of the Covenant between God and all men.
I hope that this post explains the Catholic position, which, at least in my understanding of what you have written, you seem to misrepresent in your understanding. I say this in a spirit of dialog, not criticism. When we consider these things and express our positions, sometimes things can become clearer to us.
Why do we need to know WHEN or HOW the Son of God became the Son of Man? I read the word to say HE is the same, yesterday today and forever. That should be good enough.
Does any answer beyond that affect how I obey His word? How I pray? How I function in His body? No.
IOW - irrelevant to my walk with the Lord.
Dave your reasoning is without biblical support. The Jehovah Witnesses have as much right to make their statement concerning Jesus being a begotten god, as you do, and then say that it really does not affect how they worship Jehovah. Your affiliation in your religion is most likely the reason why you would make such a Christ dishonoring statement.
If God gave us his record concerning his Son's birth, then it is very important. Not so, if you personally believe in the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ, then you are holding to doctrine that robs him of his Deity. It can easily be proven to any unbiased heart. You are more than welcome to give your understanding at any time you so desire. Let us test it with the scriptures. Just because you have no confidence in defending Jesus' Sonship, does not make it unimportant. All people defend certain truths that they themselves consider important. To me, there is no greater doctrine than Jesus' Sonship, and his eternal Godhead, both being perfectly preserved, in the word of God. Jesus must thought it was important, by the question he asked Peter, and basically asked the most conservative sect of his day, the same question. So, is
Matthew 22:41-46 important or not, to have proper worship of the Godhead?
Who said I had no confidence in defending HIS sonship?
There are plenty of scriptures that state that fact.
Here is a question for you: Who ate lunch with Abraham?
(answer: it was Jesus in the flesh)
Hi RB,
I've been following your exchange with Catholica and I have a couple of questions as there seem to be a couple of ambiguities in your replies.
1. You say:
"Jesus was God's Son conceived in the womb of a young virgin woman named Mary. Before he was conceived, he did not exist!"
but you also say:
"Mary did not give birth to Emmanuel, she gave birth to the Son of God, up until that point, God did not have a Son,"
So my question is – did the child in Mary's womb become the Son of God at the moment of conception or at the moment of birth?
2. You said:
"Scripture also unequivocally teaches. Mary conceived and bore a human child similar to all other mothers (Matt 1:18-20; Luke 2:23)."
Does the "similar to all other mothers" apply to both the "conceived" and "bore" or just to the "bore". I ask because if she conceived similar to all other mothers then Jesus must have been conceived by intercourse with a human and Jesus would have a human father.
Sorry if these questions seem a bit picky but I don't want to misconstrue what you are saying.
Thanks
Here is a question for you: Who ate lunch with Abraham?
(answer: it was Jesus in the flesh)
Wrong! So, you do have trouble defending Jesus' Sonship, which does not surprise me.
You are saying that, because, that is what you have heard others say, not because it is in the scriptures. Prove your statement. You are saying more than Christ ever revealed to us. It was angels who took a body and did God's will.
Hebrews 13:1b"...........for thereby some have entertained angels unawares."Where in the NT or OT, can you prove you position? Jesus, God's Son was conceived and born around two thousand years ago. We have God's testimony concerning this in Luke 1. It is a mystery that you still are not correct on. I have heard preacher say just what you said, many times over, yet, they too are just repeating what they heard some other preacher say.
Jesus' body was made of a woman named Mary, period. It was made in God's fullness of time
~Galatians 4:4 We will have much more to say concerning these things.
Greetings Winsome,
I will answer you tomorrow, the Lord willing.
: winsome Thu Feb 06, 2014 - 15:29:54
Hi RB,
I've been following your exchange with Catholica and I have a couple of questions as there seem to be a couple of ambiguities in your replies.
1. You say:
"Jesus was God's Son conceived in the womb of a young virgin woman named Mary. Before he was conceived, he did not exist!"
but you also say:
"Mary did not give birth to Emmanuel, she gave birth to the Son of God, up until that point, God did not have a Son,"
So my question is – did the child in Mary's womb become the Son of God at the moment of conception or at the moment of birth?
