PDA

View Full Version : IMPORTANT At what point was God manifest in the flesh?



Alaska
Jul 5th 2009, 07:53 PM
The question, "at what point was God manifest in the flesh" is important because of the implication the answer has with regard to John's "test question":
1 Jn. 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.

This question is also important with regard to the fact that Jesus is said to have been begotten of the Father.

Since Jesus was begotten, and since his flesh was exactly like ours while he lived his 30 years down here, Jesus' conception was by a process of Mary's egg being fertilized by a miraculous event of God, God having introduced physical seed into Mary.
The seed has to belong to God as the fertilizing agent in order for Jesus to have been begotten by God; for Jesus to be declared as having come in the flesh.
Since Jesus was a physical being like we are, fully human, and since it is specified that Jesus came in the flesh, having been begotten, which is a very physical event, though in this case not sexual, I understand that God manifesting himself in the flesh had to have been at the physical introduction of seed into Mary.

"Begotten" is a very strong word. It has everything to do with conception by way of seed.
To call Jesus the Son of God and yet deny God begat him is a contradiction of terms.
We are to accept, that though God is a Spirit, he was able, in order to fulfil his word, to introduce physical seed somehow from himself that fertilized Mary's egg.

It was God's Spirit in that begotten flesh that made all the difference with regard to him not sinning and having ability to do miracles etc.
Jesus' physical body was the vehicle for God, who is a Spirit to be manifested in the flesh.

The word "begotten" is omitted in some places in the modern translations derived from very old but also very deliberately corrupted copies of the NT.
I suppose that 'spirit of antichrist' was responsible for those omissions.
Also the verse declaring that God was manifested in the flesh is also known to be omitted in some versions.
Seems like human reasoning and inability to accept that God was able to do what we cannot explain, was reponsible for such omissions.

This kind of reasoning may also be responsible for butchering the genealogical record left us by Luke. It is declared, very contrary to Luke's record, that this record pertains to Mary; giving no respect that it was God's seed that fertilized Mary's egg: Jesus being then recognized as of the seed of David by Joseph, Mary's husband.
The Catholics, on the other hand, declare that Matthew's record belongs to Mary, which is just as much a butchering of the Word, since, like Luke's record, Matthew's record follows men's names from David to Joseph. Not from David to Mary.

notuptome
Jul 5th 2009, 08:10 PM
1 Tim 3:16 ...without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the nations, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
1 Pet 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.
Jesus is Jehovah God come in the flesh. No less God in the flesh that when He was in heaven. His body had begining and end but He is without begining and without end.

For the cause of Christ.
Roger

Scruffy Kid
Jul 5th 2009, 09:15 PM
Hi Alaska! :hug:
Great to see you! :)

The understanding of God Jesus taught -- God being Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God -- and the understanding of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man, one Christ, is something all Christians believe, and have believed from the earliest times. Exactly how this should be understood has puzzled people, and often led them astray. But Christians -- all Christians -- have clearly established what this means. The doctrine of Christ as fully God and fully man and of God as Father, Son, and Holy SPirit was carefully considered in ancient times, and, following the teaching of the Bible, was logically set forth in early affirmations of Christian faith, such as the Nicene Creed.

All historic Christianity confesses (believes and says) that there is one God in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior was the incarnation (the taking-flesh, the becoming-fully-human), of God the Son, that is, of the Eternal Word, just as the Bible says. This is believed by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer, and all the other Reformation figures, as well as by Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Gregory of Nazianzus, Athanasius, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and so on; and it is affirmed as the essence of Christian orthodoxy by Protestants (including Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, Pentecostals, and so on) throughout the world, as well as by Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Christians (and, as it happens, by this board in its statements of faith).

There is very little disagreement about these teachings. However, they do require a good deal of thinking through. What I present is what, to the best of my knowledge, Christians have always believed and defended as the true doctrine of Christ:


When we confess that Jesus Christ was "begotten" of the Father, Christians, historically, have understood that this referred to the eternal generation of the Word: to the existence in eternity of God the Son as the eternal Son of God the Father.

