I dont get it..Does believing Jesus is Gods SON make you a non-Christian?

[allyc33]

43:11 I, even I, am (YHWH) the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour

Isaiah was written over 700 years before the birth of Jesus Christ
Since Jesus was not born yet, and hadnt died for us yet...how could he be referred to as a Savior... this would leave YHWH as the only the savior at that time. (My thoughts on this)

Athanasius,

I have never heard of the term "only begotten God"?? Please explain..

You also said,
"It would be a mistake for us to take the word 'begotten', upon up Encarta, read a definition and proclaim, 'aha! That's it!'."

I dont understand this at all.... We have used dicitonarys for definitions. It is the only definition available to us. What else would the word "begotten" mean? Only Begotten Son has always been used in the Bible ... are you saying that people are trying to remove that word from the Bible now.??? and that we should just accept this??

As far a Jesus being a mere man... and "explaining his father" The way I have always believed is that Jesus was a man, but a perfect man and Gods Son with Gods Holy Spirit.

John 12:49 For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. 50I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.”

Jesus was Gods Son....It would seem he would be and could be the only one that could explain his father

Allyson

[Athanasius]

43:11 I, even I, am (YHWH) the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour

Isaiah was written over 700 years before the birth of Jesus Christ
Since Jesus was not born yet, and hadnt died for us yet...how could he be referred to as a Savior... this would leave YHWH as the only the savior at that time. (My thoughts on this)

The short answer is: because Jesus is YHWH (previous posts reference verses which speak of Jesus as existing before the foundation of the world, i.e. being God). This actually raises the question of how Old Testament saints were saved, and Hebrews 10:1-4 answers the question:

1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.

In other words, animal sacrifices saved no one: the sacrifice of Jesus did.

Athanasius,

I have never heard of the term "only begotten God"?? Please explain..

It literally means 'only generated one'.

You also said,
"It would be a mistake for us to take the word 'begotten', upon up Encarta, read a definition and proclaim, 'aha! That's it!'."

I dont understand this at all.... We have used dicitonarys for definitions. It is the only definition available to us. What else would the word "begotten" mean? Only Begotten Son has always been used in the Bible ... are you saying that people are trying to remove that word from the Bible now.??? and that we should just accept this??

The word translated 'begotten' (Greek: monogeneis) can be translated a few different ways. This is what I'm getting at when I implied that biblical translation is far more than looking up the words in a dictionary, especially an English dictionary. The nuances of the Greek aren't adequately represented in most English translations.

As far a Jesus being a mere man... and "explaining his father" The way I have always believed is that Jesus was a man, but a perfect man and Gods Son with Gods Holy Spirit.

John 12:49 For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. 50I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.”

Jesus was Gods Son....It would seem he would be and could be the only one that could explain his father

Allyson

The idea of 'explaining the father' goes far beyond saying what God the Father tells Jesus to say. 'Explaining the father' means that Jesus is identifiable with the Father. The 'perfect man' view might look tempting, but it is irreconcilable with how the rest of the Bible presents Jesus, as God.

[allyc33]

I dont know how to respond to the quotes like everyone else so pardon my copy and pasting.....


When defining the word "begotten, you said, " It literally means 'only generated one'.

So the definition of "begotten " is "generated"?

According to this, "begotten" would then define the Son (or God) as "generated"

Definition:
gen·er·ate [ jénnə ràyt ]
create something: to bring something into existence or effect
produce energy: to produce or originate a form of energy through a chemical or physical process... etc

In the Codex Sinaiticus the word " μονογενή " .... is used in John 3:16. This translates "only begotten" in English.

[Diggindeeper]

Allison, just click on the Reply With Quote at the bottom of every post that you want to quote. Hope that helps...

In the book of Genesis when God said this, who do you think He was talking to?

Genesis 1:26
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Then Jesus can be found in their places in the Old Testament...BEFORE he was born as a baby! For example, consider this:

Genesis 22:8
And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

This was spoken by Abraham when he was about to sacrifice his only son on the altar. His son said to him, "I see the wood and the fire, but WHERE IS THE LAMB TO BE SACRIFICED?" And Abraham replied, "Son, God will provide HIMSELF as the lamb! And Allison, God did provide HIMSELF...on the cross!

Allison, where you are attending church and who is teaching you is very important. I can only pray you are not being taught by Jehovah's Witnesses and from their WATCHTOWER Translations. They have so many doctrines all wrong and this is one of them. They have predicted over and over as to when the Lord would return and got them all wrong! Finally, in their last prediction, they covered it up by proclaiming that he DID really return in 1914 as the Watchtower had predicted, but it was an INVISABLE second coming. That is all so absurd and is no more than specuation.

One more scripture reference, Allison. This one (to me) is profound. Remember when the 3 Hebrew boys were thrown into that FIERY furnace? That old king waited a while, then looked to see if those devout followers were burned up yet. But he, looked and then asked, "Didn't we throw 3 men into that fire?"

His advisors all said, "Yes, king. We threw 3 men into that fire."