Thanks
Well, since I believe life
starts at conception, base upon the scriptures~
Exodus 21:22,23 then I would say according to scriptural definition of when life begins~ say,
conception. Luke 1:31,352. You said:
"Scripture also unequivocally teaches. Mary conceived and bore a human child similar to all other mothers (Matt 1:18-20; Luke 2:23)."
Does the "similar to all other mothers" apply to both the "conceived" and "bore" or just to the "bore". I ask because if she conceived similar to all other mothers then Jesus must have been conceived by intercourse with a human and Jesus would have a human father.
Of course
similar would be limited to her egg being
overshadowed by the power of the Highest, causing her pregnancy,
apart from human copulation. Nothing more than that. Jesus, as we both know, had no earthly father, but the Holy Ghost.
Sorry if these questions seem a bit picky but I don't want to misconstrue what you are saying.
It really pretty much cut and dry. Not too deep.
Matthew 1:20b"................for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." So said an angel of the LORD.
: Red Baker Fri Feb 07, 2014 - 07:01:32
: winsome Thu Feb 06, 2014 - 15:29:54
I've been following your exchange with Catholica and I have a couple of questions as there seem to be a couple of ambiguities in your replies.
1. You say:
"Jesus was God's Son conceived in the womb of a young virgin woman named Mary. Before he was conceived, he did not exist!"
but you also say:
"Mary did not give birth to Emmanuel, she gave birth to the Son of God, up until that point, God did not have a Son,"[/b]
So my question is – did the child in Mary's womb become the Son of God at the moment of conception or at the moment of birth?
Well, since I believe life starts at conception, base upon the scriptures~Exodus 21:22,23 then I would say according to scriptural definition of when life begin~ say, conception. Luke 1:31,35
Proverbs 30:4 Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or
His son's name? Surely you know!
Apparently Solomon knew the Lord had a son almost a millennium before Mary was born. So He existed as the Son back then.
John 1.1-2 calls the Son the Word, and tells us He was in the beginning with God (i.e. the Father) and that he WAS God.
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
and a few verses later:
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
These verses state flat out that HE (Jesus/Yeshua) existed AS GOD'S Son
from the beginning.
And since Hebrews 13:8 tells us this:
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
we can know that He had the human flesh from the beginning as well. Fully God and Fully Human from the beginning.
God the Father is described as a non-corporeal spirit that can have no image. What part of "God" was Adam made in the image of? Clearly that had to be Yeshua/Jesus.
Proverbs 30:4 Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son's name? Surely you know!
1.~Solomon in Proverbs 8 continues to teach godly wisdom. He is not teaching eternal generation!
2.~He is continuing a personification of wisdom, Lady Wisdom, from the context (Pr 8:1-21; 9:1-6).
3.~Any begotten God from here must be a daughter, for the pronouns throughout are feminine!
4.~This type of false allegorizing to develop theology and doctrine was Origen's favorite method,
without other scriptures supporting such a out of control allegorizing,and I will add~ you cannot find support here in Proverbs 8. You are leaving the context of Solomon's main subject throughout Proverbs, in order to believe something that someone told you that it was so. You cannot yank scriptures out of their context to teach a position in order to justify one doctrine, and that is what you have done.
Apparently Solomon knew the Lord had a son almost a millennium before Mary was born. So He existed as the Son back then.
He did know (to what degree, I do not know) that God had promised his father David a son that would sit upon his throne, and rule Israel forever!
That is heresy, and will be proven to be such.
Question for you to answer: Can you explain how he became a Son before he actually was born? And, who was his mother?
John 1.1-2 calls the Son the Word,
Wrong. You are saying that, because you have been taught that lie. The Word was God, not the Son! The Son was conceived and born, thereby, is not eternal. Jesus was indeed God, but God was
NOT JESUS! Just because you cannot understanding or accept this, does not not make it a lie, it is a lie to believe otherwise. The
ONLY WAY POSSIBLE to preserve Jesus' Deity is to received the testimony from His Father to us. The Word in the beginning
JOINED himself to the tabernacle of the Son of God, and walked among men, and preached unto them, and for the
first time, God was seen by angels!
