If John and Paul agree all things were made by him.....Christ/the Word...and Job says these things were made by the Spirit of God....it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they are one and the same... but if people want a triad or trinity they will find it ....even if they have to change the meaning of every word in scripture...
Greater than or equal to?
- Thread starter Hizikyah
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
If John and Paul agree all things were made by him.....Christ/the Word...and Job says these things were made by the Spirit of God....it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they are one and the same... but if people want a triad or trinity they will find it ....even if they have to change the meaning of every word in scripture...
C
ChristIsGod
Guest
Newbirth, do you not believe that the 'Spirit of God' moved upon the face of the waters from Genesis 1:2 and God spoke in the next verse. His Words in that case being The Word of God ... but the Spirit was upon the face of the waters - making 3 just as we are composed of Spirit, soul and body? As in "made in the image of God"?
I've always related our own make-up - how He created us in His Image to be tripartite ... is that the part that you don't agree with -- that The Spirit does not make Him triune?
Never had a chance to ask on that other thread. Just trying to understand what you do believe because I agreed with most all of your posts on that other thread.
TIA!
I've always related our own make-up - how He created us in His Image to be tripartite ... is that the part that you don't agree with -- that The Spirit does not make Him triune?
Never had a chance to ask on that other thread. Just trying to understand what you do believe because I agreed with most all of your posts on that other thread.
TIA!
Hizikyah,
Here's a quote from the early 300's from Alexander of Bishop Alexandria
That He is equally with the Father unchangeable and immutable, wanting in nothing, and the perfect Son, and like to the Father, we have learnt; in this alone is He inferior to the Father, that He is not unbegotten. For He is the very exact image of the Father, and in nothing differing from Him. For it is clear that He is the image fully containing all things by which the greatest similitude is declared, as the Lord Himself hath taught us, when He says, “My Father is greater than I.” And according to this we believe that the Son is of the Father, always existing. “For He is the brightness of His glory, the express image of His Father’s person.” But let no one take that word always so as to raise suspicion that He is unbegotten, as they imagine who have their senses blinded. For neither are the words, “He was,” or “always,” or “before all worlds,” equivalent to unbegotten. But neither can the human mind employ any other word to signify unbegotten. And thus I think that you understand it, and I trust to your right purpose in all things, since these words do not at all signify unbegotten. For these words seem to denote simply a lengthening out of time, but the Godhead, and as it were the antiquity of the only-begotten, they cannot worthily signify; but they have been employed by holy men, whilst each, according to his capacity, seeks to express this mystery, asking indulgence from the hearers, and pleading a reasonable excuse, in saying, Thus far have we attained. But if there be any who are expecting from mortal lips some word which exceeds human capacity, saying that those things have been done away which are known in part, it is manifest that the words,” He was,” and “always,” and “before all ages,” come far short of what they hoped. And whatever word shall be employed is not equivalent to unbegotten. Therefore to the unbegotten Father, indeed, we ought to preserve His proper dignity, in confessing that no one is the cause of His being; but to the Son must be allotted His fitting honour, in assigning to Him, as we have said, a generation from the Father without beginning, and allotting adoration to Him, so as only piously and properly to use the words,” He was,” and “always,” and “before all worlds,” with respect to Him; by no means rejecting His Godhead, but ascribing to Him a similitude which exactly answers in every respect to the Image and Exemplar of the Father. But we must say that to the Father alone belongs the property of being unbegotten, for the Saviour Himself said, My Father is greater than I.”
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.