And Allison, that old king said this:

Daniel 3:25

He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

How do YOU explain his presence back then, WAY before he was born as 'Baby Jesus'. Allison, no mere created MAN could have pulled that one off! (In that fire with those boys HUNDREDS OF YEARS BEFORE HE WAS BORN!)

And how do you explain how that old king KNEW what the appearance of the Son of God looked like, hundreds of years before he was born as a mere human?

Mere human's 'beginnings' can indeed be traced to the womb, but Jesus was not a mere created human!

[allyc33]

[QUOTE=Diggindeeper; Allison, just click on the[/COLOR] Reply With Quote [COLOR="#0000CD"]at the bottom of every post that you want to quote. Hope that helps...

thank you... gona try this ! (MAN ! it didnt work)

Genesis 22:8
And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

This was spoken by Abraham when he was about to sacrifice his only son on the altar. His son said to him, "I see the wood and the fire, but WHERE IS THE LAMB TO BE SACRIFICED?" And Abraham replied, "Son, God will provide HIMSELF as the lamb! And Allison, God did provide HIMSELF...on the cross!

God will provide himself "a" lamb is not the same as God will provide himself "as the" lamb. ?????


Allison, where you are attending church and who is teaching you is very important. I can only pray you are not being taught by Jehovah's Witnesses and from their WATCHTOWER Translations. They have so many doctrines all wrong and this is one of them. They have predicted over and over as to when the Lord would return and got them all wrong! Finally, in their last prediction, they covered it up by proclaiming that he DID really return in 1914 as the Watchtower had predicted, but it was an INVISABLE second coming. That is all so absurd and is no more than specuation.

I agree completely..... I dont feel as though any religion is wrong unless they show me they are wrong. For example, approx 2 years ago I began a search of pagan practices..and reading books from the library.. It was shocking. !

What was more shocking is how so many religions disregard what is right in their face. The celebration of Easter was the most disturbing... I have not celebrated it since. It was upsetting, and confusing to think a "leader" whom people trust, would not divulge the information that is available to all. This is when I started looking into the origin of other doctrines.

Anyone could easily say that not all religions are wrong and not all are right.. picking one over the other... I have used other means to influence my thinking. Namely HISTORY. It does not lie and is there for all to see.

I DO have to shuffle off to work now... (wish I didnt have to) but I will be looking forward to continuing discussions here soon . There are some scriptures I have asked about that I havent received any reply or thoughts on..

Allyson

[guestman]

John 14
25 “These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you.
26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.


If Jesus assigned personality to the Holy Spirit, it would seem presumptuous for us to say the Holy Spirit is a force.

It is true that Jesus spoke of the holy spirit as a “helper” and spoke of such helper as ‘teaching' (John 14:26), ‘bearing witness' (John 15:26), ‘giving evidence' (John 16:8), ‘guiding’ (John 16:13), ‘speaking,’ ‘hearing,’ and ‘receiving' (John 7:39). In so doing, the original Greek shows Jesus at times applying the personal pronoun “he” to that “helper” (Greek paraclete). For example, at John 14:16 (and 26), the Greek noun paraclete ("helper") is masculine, but just the next verse, the equivalent word "spirit" is neuter, specifying neither sex. How can this be if the holy spirit is a person and a "he" ?

It is not unusual in the Scriptures for something that is not a person to be personalized or personified. Wisdom is personified in the book of Proverbs (1:20-33; 8:1-36); and feminine pronominal forms are used of it in the original Hebrew, as also in many English translations. (King James, Revised Standard, Jewish Publication [1973], An American Translation)

Wisdom is also personified at Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35, where it is depicted as having both “works” and “children.” The apostle Paul personalized sin and death and also undeserved kindness ("grace", King James Bible) as “kings.” (Rom 5:14, 17,*21; 6:12) He speaks of sin as “receiving an inducement,” ‘working out covetousness,’ ‘seducing,’ and ‘killing.’ (Rom 7:8-11) Yet it is obvious that Paul did not mean that sin was a person.

So, likewise with John’s account of Jesus’ words regarding the holy spirit, his remarks must be taken in context. Jesus personalized the holy spirit when speaking of that spirit as a “helper” (which in Greek is the masculine substantive pa·ra´kle·tos). Properly, therefore, John presents Jesus’ words as referring to that “helper” aspect of the spirit with masculine personal pronouns. On the other hand, in the same context, when the Greek pneu´ma is used, John employs a neuter pronoun to refer to the holy spirit, pneu´ma itself being neuter. Hence, we have in John’s use of the masculine personal pronoun in association with pa·ra´kle·tos an example of conformity to grammatical rules, not an expression of doctrine.(John 14:16,*17; 16:7,*8)

[Diggindeeper]

Allyson

i'm so sorry. I mispelled your name, Allyson! I apologize. My concentration is not too good at the moment.

[Vhayes]

We, as humans, also exist in Jesus "form" when on the earth as a human, who perhaps even sweated blood.(Luke 22:44) Does that mean that we are Jesus ? Jesus was in the "form of God" or a spirit, just as the angels are also in "the form of God" as spirits, for Psalms 104:4 says that God is "making his angels spirits." Does that make them God ?