1 Timothy 3:16! Jesus was (and still
IS) a complex person~fully man, and fully God. Thereby, Jesus was the I AM that I AM~ the eternal God, the everlasting
FATHER!~ God who is a Spirit, will ever remain such. This is this mystery of godliness! I have no other record to believe as truth, other than the word of God~and I
will not believe anything concerning the Godhead, except I read it from the word of God.
we can know that He had the human flesh from the beginning as well. Fully God and Fully Human from the beginning.
God the Father is described as a non-corporeal spirit that can have no image. What part of "God" was Adam made in the image of? Clearly that had to be Yeshua/Jesus.
I will address these two statements the tomorrow, the Lord willing.
The first statement is one strange position, but actually not new.
: Red Baker Fri Feb 07, 2014 - 07:01:32
: winsome Thu Feb 06, 2014 - 15:29:54
Hi RB,
I've been following your exchange with Catholica and I have a couple of questions as there seem to be a couple of ambiguities in your replies.
1. You say:
"Jesus was God's Son conceived in the womb of a young virgin woman named Mary. Before he was conceived, he did not exist!"
but you also say:
"Mary did not give birth to Emmanuel, she gave birth to the Son of God, up until that point, God did not have a Son,"
So my question is – did the child in Mary's womb become the Son of God at the moment of conception or at the moment of birth?
Thanks
Well, since I believe life starts at conception, base upon the scriptures~Exodus 21:22,23 then I would say according to scriptural definition of when life begins~ say, conception. Luke 1:31,35
2. You said:
"Scripture also unequivocally teaches. Mary conceived and bore a human child similar to all other mothers (Matt 1:18-20; Luke 2:23)."
Does the "similar to all other mothers" apply to both the "conceived" and "bore" or just to the "bore". I ask because if she conceived similar to all other mothers then Jesus must have been conceived by intercourse with a human and Jesus would have a human father.
Of course similar would be limited to her egg being overshadowed by the power of the Highest, causing her pregnancy, apart from human copulation. Nothing more than that. Jesus, as we both know, had no earthly father, but the Holy Ghost.
Sorry if these questions seem a bit picky but I don't want to misconstrue what you are saying.
It really pretty much cut and dry. Not too deep.
Matthew 1:20b
"................for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."
So said an angel of the LORD.
Hi RB,
If the child that Mary conceived was the Son of God, both God and Man, then Mary cannot be described as conceiving and bearing a human child "similar to all other mothers". I know of no other mother who conceived and bore a child that was both human and divine.
Another point
You say "Jesus was God's Son"
You also say "Jesus Christ is also known as Emmanuel"
You say "She [Mary] gave birth to the Son of God" (=Jesus Christ = known as Emmanual).
You also say "Mary did not give birth to Emmanuel"
There is a contradiction here.
I have another question, but I will wait for your response to Catholica's last post as it might be answered in that.
If the child that Mary conceived was the Son of God, both God and Man, then Mary cannot be described as conceiving and bearing a human child "similar to all other mothers". I know of no other mother who conceived and bore a child that was both human and divine.
If the child that Mary conceived was the Son of God, both God and Man, then Mary cannot be described as conceiving and bearing a human child "similar to all other mothers". I know of no other mother who conceived and bore a child that was both human and divine. Another point
You say "Jesus was God's Son"
You also say "Jesus Christ is also known as Emmanuel"
You say "She [Mary] gave birth to the Son of God" (=Jesus Christ = known as Emmanual).
You also say "Mary did not give birth to Emmanuel"
There is a contradiction here.
These are fair questions~but, you are fishing for a fish, that does not exist, and one that you will
not catch from me.