Here's a quote from the early 300's from Alexander of Bishop Alexandria
That He is equally with the Father unchangeable and immutable, wanting in nothing, and the perfect Son, and like to the Father, we have learnt; in this alone is He inferior to the Father, that He is not unbegotten. For He is the very exact image of the Father, and in nothing differing from Him. For it is clear that He is the image fully containing all things by which the greatest similitude is declared, as the Lord Himself hath taught us, when He says, “My Father is greater than I.” And according to this we believe that the Son is of the Father, always existing. “For He is the brightness of His glory, the express image of His Father’s person.” But let no one take that word always so as to raise suspicion that He is unbegotten, as they imagine who have their senses blinded. For neither are the words, “He was,” or “always,” or “before all worlds,” equivalent to unbegotten. But neither can the human mind employ any other word to signify unbegotten. And thus I think that you understand it, and I trust to your right purpose in all things, since these words do not at all signify unbegotten. For these words seem to denote simply a lengthening out of time, but the Godhead, and as it were the antiquity of the only-begotten, they cannot worthily signify; but they have been employed by holy men, whilst each, according to his capacity, seeks to express this mystery, asking indulgence from the hearers, and pleading a reasonable excuse, in saying, Thus far have we attained. But if there be any who are expecting from mortal lips some word which exceeds human capacity, saying that those things have been done away which are known in part, it is manifest that the words,” He was,” and “always,” and “before all ages,” come far short of what they hoped. And whatever word shall be employed is not equivalent to unbegotten. Therefore to the unbegotten Father, indeed, we ought to preserve His proper dignity, in confessing that no one is the cause of His being; but to the Son must be allotted His fitting honour, in assigning to Him, as we have said, a generation from the Father without beginning, and allotting adoration to Him, so as only piously and properly to use the words,” He was,” and “always,” and “before all worlds,” with respect to Him; by no means rejecting His Godhead, but ascribing to Him a similitude which exactly answers in every respect to the Image and Exemplar of the Father. But we must say that to the Father alone belongs the property of being unbegotten, for the Saviour Himself said, My Father is greater than I.”
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.
J
jeff_peacemkr
Guest
remember that (some/most/a few of ) the church fathers apparently contributed to and/or spawned heresy, in a church that at it's very beginning authorized murdering the true followers of Jesus, both Jews and gentiles alike. a lot of them, in their writings, are very wrong anyway. (test all by Scripture and prayer).
it is very hard to escape (their superabundance of lies), if you trust men. but easy, though with much persecution, if you trust God.
it is very hard to escape (their superabundance of lies), if you trust men. but easy, though with much persecution, if you trust God.
C
ChristIsGod
Guest
"a generation from the Father without beginning, and allotting adoration to Him, so as only piously and properly to use the words,” He was,” and “always,” and “before all worlds,” with respect to Him; by no means rejecting His Godhead, but ascribing to Him a similitude which exactly answers in every respect to the Image and Exemplar of the Father. But we must say that to the Father alone belongs the property of being unbegotten, for the Saviour Himself said, My Father is greater than I.”
This was written during a time when the view of the Godhead was undergoing some turbulent debates and Origen came up with "eternal generation" thus "eternally begotten" which Scripture alone does not attribute to Him. He was begotten at conception. Prior - in the O.T., HE is called by every Name as GOD, YHWH, El, Adonai, Elohim, every Name "the first and the last" ... I've posted a host of these from the O.T. showing this on a few threads now .... Origen made Jesus a "lesser god" and Constantine and what followed during the period of your quote is how we got christ, the lesser God, of the RCC.
Any person that reads the O.T. one word and Name at a time will see the absolute co-equality of God and His Word.
Incarnational Sonship was prophesied in the O.T. and no one can find one verse in there that doesn't have a "future tense" prophesy about a "son". He said My father is greater because He was in our form/flesh, and thus subservient to the Father that caused Him to be conceived in Mary ... that is when God became the "Father" while Jesus was in the flesh. Isaiah especially will bring out this co-equality and that the Lord our God is One Lord and called it the first commandment while He was in the flesh.
I still put out the challenge to those that doubt this to find one O.T. verse that is not future tense about the Son & Father relationship or any passages referring to the Branch, Servant, a relationship to David's Kingly rule continued forever, etc about the coming Messiah - that was born of Mary.
After the millennial reign - there will be no need of 'Jesus' to be a mediator between us and God, nor will the Holy Spirit be needed to work in the ways He does now because we and God will be one and all else will be put to death --- Rev 21:1-7.