The Bible states clearly, as Christians have always confessed, that Jesus was the eternal God. John's gospel says, for instance "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." Colossians 1:16-17 states "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: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Jesus likewise states (Lk 10:18) "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven" and in John 17 speaks of "the glory which I had ... before the world was" and says to the Father "You loved me before the foundation of the world." In all these ways, and many more, the Bible teaches us that God, prior to the creation of the world or of time and space or any other thing, eternally is God, with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

God the Father is the Father of the eternal Word, God the son. The word "begotten" indicates that Christ, the eternal Word, God the Son, our Lord Jesus was not created (made) as the world and all that is in it was made, but rather is in very nature God, of the very same nature, substance, and essence as God the Father, and the Holy Spirit. Human beings beget human beings; God -- we use the word here analogously -- begets God. Thus the church in affirming Christ's full Divinity -- against those who denied it and said of Christ "there was a time when he did not exist" -- affirmed (in the "Nicene Creed"), echoing the Scripture, that He is "God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten not made, being one in being (homoousias) with the Father, and all things were made by Him.

Therefore, the word "begotten" does not refer to Jesus taking flesh, but to his eternal relationship with God the Father. His taking flesh consists of Christ, the eternal Son, humbling himself to be united with human nature through the Holy Spirit causing Mary to conceive. That happened at a certain point in time, that is, in the timeline of this world. We do not know exactly how God did that. However it was not that there was a "sperm of God the Father" -- because God the Father (and the Eternal Word, and the Holy Spirit) are not physical beings. (They could not be, among other reasons, because they existed before there was any physical universe.)

Also, as Christians have historically understood the teaching of the Apostles and the Scriptures, Jesus was not exactly a "vehicle for God". God eternally exists in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- utterly one, yet distinct and in dialogue. Instead, God the Son, the eternal Word, humbled Himself to take on human nature. In that sense, exactly as John's Gospel said, the Word "became flesh". The term "became flesh" does not mean, though, that Jesus' body was a vehicle for the eternal Word, but that Jesus as fully a human being -- body and soul -- was united as a single person who had an existence in "two natures" or two modes, both as God (in eternal Glory, omniscience, and omnipotence, immortal and invisible) and as man (having the limited and growing powers of a baby, boy, youth, and man, growing in wisdom as well as in stature, learning from what he suffered, and capable of being injured and dying). While the Spirit was with Jesus, and descended upon Him in a special way at His baptism, what Jesus did was done by Jesus -- God the Son, the God-man -- not simply by the Spirit. It was not the Spirit -- God the Holy Spirit -- who was "manifested in the flesh, but rather the eternal Word, God the Son, the only-begotten Son of God.


I hope that may help clarify the situation.

In friendship,
Scruffy Kid

Alaska
Jul 5th 2009, 10:47 PM
"Only begotten" pertains exclusively to the flesh.
There was from Creation about 4,000 years when The Word existed as without human form.
In the fulness of times The Word became manifest in the flesh, by way of a conception. This is about which the word "begotten" has everything to do.
It appears that your deductions are not made from the actual words left us in scripture but by ancient writers who gave their opinions, opinions no greater in value than yours or mine; they being not ordained apostles but mere believers as you and I. They, like you or I, having access to Scripture.

To relegate "begotten'' to "The Word" prior to the beginning of Christ's flesh also denotes beginning, which the Word is incapable of having. It appears that your commentators have taken the classic route of redefining terms to accomodate a 'higher' preconception based on fleshly reasoning.


When we confess that Jesus Christ was "begotten" of the Father, Christians, historically, have understood that this referred to the eternal generation of the Word: to the existence in eternity of God the Son as the eternal Son of God the Father.

I think you should say "some" Christians believed that. All those Chritians of whom you refer were by the authority of scripture, very sadly mistaken.
Here, in that above quote, contrary to context, definition, and plain comon sense, "begotten" has taken on a purely analogous application.



Human beings beget human beings; God -- we use the word here analogously -- begets God. Thus the church in affirming Christ's full Divinity -- against those who denied it and said of Christ "there was a time when he did not exist"


But there was around 4000 years from creation when the Word did not exist in a manifest-in-the-flesh form. Again, this is what "begotten" is all about; that glorious event in time when God became manifest in the flesh in Jesus.