Again the mystery of godliness is that God was manifested in the flesh, through his Son. The Word in the beginning
joined himself to the tabernacle of the Father's Son. Emmanual
was not conceived, Jesus the Son of God was. Emmanuel is Eternal
both ways; does not have a beginning, nor does He have a End. Jesus is not eternal both ways, as far as his human nature goes. He had a beginning, when he was conceived in the womb of Mary, a woman that was indeed highly favoured, and blessed
among women. Jesus of Narareth, was conceived by the Holy Ghost as far as his
human nature goes. He was both God and man, but God was
not conceived! That is an impossibility! True Divinity cannot be derived or propagated. The very thought of this is blasphemy against the God of the holy scriptures. What is real Divinity of the Most High God? The following attributes have ever been conceived as essential to it:
Self-existence, Infinity, Independence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Immutability, eternal both ways, an infinity in every possible way that is imaginable to the human mind. Jesus, the Son of man,
did not posses these attributes~ Jesus, the Son of God,
did! As I said, I agree that Mary was highly favoured and blessed among woman by the fact God chose her to give birth to the greatest human that ever lived in this world, even the very Son of the Highest, Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Jesus was conceived not God~given birth and conception are not one and the same. They are
two different operations totally, even though you and your religion want them to be one and the same. Mary was indeed different than any woman that has lived, in that she is the only woman that had God's only child. He was Jesus who was made in the
likeness of sinful flesh. That is what God conceived in Mary! Nothing more.
: Red Baker Sun Feb 09, 2014 - 08:39:44
If the child that Mary conceived was the Son of God, both God and Man, then Mary cannot be described as conceiving and bearing a human child "similar to all other mothers". I know of no other mother who conceived and bore a child that was both human and divine.
If the child that Mary conceived was the Son of God, both God and Man, then Mary cannot be described as conceiving and bearing a human child "similar to all other mothers". I know of no other mother who conceived and bore a child that was both human and divine. Another point
You say "Jesus was God's Son"
You also say "Jesus Christ is also known as Emmanuel"
You say "She [Mary] gave birth to the Son of God" (=Jesus Christ = known as Emmanual).
You also say "Mary did not give birth to Emmanuel"
There is a contradiction here.
These are fair questions~but, you are fishing for a fish, that does not exist, and one that you will catch from me.
Again the mystery of godliness is that God was manifested in the flesh, through his Son. The Word in the beginning joined himself to the tabernacle of the Father's Son. Emmanual was not conceived, Jesus the Son of God was. Emmanuel is Eternal both ways; does not have a beginning, nor does He have a End. Jesus is not eternal both ways, as far as his human nature goes. He had a beginning, when he was conceived in the womb of Mary, a woman that was indeed highly favoured, and blessed among women. Jesus of Narareth, was conceived by the Holy Ghost as far as his human nature goes. He was both God and man, but God was not conceived! That is an impossibility! True Divinity cannot be derived or propagated. The very thought of this is blasphemy against the God of the holy scriptures. What is real Divinity of the Most High God? The following attributes have ever been conceived as essential to it: Self-existence, Infinity, Independence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Immutability, eternal both ways, an infinity in every possible way that is imaginable to the human mind. Jesus, the Son of man, did not posses these attributes~ Jesus, the Son of God, did!
As I said, I agree that Mary was highly favoured and blessed among woman by the fact God chose her to give birth to the greatest human that ever lived in this world, even the very Son of the Highest, Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Jesus was conceived not God~given birth and conception are not one and the same. They are two different operations totally, even though you and your religion want them to be one and the same. Mary was indeed different than any woman that has lived, in that she is the only woman that had God's only child. He was Jesus who was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. That is what God conceived in Mary! Nothing more.
I'm not fishing RB, I'm trying to work my way through what appear to me to be ambiguous and/or contradictory statements.
You said that "Jesus Christ is also known as Emmanuel"
Yet you also say
"Emmanuel is Eternal
both ways; does not have a beginning, nor does He have a End."
And by contrast:
"Jesus is not eternal both ways, as far as his human nature goes."
Now they are your words not mine.
To help me, in advance of your reply to Catholica, because I'm struggling to understand this so I apologise if my questions seem a bit stupid:
You have used five names/titles:
Jesus Christ
Son of God
Emmanuel
The Word
Jehovah God
Are these one person, two persons, three persons, four persons or five persons?