The only reason this bothers me is because it makes The Word of God some lesser God than God and contradicts the whole of the O.T. and parts of the N.T. where 'Jesus' calls Himself "I AM" - "The First and The Last" - "The Almighty" etc. etc..
It makes Him a lesser God - which He never was in the Old Covenant nor will He be at the end of all things - in the New Jerusalem. He'll be in the bosom of the Father, the heart and words of God, inseperable and equal to the Father, being The very Words of God. Not "Jesus Only" - not Unitarian - but GOD Only - always Triune but perfectly Co-equal and "One" GOD.
This was written during a time when the view of the Godhead was undergoing some turbulent debates and Origen came up with "eternal generation" thus "eternally begotten" which Scripture alone does not attribute to Him. He was begotten at conception. Prior - in the O.T., HE is called by every Name as GOD, YHWH, El, Adonai, Elohim, every Name "the first and the last" ... I've posted a host of these from the O.T. showing this on a few threads now .... Origen made Jesus a "lesser god" and Constantine and what followed during the period of your quote is how we got christ, the lesser God, of the RCC.
Any person that reads the O.T. one word and Name at a time will see the absolute co-equality of God and His Word.
Incarnational Sonship was prophesied in the O.T. and no one can find one verse in there that doesn't have a "future tense" prophesy about a "son". He said My father is greater because He was in our form/flesh, and thus subservient to the Father that caused Him to be conceived in Mary ... that is when God became the "Father" while Jesus was in the flesh. Isaiah especially will bring out this co-equality and that the Lord our God is One Lord and called it the first commandment while He was in the flesh.
I still put out the challenge to those that doubt this to find one O.T. verse that is not future tense about the Son & Father relationship or any passages referring to the Branch, Servant, a relationship to David's Kingly rule continued forever, etc about the coming Messiah - that was born of Mary.
After the millennial reign - there will be no need of 'Jesus' to be a mediator between us and God, nor will the Holy Spirit be needed to work in the ways He does now because we and God will be one and all else will be put to death --- Rev 21:1-7.
The only reason this bothers me is because it makes The Word of God some lesser God than God and contradicts the whole of the O.T. and parts of the N.T. where 'Jesus' calls Himself "I AM" - "The First and The Last" - "The Almighty" etc. etc..
It makes Him a lesser God - which He never was in the Old Covenant nor will He be at the end of all things - in the New Jerusalem. He'll be in the bosom of the Father, the heart and words of God, inseperable and equal to the Father, being The very Words of God. Not "Jesus Only" - not Unitarian - but GOD Only - always Triune but perfectly Co-equal and "One" GOD.
remember that (some/most/a few of ) the church fathers apparently contributed to and/or spawned heresy, in a church that at it's very beginning authorized murdering the true followers of Jesus, both Jews and gentiles alike. a lot of them, in their writings, are very wrong anyway. (test all by Scripture and prayer).
it is very hard to escape (their superabundance of lies), if you trust men. but easy, though with much persecution, if you trust God.
Jeff, I hear things like this alot. What evidence do you have that "(some/most/a few of ) the church fathers apparently contributed to and/or spawned heresy"?
Firstly let me say that they are not inspired, however, they are history and tell us what the church believed. Whether they are right or wrong can be determine by comparing what they said to the Scriptures. It's kind of ironic that some dismiss this historical evidence as if there was some other more trustworthy evidence. Do you suppose there are no theologians/commentators that perpetuate heresy? It's funny that many will discard the early evidence and then post commentary, I wonder where they think the commentators got their information. That's right, the early church writers. So, their argument doesn't even make sense. Then others will say to disregard the early witness and stick with Scripture alone. I have another question, how do they know what is and isn't Scripture? The early church again. None of the Gospels was autographed, how do we know they were written by those who names they bear? How do we know Mathew was actually written by the apostle and not some guy who just put Mathews name on it? The early church. They tell us that the Gospel that bears Mathew's name was written by the apostle, it's the same with, mark, Luke, and John. What about Paul's letters? They bear the name Paul but how do we know it was the apostle Paul? The early church writers tell us it was the apostle. So, if we summarily dismiss the early writers we are in effect dismissing the evidence that tells us that the Scriptures are the inspired works of these men.