Therefore, the word "begotten" does not refer to Jesus taking flesh,
What could be a greater admission and manifestation of heresy?
This is offensive to the little ones that would believe in Jesus. They will not deny God's ability to manifest himself by a miraculous begetting the conception of his only Son.
This claim that since God is not physical he could not therefore manifest physical seed from himself to beget his manifestation of himself in the flesh is an insult to the faith, as is much of the confusion seen manifested in the Nicene Creed, which is another Catholic manifestation of that same Catholic confusion afflicting much of Protestinism today.


His taking flesh consists of Christ, the eternal Son, humbling himself to be united with human nature through the Holy Spirit causing Mary to conceive. That happened at a certain point in time, that is, in the timeline of this world. We do not know exactly how God did that. However it was not that there was a "sperm of God the Father" -- because God the Father (and the Eternal Word, and the Holy Spirit) are not physical beings. (They could not be, among other reasons, because they existed before there was any physical universe.)


Do you realize what you are declaring here?
True, God cannot lie: but to declare things that he cannot do without Biblical affirmation is a scary road to go down. To declare that God could not have had Mary conceive by a sperm God miraculously introduced, makes Jesus' flesh not begotten and not the same as yours and mine, which John is stating is a manifestaion of 'that spirit of antichrist'.
Your phrase above, "the Holy Spirit causing Mary to conceive" in light of what you have said concerning "begotten" separates conception from the begetting.



We do not know exactly how God did that

But what they are declaring as a matter of indisputable fact, which they do supposedly know, is that it was absolutely not by a process of God begetting Jesus.

Was your post all your own paraphrasing of things that you have read or was some of it quotes from commentaries etc.?
If it was partially quoted, I think it would be right to specify what are those parts.

The Nicene Creed takes on a non biblical position on the great mystery of the Godhead. This is the Catholic position that places the number 3 as the dominating component in this mystery whereby the number 1 (One God) takes on a subservient role of conforming to number 3 (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) as being greater.
I take the simplifying of the great mystery of the Godhead as a part of that manifestation of that 'spirit of antichrist'.
By rightly placing the number 1 as the dominating and defining criteria to put in proper perspective the depth of this mystery, the number 3 must then conform to that greater component of the understanding of this mystery.
As it is stated in the Nicene Creed, the greatness of the Mystery of how God was manifested in the flesh is given a polytheistic lean, which is what one would expect when reversing the right order of things; the fact that God is one having dominance and dictating how the three are understood.

Instead of One God, One Supreme Being, the confusing Nicene Creed position would accomodate One God, three supreme beings.

Keturah
Jul 6th 2009, 12:33 AM
Jesus was always God, was always the Son of God.
It didnt take fertilization of an egg, it simply took the power of God, and the willingness of his Son.and the over shadowing of the Holy Spirit.
As in creation all three of the Godhead was involved.
Mary was simply a willing vessel.

watchinginawe
Jul 6th 2009, 01:09 AM
Alaska, I'm not sure exactly what the point being made is.

Is it your supposition that the events are like this?

God the Father
The Word
The Holy Ghost

Conception of Jesus Christ within Mary

God the Father
The Only Begotten Son of God
The Holy Ghost

Alaska
Jul 6th 2009, 01:12 AM
Jesus was always God, was always the Son of God.
It didnt take fertilization of an egg, it simply took the power of God, and the willingness of his Son.and the over shadowing of the Holy Spirit.
As in creation all three of the Godhead was involved.
Mary was simply a willing vessel.


I take this to mean that Jesus was not begotten of the Father: That somehow Mary's conception was without fertilization, which makes Jesus' flesh not the same as ours, which has to have something to do with denying that Jesus is come in the flesh.



It didnt take fertilization of an egg


"Fertilization" is just a fancy modern word for conception.
So Jesus was not conceived?
Even the Catholics use the term "conception" with regard to Jesus.

Please someone explain to me the mechanics of reasoning responsible for rejecting the miraculous conception within Mary which was the beginning of Jesus' physical beginning in the flesh, which we know conception requires two physical components joining together to cause that physical conception.

Why doubt and deny God's ability to beget physically? The word begotten has everything to do with the physical.
By denying the physical Jesus to have begun at conception, then the problem is created of throwing forward to some later time when Jesus became fully human or fully 'come in the flesh'.
Why complicate things? Just accept that Jesus was begotten by the Father at that time when God overshadowed Mary.

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.