If they are not one of five which ones are synonymous?
Sorry, forgive me for saying that~ I understand. I must run to take some grandchildren back to their mother, I ll be back later. I just noticed that I left out the word NOT in my first sentence to you, so I just added it, It does not change anything, and it seems you already figure it. I hate get older because of things like that!
: Red Baker Thu Feb 06, 2014 - 17:28:07
Here is a question for you: Who ate lunch with Abraham?
(answer: it was Jesus in the flesh)
Wrong! So, you do have trouble defending Jesus' Sonship, which does not surprise me.
You are saying that, because, that is what you have heard others say, not because it is in the scriptures. Prove your statement. You are saying more than Christ ever revealed to us. It was angels who took a body and did God's will.
While it is true that 2 angels accompanied Him, (and Lot hosted them unaware they were angelic) the One that promised the birth of Isaac and stayed behind to negotiate the fate of Sodom could ONLY be God Himself and NOT an angel. No angel has that authority. And since He was in the flesh - it could not be the Father or the Spirit. It had to be the SON.
To help me, in advance of your reply to Catholica, because I'm struggling to understand this so I apologise if my questions seem a bit stupid:
You have used five names/titles:
Jesus Christ
Son of God
Emmanuel
The Word
Jehovah God
Are these one person, two persons, three persons, four persons or five persons?
If they are not one of five which ones are synonymous?
I will answer this and one for Dave later. I am not feeling well, and going to take some time to rest a little. Maybe tomorrow, we shall see.
Emmanuel
The Word
Jehovah God
Is God in his eternal Divinity~the I am that I am.
Jesus Christ~Son of God
Was born in the likeness of sinful flesh~was both the Son of Man and the Son of God, begotten by the power of Highest in the womb of Mary. His humanity was begotten, not his eternal Deity. He was the promise Messiah, that was to come into the world. The Word in the beginning
joined himself to the tabernacle of Jesus of Nazareth. There is a Eternal Spirit called by different names in the scriptures: (
Isaiah 9:6, just to named some) and there is the promised Saviour/Messiah that was born as the second Adam, to redeem his people. This Godhead is
One, yet revealed to us as three, according to their particular work in the redemption of the chosen seed, and according to creation and the affairs of this world. Yet, when we shall see God, it will be Jesus, the Son of God, who is the very express image of his Father, the eternal Spirit that inhabit eternity. Whom no man has ever seen, or will ever see, not even angels!
Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:5; Isaiah 57:15; John 1:18; 1 Corinthians 15:28 This is a simple and as short as I can say it.
: Red Baker Tue Feb 11, 2014 - 15:51:34
Emmanuel
The Word
Jehovah God
Is God in his eternal Divinity~the I am that I am.
Jesus Christ~Son of God
Was born in the likeness of sinful flesh~was both the Son of Man and the Son of God, begotten by the power of Highest in the womb of Mary. His humanity was begotten, not his eternal Deity. He was the promise Messiah, that was to come into the world. The Word in the beginning joined himself to the tabernacle of Jesus of Nazareth. There is a Eternal Spirit called by different names in the scriptures: (Isaiah 9:6, just to named some) and there is the promised Saviour/Messiah that was born as the second Adam, to redeem his people. This Godhead is One, yet revealed to us as three, according to their particular work in the redemption of the chosen seed, and according to creation and the affairs of this world. Yet, when we shall see God, it will be Jesus, the Son of God, who is the very express image of his Father, the eternal Spirit that inhabit eternity. Whom no man has ever seen, or will ever see, not even angels! Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:5; Isaiah 57:15; John 1:18; 1 Corinthians 15:28 This is a simple and as short as I can say it.
Red, I don't know whether you are still working on answering my questions, but I think that this is at the heart of things: Essentially you believe that Jesus is two persons who are joined together. Am I wrong in thinking this?
The two persons are "Jesus Christ, Son of God" and "Emmanuel, Jehovah God, The Word". Correct?
Essentially you believe that Jesus is two persons who are joined together.