Also consider this, there is a gospel of Peter, why isn't that Scripture? Because the early church writers tell us that it wasn't written by the apostle but by someone else. The same thing goes with the gospel of Judas.
It's interesting that this subject comes up in this thread because it is related to the Trinity. The majority of Christians in the west don't actually believe the original teaching on the Trinity, instead they argue for a Roman Catholic view of the Trinity.
P
pug32
Guest
Mt. 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
[SUP]4 [/SUP]How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
[SUP]5 [/SUP]Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
[SUP]6 [/SUP]But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
[SUP]8[/SUP]For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
Your friend in Christ
pug32
[SUP]2 [/SUP]But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
[SUP]4 [/SUP]How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
[SUP]5 [/SUP]Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
[SUP]6 [/SUP]But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
[SUP]8[/SUP]For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
Your friend in Christ
pug32
Last edited by a moderator:
"a generation from the Father without beginning, and allotting adoration to Him, so as only piously and properly to use the words,” He was,” and “always,” and “before all worlds,” with respect to Him; by no means rejecting His Godhead, but ascribing to Him a similitude which exactly answers in every respect to the Image and Exemplar of the Father. But we must say that to the Father alone belongs the property of being unbegotten, for the Saviour Himself said, My Father is greater than I.”
This was written during a time when the view of the Godhead was undergoing some turbulent debates and Origen came up with "eternal generation" thus "eternally begotten" which Scripture alone does not attribute to Him. He was begotten at conception. Prior - in the O.T., HE is called by every Name as GOD, YHWH, El, Adonai, Elohim, every Name "the first and the last" ... I've posted a host of these from the O.T. showing this on a few threads now .... Origen made Jesus a "lesser god" and Constantine and what followed during the period of your quote is how we got christ, the lesser God, of the RCC.
Any person that reads the O.T. one word and Name at a time will see the absolute co-equality of God and His Word.
Incarnational Sonship was prophesied in the O.T. and no one can find one verse in there that doesn't have a "future tense" prophesy about a "son". He said My father is greater because He was in our form/flesh, and thus subservient to the Father that caused Him to be conceived in Mary ... that is when God became the "Father" while Jesus was in the flesh. Isaiah especially will bring out this co-equality and that the Lord our God is One Lord and called it the first commandment while He was in the flesh.
I still put out the challenge to those that doubt this to find one O.T. verse that is not future tense about the Son & Father relationship or any passages referring to the Branch, Servant, a relationship to David's Kingly rule continued forever, etc about the coming Messiah - that was born of Mary.
After the millennial reign - there will be no need of 'Jesus' to be a mediator between us and God, nor will the Holy Spirit be needed to work in the ways He does now because we and God will be one and all else will be put to death --- Rev 21:1-7.
The only reason this bothers me is because it makes The Word of God some lesser God than God and contradicts the whole of the O.T. and parts of the N.T. where 'Jesus' calls Himself "I AM" - "The First and The Last" - "The Almighty" etc. etc..
It makes Him a lesser God - which He never was in the Old Covenant nor will He be at the end of all things - in the New Jerusalem. He'll be in the bosom of the Father, the heart and words of God, inseperable and equal to the Father, being The very Words of God. Not "Jesus Only" - not Unitarian - but GOD Only - always Triune but perfectly Co-equal and "One" GOD.
Actually, Scripture does speak of a begetting of the Son.
LXT Psalm 2:7 διαγγέλλων τὸ πρόσταγμα κυρίου κύριος εἶπεν πρός με υἱός μου εἶ σύ ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε (Psa 2:7 LXT)
The word I bolded is "Diangellon" and means to declare. In the Septuagint (above) it is in the present tense. Literally it says I am declaring. Christ's words prophesied through David, said, I am declaring the decree, the Lord said to me. So, Christ's words were declaring that the Lord had said to Him, 'you are my Son, today have I begotten you'.
