P
I'm sorry, flob, but the prophet Isaiah is not going to be of any help to your position either. Before we look at Isaiah chapter 9 verse 6, let's back up a bit to Isaiah chapter 7 verse 14:
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Now, let's look at the fulfillment of the same in Matthew chapter 1 verses 18 thru 23:
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
What comes first in these passages? The conception or the bringing forth of a son? Elin has made a big deal of the use of the Greek word gennao in regard to that which is conceived in her, but I'll ask you the same question that I asked her:
Do you believe that this conception was somehow eternal?
Was Christ eternally conceived in Mary's womb?
Don't you see how ridiculous that is?
Hopefully, you do. Either way, conception preceded the bringing forth of a son and said conception took place in real time approximately two thousand years ago and not in eternity past when Jesus was allegedly eternally begotten, a self-refuting lie, but when Jesus was made of a woman and made under the law.
Now, let's look at Isaiah chapter 9 verse 6:
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Again, I ask:
How and when was this child born and how and when was this Son given?
This Son was made of a woman and made under the law approximately two thousand years ago and this Son was not eternally begotten which, again, is a self-refuting lie. Why would you want to believe and teach a lie which refutes itself? What good can possibly come of the same?
Yesterday, oldhermit posted the following and you might not have understood the significance of it:
Let's look at 2 Samuel chapter 7 verse 14 to see what oldhermit meant in relation to the Father and Son relationship being linked to time:
I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
This is one of many portions of scripture in the Old Testament where a dual application exists. In other words, it's partly referring to Solomon, David's son, and it's partly referring to Christ, the ultimate son of David. How can we be sure that this partly refers to Christ? Well, because it's given in that context in the New Testament book of Hebrews:
Hebrews chapter 1 verses 1 thru 5
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
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;
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
Why the futuristic tense of I will be to Him a Father and He shall be to me a Son if Jesus truly was God the Son from eternity past as you, Elin and others allege? In other words, why didn't God say, I am His Father and He is my Son? I'll tell you exactly why:
Because Jesus Christ didn't become the Son of God until at least the time of His incarnation. Why do I say until at least the time of His incarnation? Because it's quite probable that He couldn't rightly be called the Son of God until after His resurrection from the dead. I mean, think about it:
We have 2 Samuel chapter 7 verse 14 given here in direct association with Psalm 2 verse 7 where God declares on a set day in history that Christ is His Son because He has been begotten or raised from the dead.
We also have Romans chapter 1 verse 4 to consider which reads:
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
This verse leads me to believe that in order to fully be declared the Son of God, Christ needed to fulfill what was written in regard to the Son of God in relation to being raised from the dead or begotten.
There's also this to consider:
On what two occasions did God the Father speak from heaven audibly and declare that Jesus was His Son?
Well, He did so at Christ's baptism which signifies being buried and resurrected from the dead and on the Mount of Transfiguration when Moses and Elijah spoke unto Christ of His coming death and Christ's glory basically shown through the veil of His flesh as if He were in His glorified state or risen from the dead.
Thoughts?
Anybody?
I apologize that my posts have been getting lengthy here, but we really need to examine scripture if we're even going to come to a place of agreement. Thanks for understanding.
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Now, let's look at the fulfillment of the same in Matthew chapter 1 verses 18 thru 23:
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
What comes first in these passages? The conception or the bringing forth of a son? Elin has made a big deal of the use of the Greek word gennao in regard to that which is conceived in her, but I'll ask you the same question that I asked her:
Do you believe that this conception was somehow eternal?
Was Christ eternally conceived in Mary's womb?
Don't you see how ridiculous that is?
Hopefully, you do. Either way, conception preceded the bringing forth of a son and said conception took place in real time approximately two thousand years ago and not in eternity past when Jesus was allegedly eternally begotten, a self-refuting lie, but when Jesus was made of a woman and made under the law.
Now, let's look at Isaiah chapter 9 verse 6:
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Again, I ask:
How and when was this child born and how and when was this Son given?
This Son was made of a woman and made under the law approximately two thousand years ago and this Son was not eternally begotten which, again, is a self-refuting lie. Why would you want to believe and teach a lie which refutes itself? What good can possibly come of the same?
Yesterday, oldhermit posted the following and you might not have understood the significance of it:
Let's look at 2 Samuel chapter 7 verse 14 to see what oldhermit meant in relation to the Father and Son relationship being linked to time:
I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
This is one of many portions of scripture in the Old Testament where a dual application exists. In other words, it's partly referring to Solomon, David's son, and it's partly referring to Christ, the ultimate son of David. How can we be sure that this partly refers to Christ? Well, because it's given in that context in the New Testament book of Hebrews:
Hebrews chapter 1 verses 1 thru 5
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
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;
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
Why the futuristic tense of I will be to Him a Father and He shall be to me a Son if Jesus truly was God the Son from eternity past as you, Elin and others allege? In other words, why didn't God say, I am His Father and He is my Son? I'll tell you exactly why:
Because Jesus Christ didn't become the Son of God until at least the time of His incarnation. Why do I say until at least the time of His incarnation? Because it's quite probable that He couldn't rightly be called the Son of God until after His resurrection from the dead. I mean, think about it:
We have 2 Samuel chapter 7 verse 14 given here in direct association with Psalm 2 verse 7 where God declares on a set day in history that Christ is His Son because He has been begotten or raised from the dead.
We also have Romans chapter 1 verse 4 to consider which reads:
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
This verse leads me to believe that in order to fully be declared the Son of God, Christ needed to fulfill what was written in regard to the Son of God in relation to being raised from the dead or begotten.
There's also this to consider:
On what two occasions did God the Father speak from heaven audibly and declare that Jesus was His Son?
Well, He did so at Christ's baptism which signifies being buried and resurrected from the dead and on the Mount of Transfiguration when Moses and Elijah spoke unto Christ of His coming death and Christ's glory basically shown through the veil of His flesh as if He were in His glorified state or risen from the dead.
Thoughts?
Anybody?
I apologize that my posts have been getting lengthy here, but we really need to examine scripture if we're even going to come to a place of agreement. Thanks for understanding.