Bladers
Jul 6th 2009, 02:31 AM
I take this to mean that Jesus was not begotten of the Father: That somehow Mary's conception was without fertilization, which makes Jesus' flesh not the same as ours, which has to have something to do with denying that Jesus

You have to understand that the Body of Jesus was heavenly, so was His Blood. It was of the Father. God the Father created a body for the Word in heaven when he was bringing him into the world. That body also contained blood, because mary's blood never touched Jesus blood.

Sirus
Jul 6th 2009, 02:41 AM
"Only begotten" pertains exclusively to the flesh.Exactly! It says 'this day have I begotten thee'....
there was a day it happened.
The Son has always been, and has always been God, but there was a day he was made flesh.

Bladers
Jul 6th 2009, 02:55 AM
Exactly! It says 'this day have I begotten thee'....
there was a day it happened.
The Son has always been, and has always been God, but there was a day he was made flesh.

Hebrews 10:5 - Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

Hebrews 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?

Hebrews 1:6 - And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Jesus was formerly known as the Word, the Living Word, Eternal Word, God the Word before that day.

Scruffy Kid
Jul 6th 2009, 03:15 AM
"Only begotten" pertains exclusively to the flesh.
There was from Creation about 4,000 years when The Word existed as without human form.
In the fulness of times The Word became manifest in the flesh, by way of a conception. This is about which the word "begotten" has everything to do.
It appears that your deductions are not made from the actual words left us in scripture but by ancient writers who gave their opinions, opinions no greater in value than yours or mine; they being not ordained apostles but mere believers as you and I. They, like you or I, having access to Scripture.

To relegate "begotten'' to "The Word" prior to the beginning of Christ's flesh also denotes beginning, which the Word is incapable of having. It appears that your commentators have taken the classic route of redefining terms to accomodate a 'higher' preconception based on fleshly reasoning.

When we confess that Jesus Christ was "begotten" of the Father, Christians, historically, have understood that this referred to the eternal generation of the Word: to the existence in eternity of God the Son as the eternal Son of God the Father.
I think you should say "some" Christians believed that. All those Chritians of whom you refer were by the authority of scripture, very sadly mistaken.
Here, in that above quote, contrary to context, definition, and plain comon sense, "begotten" has taken on a purely analogous application.


Human beings beget human beings; God -- we use the word here analogously -- begets God. Thus the church in affirming Christ's full Divinity -- against those who denied it and said of Christ "there was a time when he did not exist"

But there was around 4000 years from creation when the Word did not exist in a manifest-in-the-flesh form. Again, this is what "begotten" is all about; that glorious event in time when God became manifest in the flesh in Jesus.

Therefore, the word "begotten" does not refer to Jesus taking flesh,

What could be a greater admission and manifestation of heresy?
This is offensive to the little ones that would believe in Jesus. They will not deny God's ability to manifest himself by a miraculous begetting the conception of his only Son.
This claim that since God is not physical he could not therefore manifest physical seed from himself to beget his manifestation of himself in the flesh is an insult to the faith, as is much of the confusion seen manifested in the Nicene Creed, which is another Catholic manifestation of that same Catholic confusion afflicting much of Protestinism today.

His taking flesh consists of Christ, the eternal Son, humbling himself to be united with human nature through the Holy Spirit causing Mary to conceive. That happened at a certain point in time, that is, in the timeline of this world. We do not know exactly how God did that. However it was not that there was a "sperm of God the Father" -- because God the Father (and the Eternal Word, and the Holy Spirit) are not physical beings. (They could not be, among other reasons, because they existed before there was any physical universe.)
Do you realize what you are declaring here?
True, God cannot lie: but to declare things that he cannot do without Biblical affirmation is a scary road to go down. To declare that God could not have had Mary conceive by a sperm God miraculously introduced, makes Jesus' flesh not begotten and not the same as yours and mine, which John is stating is a manifestaion of 'that spirit of antichrist'.
Your phrase above, "the Holy Spirit causing Mary to conceive" in light of what you have said concerning "begotten" separates conception from the begetting.

We do not know exactly how God did that
But what they are declaring as a matter of indisputable fact, which they do supposedly know, is that it was absolutely not by a process of God begetting Jesus.

Was your post all your own paraphrasing of things that you have read or was some of it quotes from commentaries etc.?
If it was partially quoted, I think it would be right to specify what are those parts.