From this we can see that the Lord had said, 'you are my Son, today have I begotten you' before it was being declared through David, thus it was prior to when David gave the prophesy, thus it was before the incarnation.
Looking at the Hebrew Masoretic text we find that the word, אֲסַפְּרָה (to be counted translated declare) is in the imperfect tense. The Hebrew imperfect tense can be interpreted as an action that is presently uncompleted or one that will take placed in the future. If say this passage is speaking of the future we create a conflict with the Septuagint, however, it is interpreted as a present uncompleted action it harmonizes nicely with the Septuagint.
We could also look at MicH 5:2,
YLT Micah 5:2 And thou, Beth-Lehem Ephratah, Little to be among the chiefs of Judah! From thee to Me he cometh forth -- to be ruler in Israel, And his comings forth are of old, From the days of antiquity. (Mic 5:2 YLT)
We also have Jesus' own words in John 8 where He said that He came out of God.
Saying that Jesus was begotten of the Father in no way makes Him a lessor God. Firstly, God said there in no other God than Himself so how could anyone or anything be a lessor God, there's only one? It's interesting that you say that about the RCC because the idea of the Trinity that you are espousing is that of the RCC and not the historic teaching of the Church. The idea of three coequal, co-eternal beings that are one God is not found in the Church until the time of Augustine and appears in the Anthanasian creed, that's about 400 years after Christ. That's not what was taught in the beginning. The earliest Christians agreed with the apostle Paul,
KJV 1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1Co 8:6 KJV)
Not Augustine or the Anthanasian Creed.
Last edited:
Newbirth, do you not believe that the 'Spirit of God' moved upon the face of the waters from Genesis 1:2 and God spoke in the next verse. His Words in that case being The Word of God ... but the Spirit was upon the face of the waters - making 3 just as we are composed of Spirit, soul and body? As in "made in the image of God"?
I've always related our own make-up - how He created us in His Image to be tripartite ... is that the part that you don't agree with -- that The Spirit does not make Him triune?
Never had a chance to ask on that other thread. Just trying to understand what you do believe because I agreed with most all of your posts on that other thread.
TIA!
[h=1]2 Corinthians 3 King James Version (KJV)[/h] 3 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?
[SUP]2 [/SUP]Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
[SUP]3 [/SUP]Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
[SUP]5 [/SUP]Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
[SUP]6 [/SUP]Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
[SUP]8 [/SUP]How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
[SUP]9 [/SUP]For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
[SUP]10 [/SUP]For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
[SUP]11 [/SUP]For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
[SUP]13 [/SUP]And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
[SUP]14 [/SUP]But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
[SUP]15 [/SUP]But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
[SUP]16 [/SUP]Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
[SUP]17 [/SUP]Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
[SUP]18 [/SUP]But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
C
ChristIsGod
Guest
Actually, Scripture does speak of a begetting of the Son.
LXT Psalm 2:7 διαγγέλλων τὸ πρόσταγμα κυρίου κύριος εἶπεν πρός με υἱός μου εἶ σύ ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε (Psa 2:7 LXT)
The word I bolded is "Diangellon" and means to declare. In the Septuagint (above) it is in the present tense. Literally it says I am declaring. Christ's words prophesied through David, said, I am declaring the decree, the Lord said to me. So, Christ's words were declaring that the Lord had said to Him, 'you are my Son, today have I begotten you'.
From this we can see that the Lord had said, 'you are my Son, today have I begotten you' before it was being declared through David, thus it was prior to when David gave the prophesy, thus it was before the incarnation.
Looking at the Hebrew Masoretic text we find that the word, אֲסַפְּרָה (to be counted translated declare) is in the imperfect tense. The Hebrew imperfect tense can be interpreted as an action that is presently uncompleted or one that will take placed in the future. If say this passage is speaking of the future we create a conflict with the Septuagint, however, it is interpreted as a present uncompleted action it harmonizes nicely with the Septuagint.