Thus, Jesus "emptied himself" as a spirit "Son of God" to come to the earth as a real human and feel the suffering of mankind, providing a ransom "for many".(Matt 20:28) The apostle Paul wrote that "in the days of his flesh [Christ] offered up supplications and also petitions to the One who was able to save him out of death, with strong outcries and tears, and he was favorably heard for his godly fear."(Heb 5:7)

Paul further said that "there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all."(1 Tim 2:5, 6) Hence, Jesus provided a "corresponding ransom" or the exact equivalent of Adam as a perfect son before his rebellion in the Garden of Eden.(1 Cor 15:45) Jesus was thus not God incarnate, but a perfect flesh and blood human that could offer his life blood to God (Heb 9:12, 24) to buy back what Adam lost for his offspring - the hope of living forever on a paradise earth in perfection "in the abundance of peace."(Ps 37:11, 29)

You still have not answered what He emptied Himself of.

In my head (and that does not mean it's necessarily true, just true for me) those verses are crystal clear. I have no need to put them through a filter. It says quite clearly to me that although Jesus existed in the form of God He did not hang on to that elevated position - He came to earth willingly as a human.

[Athanasius]

I dont know how to respond to the quotes like everyone else so pardon my copy and pasting.....

When defining the word "begotten, you said, " It literally means 'only generated one'.

So the definition of "begotten " is "generated"?

According to this, "begotten" would then define the Son (or God) as "generated"

Definition:
gen·er·ate [ jénnə ràyt ]
create something: to bring something into existence or effect
produce energy: to produce or originate a form of energy through a chemical or physical process... etc

In the Codex Sinaiticus the word " μονογενή " .... is used in John 3:16. This translates "only begotten" in English.

As I was saying, the study is more nuanced than that. You would want to read something like this: http://bible.org/seriespage/son-god-begotten-not-made, in which the author makes the rather obvious point that worshiping Jesus constitutes idolatry, if he is not God.

[David Taylor]

To make a quote-block to respond to other people's stuff...do this.

[Q u o t e="Elvis"]
Where is my peanutbutter and banana sandwich?
[ / Q u o t e ]

(remove the spaces from the above format, will render it to look like this:

Where is my peanutbutter and banana sandwich?

That's all there is to doing 'quotes'.

[allyc33]

To make a quote-block to respond to other people's stuff...do this.

Cool !! I did it Thanks David Taylor

[guestman]

You still have not answered what He emptied Himself of.

In my head (and that does not mean it's necessarily true, just true for me) those verses are crystal clear. I have no need to put them through a filter. It says quite clearly to me that although Jesus existed in the form of God He did not hang on to that elevated position - He came to earth willingly as a human.

For Jesus to provide a ransom for mankind, he had to "empty himself " of being a spirit son of God in heaven, in order to become a perfect man of flesh and blood. The King James Bible at 1 Timothy 2:6 says that Jesus "gave himself a ransom for all." However, this not an accurate rendering, for more accurately Paul wrote that "Christ Jesus.....gave himself a corresponding ransom for all." For Jesus to redeem mankind, he had to provide a "corresponding ransom" (Greek an·ti´ly·tron (from an·ti´, “against; in correspondence to; in place of,” and ly´tron, “ransom [price paid]”).

Therefore, in order for Jesus to correspond to Adam before his rebellion, he had to be his exact equivalent, a perfect flesh and blood man, not God incarnate. Thus, Jesus emptied himself of his being a spirit "son of God" in heaven and obediently followed his Father's desire to come to the earth as a person of flesh and blood to buy back what Adam lost for his offspring - perfect life on a paradise earth.(Luke 23:43; Rev 21:3-5)

Oh by the way, if Jesus is God, he would not have lost his "elevated position". If he were God, he could not have of provided the ransom, for only that which was exactly equivalent to Adam or a "corresponding ransom" would be accepted, and by who else, God. In addition, Habakkuk 1:12 says of God: "Are you not from long ago, O Jehovah? O my God, my Holy One, you do not die." Yet Jesus died.(1 Thess 4:14)

The apostle Paul wrote that Jesus "entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance [for us]....For Christ entered, not into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us."(Heb 9:12, 24) Hence, Jesus, as the "Son of God", appeared before God and presented his perfect life blood in behalf of obedient mankind.

[allyc33]

i'm so sorry. I mispelled your name, Allyson! I apologize. My concentration is not too good at the moment.

Thats ok... no worries

[Bandit]

... I was saved long before I knew anything about the Trinity. Understanding the ontology of Jesus is not a prerequisite for salvation. It's not believing Jesus is God that saves, it is treating Jesus as God that saves. ...

Hello Vanderhoven7,

I do appreciate your input. But I do have to wonder, don't you think that after a while of treating Jesus as the Saving God, that people should come to the conclusion that He is the Saving God? And what of those who make it their goal to resist this conclusion at all cost? Could that cost end up being more than they can bear?

[A Seeker]

I have to admit, I'm struggling more and more with the trinity as a concept. Seems to me our language is just not equipped to accurately describe what God is. I suspect we're all wrong.