The Nicene Creed takes on a non biblical position on the great mystery of the Godhead. This is the Catholic position that places the number 3 as the dominating component in this mystery whereby the number 1 (One God) takes on a subservient role of conforming to number 3 (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) as being greater.
I take the simplifying of the great mystery of the Godhead as a part of that manifestation of that 'spirit of antichrist'.
By rightly placing the number 1 as the dominating and defining criteria to put in proper perspective the depth of this mystery, the number 3 must then conform to that greater component of the understanding of this mystery.
As it is stated in the Nicene Creed, the greatness of the Mystery of how God was manifested in the flesh is given a polytheistic lean, which is what one would expect when reversing the right order of things; the fact that God is one having dominance and dictating how the three are understood.

Instead of One God, One Supreme Being, the confusing Nicene Creed position would accomodate One God, three supreme beings.
Dear Alaska, :)
You see to misunderstand my post in various ways. I'd like to clarify.
Also, there are some other misunderstandings in your post, I think. I'd like to clear those up. And I'd like to ask you not to speak ill of others, especially before you are clear about what they are saying.


I. Clearing up some confusions

1) Did I quote others? You ask: "Was your post all your own paraphrasing of things that you have read or was some of it quotes from commentaries etc.? If it was partially quoted, I think it would be right to specify what are those parts."

No, if I quote others, I acknowledge my sources. Thanks for asking, though. I restated, I think, what the Church -- including all the Reformation Protestant leaders and groups -- has taught through the ages. I have read the Scriptures and what Christians through the ages have written, ever since I came to Christ.

I am not, as you seem to suppose, following particular commentators, but the consensus tradition of the Christian faith through the ages.

2) Taking care in speaking harshly of others. Perhaps before saying that others' views are "fleshly reasoning" and "heresy" and offer "an insult to the faith" and are "offensive to the little ones that would believe in Jesus" it would be just as well to read carefully what others have written, and learn what they meant by it.

You seem to attribute to me things I never said. You seem to suppose my post to "declare that God could not have had Mary conceive by a sperm God miraculously introduced." I don't believe any such thing, didn't say any such thing, and can't imagine what would lead you to think that I said that. You seem to think I "deny God's ability to manifest himself by a miraculous ... conception of his only Son." Again, I didn't, and couldn't possibly, have said that, first because I believe that God is omnipotent, and secondly because I believe that Jesus was miraculously conceived.

You seem to misunderstand the Nicene Creed. Far more importantly, your concepts about the Nicene creed seem to have nothing to do with the actual Nicene creed. It does not mention "1" and "3"; and it begins "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty." There is no "polytheistic lean" in Nicene Christianity. The Creeds of the Church emphatically deny that there are three Gods or Three Lords.

3) Proper Respect for the Church. Perhaps, before stating confidently that your opinion and "common sense" as to the meaning of Scripture ranks higher than the testimony of the Church through the ages it would be better to learn something about what the Church has taught, and the meaning of the relevant words in the original languages. Perhaps also it would be well to pause to consider why you suppose your own reading of the Bible would be better than a near-universal consensus of those who have prayed, died for the faith, spread it through the world, and studied to learn its meaning throughout their entire lives, both in the last century and for the last 2000 years.

Jude (1:7-9) warns us against despising dignities and authority. Paul tells us to learn from those who have long labored, and received positions of authority in the church. He warns repeatedly of thinking higher of ourselves than we ought.

4) Taking the trouble to research the Bible's usage. Perhaps before you confidently assert that you know just what the Bible means by begetting, and invoke "common sense" in support, you should take the trouble to learn what the words are that are used in the original languages, and the range of meanings that they can have. The word which is used in translation, in English, "beget" refers to the male part in conception; the Hebrew and Greek words are much less specific. While, certainly, before responding to your post, I did know something about that, I carefully looked up the words in question in reference sources. (Blue Letter Bible, an online source, pulls together a lot of these, and will give you most of what you need to know.)

The Greek verb translated "beget". Ordinarily there is one main Greek verb translated "beget", gennaō (Strong's g1080) γεννάω. It is used 97 times in the NT, and is rendered "beget" 49 of those times, and "bear" 39 of those times (plus about 4 more which are synonyms of "bear"). Thus it is gender neutral, applicable equally to the male and female role in bringing forth young, so far as I can see. It simply means to generate children.