We could also look at MicH 5:2,
YLT Micah 5:2 And thou, Beth-Lehem Ephratah, Little to be among the chiefs of Judah! From thee to Me he cometh forth -- to be ruler in Israel, And his comings forth are of old, From the days of antiquity. (Mic 5:2 YLT)
We also have Jesus' own words in John 8 where He said that He came out of God.
Saying that Jesus was begotten of the Father in no way makes Him a lessor God. Firstly, God said there in no other God than Himself so how could anyone or anything be a lessor God, there's only one? It's interesting that you say that about the RCC because the idea of the Trinity that you are espousing is that of the RCC and not the historic teaching of the Church. The idea of three coequal, co-eternal beings that are one God is not found in the Church until the time of Augustine and appears in the Anthanasian creed, that's about 400 years after Christ. That's not what was taught in the beginning. The earliest Christians agreed with the apostle Paul,
KJV 1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1Co 8:6 KJV)
Not Augustine or the Anthanasian Creed.
I never said that He wasn't begotten - what I said is that every verse about Him being a Son in the O.T. are future tense.
Those verses that you gave are still future tense about the Son. Psalm 2 is yet to be and He's saying "THIS Day" ... there's no specific 'day' in eternity past that the son was "begotten" - only a day in which He became the Son of God / Son of man at conception ... and the Psalm itself is about His second coming as well and goes along with every "shall be" prophesy in the O.T.. They're all "shall be & will be" future tense. Heb 1:5 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?
All O.T. verses prophesying about Him are future tense. Even Micah 5:2 has "shall" in that verse that your Young's translation left out.
I don't see my understanding of the Godhead as being anything near what the RCC holds to, so I'm not sure where you're getting that. I don't call God "beings" and actually the view that I oppose came much before Augustine -- back to Tertullian and Origen and it shows in the Nicene Creed where they leave 'The Word of God' out of the creation in the first line of it.
One God is what I also believe but there's far too many Scriptures that are proof texts to the Triune Nature of God --- as we are tripartite and created in His Image. Body, soul and spirit doesn't make us three persons ... it's the use of that term "persons" for the One True God that is RCC and He is made a lesser God than the Father in their beliefs.
Co-Equal is not what we were taught in 'catechism' - as the books that I had asked us to pray to Mary so that she would talk to Jesus for us and The Father was so far up there that nobody went straight to Him except in the Lord's prayer, which they called 'the our Father' prayer. One book was so obscene I almost threw it away -- as they were appealing to Mary for her to go to Jesus and nurse Him and coddle Him so that He'd show us mercy. Please do not say that my view is RCC.
I don't feel as if you understood my post, but that's no problem here at all.
C
ChristIsGod
Guest
Thank you for your reply, Brother NewBirth. You didn't have to but you did and that's why I thank you!
Newbirth, do you not believe that the 'Spirit of God' moved upon the face of the waters from Genesis 1:2 and God spoke in the next verse. His Words in that case being The Word of God ... but the Spirit was upon the face of the waters - making 3 just as we are composed of Spirit, soul and body? As in "made in the image of God"?
I've always related our own make-up - how He created us in His Image to be tripartite ... is that the part that you don't agree with -- that The Spirit does not make Him triune?
Never had a chance to ask on that other thread. Just trying to understand what you do believe because I agreed with most all of your posts on that other thread.
TIA!
actually it is not that you agree with me...but that we both agree with scripture.....my hope is that we all agree with scripture not so much the opinions and comments
scripture does not teach of two mediators between God and men...is the Spirit usurping the function of the Jesus or are they one and the same????Above him were seraphim, each with six wings:
With two wings they covered their faces,
with two they covered their feet,
and with two they were flying.
(Isaiah 6:2)
one seraphim - three pairs of wings - all equally, intrinsically "wings" - each with one of three functions
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Romans 8:23-27King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]23 [/SUP]And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
[SUP]24 [/SUP]For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
[SUP]25 [/SUP]But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
[SUP]26 [/SUP]Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
[SUP]27 [/SUP]And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
Romans 8:34
Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Hebrews 7:25
Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
I never said that He wasn't begotten - what I said is that every verse about Him being a Son in the O.T. are future tense.