Yes, Jesus of Nazareth, whom the scriptures called, the Son of
man~was a complex person,
both man, and God. The Word which was God in the beginning, or from eternity,
joined the tabernacle of the child conceived in Mary's womb by the power of the Highest and lived in this world. Jesus was both the Son
of man through and by his humanity, and the Son of God,
through and by the begotten of the Highest. I am being very careful with my wording, so as to protect his Divinity, and so as not to make Mary the mother of God, because God cannot be conceived, and still be eternal, the I am that I am. Here is something for you to consider: Most believe (
RCC, and many, many more.) that Jesus was the Word in the beginning, the
second person of the Godhead. That is not so, and cannot be so, and no where does the scriptures even hint that this is so. Jesus is not the second person of the Godhead, he is the
FIRST! God the Father is the
FIRST; God the Holy Ghost is the
FIRST! The Lord our God is
ONE LORD, revealed to us as three, accordingly to their distinct roles in creation and the affairs of this world, specially in the redemption of the elect seed of Jesus Christ. I am a son, husband, a father, grandfather, yet only one person. There is so much more, but I'll wait until questions come up.
: Red Baker Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 14:52:37
Essentially you believe that Jesus is two persons who are joined together.
Yes, Jesus of Nazareth, whom the scriptures called, the Son of man~was a complex person, both man, and God. The Word which was God in the beginning, or from eternity, joined the tabernacle of the child conceived in Mary's womb by the power of the Highest and lived in this world. Jesus was both the Son of man through and by his humanity, and the Son of God, through and by the begotten of the Highest. I am being very careful with my wording, so as to protect his Divinity, and so as not to make Mary the mother of God, because God cannot be conceived, and still be eternal, the I am that I am. Here is something for you to consider: Most believe (RCC, and most many more.) that Jesus was the Word in the beginning, the second person of the Godhead. That is not so, and cannot be so, and no where does the scriptures even hint that this is so. Jesus is not the second person of the Godhead, he is the FIRST! God the Father is the FIRST; God the Holy Ghost is the FIRST! The Lord our God is ONE LORD, revealed to us as three, accordingly to their distinct roles in creation and the affairs of this world, specially in the redemption of the elect seed of Jesus Christ. I am a son, husband, a father, grandfather, yet only one person. There is so much more, but I'll wait until questions come up.
You are exactly right Red! Jesus is all God and all man at the same time. You are also correct in carefully protecting His Divinity.
The Apostle Paul warns us of those who will try to turn the Divinity of Christ into vain philosophy.
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead
bodily." Col. 2:8-9
: Red Baker Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 14:52:37
Essentially you believe that Jesus is two persons who are joined together.
Yes, Jesus of Nazareth, whom the scriptures called, the Son of man~was a complex person, both man, and God.
But that would be a "no". That's saying that he was one person. Or perhaps you are saying that Jesus contained another person, that person being God. But that means that Jesus is not that other person. Just like a pregnant mother contains a child but is not the child. You can't at once say that Jesus IS God and that God used Jesus' body as a tabernacle. There is a contradiction here.
The Word which was God in the beginning, or from eternity,
joined the tabernacle of the child conceived in Mary's womb by the power of the Highest and lived in this world.
What support do you find in the scriptures to say that "God joined the tabernacle of the child conceived in Mary's womb"? The closest thing I know if is the passage "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." Not "the Word was joined to the tabernacle of Jesus".
: Red Baker Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 14:52:37
Jesus was both the Son of man through and by his humanity, and the Son of God, through and by the begotten of the Highest. I am being very careful with my wording, so as to protect his Divinity, and so as not to make Mary the mother of God, because God cannot be conceived, and still be eternal, the I am that I am.
Your care to "protect" the divinity of Jesus, while admirable, is dividing Jesus into two persons: A person containing another person. Is the divinity truly integral Jesus, or is the divinity actually a different person, the Word, who has glommed on to this miraculously conceived person?
On a separate note, if I may ask, for what reason do you believe that God "cannot be conceived"? What about "conception" cannot apply to a divine person?