Those verses that you gave are still future tense about the Son. Psalm 2 is yet to be and He's saying "THIS Day" ... there's no specific 'day' in eternity past that the son was "begotten" - only a day in which He became the Son of God / Son of man at conception ... and the Psalm itself is about His second coming as well and goes along with every "shall be" prophesy in the O.T.. They're all "shall be & will be" future tense. Heb 1:5 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?
I laid this out. The Greek text of the Septuagint had declaring the decree, that's present tense. The decree is, the Lord said to me. Said is past tense, thus what the Lord said happened prior to when it is being declared in Psalm 2.
All O.T. verses prophesying about Him are future tense. Even Micah 5:2 has "shall" in that verse that your Young's translation left out.
A come ruler is future, however, Micah says that His origins are of Old.
There is also Jesus' own words where He said that He came out of God. That's not His coming out of Mary.k
I don't see my understanding of the Godhead as being anything near what the RCC holds to, so I'm not sure where you're getting that. I don't call God "beings" and actually the view that I oppose came much before Augustine -- back to Tertullian and Origen and it shows in the Nicene Creed where they leave 'The Word of God' out of the creation in the first line of it.
One God is what I also believe but there's far too many Scriptures that are proof texts to the Triune Nature of God --- as we are tripartite and created in His Image. Body, soul and spirit doesn't make us three persons ... it's the use of that term "persons" for the One True God that is RCC and He is made a lesser God than the Father in their beliefs.
Co-Equal is not what we were taught in 'catechism' - as the books that I had asked us to pray to Mary so that she would talk to Jesus for us and The Father was so far up there that nobody went straight to Him except in the Lord's prayer, which they called 'the our Father' prayer. One book was so obscene I almost threw it away -- as they were appealing to Mary for her to go to Jesus and nurse Him and coddle Him so that He'd show us mercy. Please do not say that my view is RCC.
I don't feel as if you understood my post, but that's no problem here at all.[/QUOTE]
The view that Augustine presents is the Catholic Doctrine of His day. His view differs from the original. The Anthansian Creed is what is typically taught as the Trinity, however, it is simply a logical contradiction.
Regarding tripartite, I don't believe that is what God meant by making man is His image. According to Scripture man is bipartite. A body and the breath of God combine to make a living soul. Thus we are a soul, not that we have one.
C
ChristIsGod
Guest
Butch, those three center paragraphs are from my post but too late to put the
in.
You're allowed to see the Godhead however you see Him -- and I as I see Him.
Going back & forth won't change that.
Shalom~Shalom!
J
jeff_peacemkr
Guest
The majority of Christians in the west don't actually believe the original teaching on <a lot of things>, instead they argue for a Roman Catholic view of <a lot of things>.
.... this site is wonderfully unique in sites i've visited the last few decades, as the owner and the admins and the policy all recognize like all the reformers did for some time that the roman view is heresy, directly and always contrary to Scripture, not at all acceptable, and deadly to life of heart,soul and body.
.... this site is wonderfully unique in sites i've visited the last few decades, as the owner and the admins and the policy all recognize like all the reformers did for some time that the roman view is heresy, directly and always contrary to Scripture, not at all acceptable, and deadly to life of heart,soul and body.
And yet many Protestants argue in favor of Catholic doctrines. The idea that there is one God consisting of three coequal co-eternal persons is a Catholic doctrine. The Heavenly destiny doctrine also comes out of Catholicism. If they're wrong one has to wonder why so many defend them.
Butch, those three center paragraphs are from my post but too late to put thein.
You're allowed to see the Godhead however you see Him -- and I as I see Him.
Going back & forth won't change that.
Shalom~Shalom!
Sorry, I forgot the opening quote. You mentioned "The Godhead" That term comes from the KJV translation, it's not in the Greek. Godhead is an old English word that simply means Godhood. The passage simply says, all the fullness of Godhood dwells in Jesus bodily.
I'm not sure how you see God. I didn't quite understand what you were getting at.