: Red Baker Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 14:52:37
Here is something for you to consider: Most believe (RCC, and many, many more.) that Jesus was the Word in the beginning, the second person of the Godhead. That is not so, and cannot be so, and no where does the scriptures even hint that this is so.
I believe it does. If Jesus is the Word made flesh, and the Word was
with God, and the Word
was God, then it very easily works out. And the distinction of "second" merely designates the causality within the Trinity, which I will cover later. It is a human term, to be sure, but it is correct when understood in the context of causality.
Either God assumed a human nature in the womb of the virgin Mary (the Word became flesh) or God simply used another person, and that makes two persons. Which means that Jesus himself is not divine, but only has a divine person glommed on to him.
This question is very important and related I believe. What, in your understanding, made it so important that Jesus died on the cross? By this I mean, if Jesus himself was not the Word, then wasn't he just a human sacrifice? Why would the death of Jesus the man bring redemption? If it was because he was perfect, then why wouldn't, say, the death of a new born baby, or perhaps a new believer in God (newly regenerated) bring redemption to the world? If Adam had been brutally murdered by Eve before he took the fruit, would his death have redeemed the world?
: Red Baker Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 14:52:37
Jesus is not the second person of the Godhead, he is the FIRST! God the Father is the FIRST; God the Holy Ghost is the FIRST! The Lord our God is ONE LORD, revealed to us as three, accordingly to their distinct roles in creation and the affairs of this world, specially in the redemption of the elect seed of Jesus Christ. I am a son, husband, a father, grandfather, yet only one person. There is so much more, but I'll wait until questions come up.
You are a son, a father, grandfather, and only one person. This is true. But these are
roles of one person, not three persons. The Trinity is Three persons, and they are designated as first, second, and third to demonstrate that they are not the same person. Now, the Holy Spirit has many roles, but is one person: "Advocate", "Comforter" for example, but that doesn't make the Holy Spirit more than one person, or some kind of duality within himself. That is a completely different concept. Yes, the Holy Spirit is not separate from Jesus as they are united in the one divinity: one God. And in fact the three persons all share these same tasks and roles to some extent as well. But there are three distinct persons, each known for his primary roles, but still distinct.
Calling the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the first, second and third persons of the Holy Trinity doesn't indicate a priority or temporality, meaning that the Father did not come first, the Son second and the Spirit after, as if the Son and Spirit were created by the first. Rather the Father is simply the "cause" of the Son and the Spirit. This type of "cause" doesn't imply that the Father preceded the Son and Spirit in time but rather indicates more about the relationship between the Father and the Son, the Lover and the Beloved, and the Spirit, who is like the love between them who, being of God is no less than God himself.
You say that one of the persons of the Holy Trinity is called the "Word". But a Word requires a Speaker, just like a Son requires a Father. It is no more incorrect to say that the Word was "spoken" by God the Father than it is to say that the Son was "begotten" by God the Father. Yes, in our narrow human understanding, this designation implies
temporal causality, but in the eternal realm, there is no temporality. There is only causality. And causality in the divine, I believe, can be best understood as happening simulataneously, not temporally. All three persons of the Trinity exist eternally, but somehow the fact that God is a Trinity indicates a distinction between the persons and also a relationship and also a procession.
Thus, properly understood as surpassing human ability to correctly compare to our experience and fit into human language, it is still correct to say that the Father is the Speaker and the Word is the Spoken, and also that the Son is begotten of the Father. They just aren't perfect analogies. Nothing would be, but they are useful for us to comprehend some portion of the incomprehendable God.
: Red Baker Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 14:52:37
Jesus is not the second person of the Godhead, he is the FIRST! God the Father is the FIRST; God the Holy Ghost is the FIRST! The Lord our God is ONE LORD, revealed to us as three, accordingly to their distinct roles in creation and the affairs of this world, specially in the redemption of the elect seed of Jesus Christ. I am a son, husband, a father, grandfather, yet only one person.
Red - that is modalism. Different roles (modes) instead of distinct persons. Exactly the same as the so-called "Jesus Onlys." It has been considered heresy for at least 1600 years.