The Hebrew verb translated "beget".The Hebrew verb which is mainly used is yalad (Strong's H3205) ילד. It's used 498 times in the OT translated (in the KJV) "beget" 201 times, "bear" (present or past tense "bare") 133 times, "born" 79 times, and the rest other birth-related phrases (travail, bring forth, midwife, etc.) Like the NT Greek, it is not particularly gender specific.

Both these verbs mean "to be the parent of" or something similar. Why then would you not think that the God the Father is eternally the Father of His only son Jesus Christ? (This is repeated as Question 4, below)

The Greek word translated "only-begotten" in the KJV. The word that particularly upsets you in modern translations is monogenēs (Strong's G3439) μονογενής, which is not derived in Greek from "begotten" but from monos (G3441) meaning "only", "alone" and the like, and from ginomai (G1096) γίνομαι, meaning to become, arise, or be made. Thus, the ordinary translation of monogenēs in Greek is something like "only" or "unique". While you may prefer a different translation, there is nothing sinister about understanding the term as it is meant about everywhere else in Greek.

The past participles of gennaō (to beget or bear) and ginomai (to become, or arise) are very similar (the nu -- "n" -- is doubled i the past participle of gennaō but not the past participle of ginomai if I remember correctly), a point that came up in the counsel of Nicea. Thus the word in John's gospel translated "only-begotten" ordinarily just means "only". There is no "begotten" root in it. I take no position on how the word might best be translated. However, even if one were to accept that monogenēs need not refer to begetting, that does not gainsay the NT witness to the fact that Christ is begotten of the Father.

5) To affirm the Eternal Generation of the Word is not to deny the miraculous Virgin Birth of Christ. The foregoing point is a matter logically unrelated, so far as I can see, to the question of whether referring to Christ as "begotten" of the Father refers to His eternal generation, or to his conception as Mary's child, by the Holy Spirit.

To state that referring to Christ as "begotten" of God the Father signifies His eternal generation, it should be pointed out, is not to deny that Christ was miraculously conceived by the power of God from Mary. Of course it is true that Christ was miraculously conceived, and so far as I know, no one here, and none of the translators with whom you disagree, denies it. The creeds affirm it, the Bible states it, and (a much lesser matter) it's what I believe and have always believed.


Questions for you.

Q1. Do you in fact believe that Jesus Christ is fully God, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, yet distinct from them? Or do you not believe that?

Q2. Do you believe that Christ exists eternally – from before the creation of the world? Or do you not believe that?

Q3. Do you believe that God the Father is eternally the Father of the Word, that is of Christ? or do you not believe that?

Q4. If Christ is eternally the Father of Christ, then Christ is eternally the Son, God the Son, is He not? Why then would one not use the word “begotten” to refer Christ’s eternal origin from the Father?

Blessings, :pray:
Scruffy

Alaska
Jul 6th 2009, 03:53 AM
Alaska, I'm not sure exactly what the point being made is.

Is it your supposition that the events are like this?

God the Father
The Word
The Holy Ghost

Conception of Jesus Christ within Mary

God the Father
The Only Begotten Son of God
The Holy Ghost


This thread as it pertains to Jesus coming in the flesh has as an associated side point the issue of the mystery of the Godhead. You are questioning only one aspect of a bigger picture.

The Holy Spirit, for the sake of equipping believers, gave a surefire means whereby to determine and identify "that spirit of antichrist".
This means of determining and identifying that, amounts to whether or not the 'spirit' in question [concerning a person or doctrine] accepts that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. The test question, as it may be called, amounts to either the acceptance or the denial of the basic foundation of Christianity; how and why Jesus came. This naturally has led into discussion concerning Jesus conception and birth and the question of what Jesus was before becoming flesh and blood.

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.

"He gave his only begotten Son" is understood to mean God gave Him as a sacrifice for us. The whole concept of him being begotten, which must surely relate to his coming in the flesh by being born as conceived by God miraculously in Mary doesn't seem to be anything to question or doubt.
So to take this most common verse in all the NT Bible and deny some of its most basic impressions and implications should cause the whistles to blow and bells to alarm and the red lights to flash.

Scruffykid appears to have quoted some ancient authoritative sources that deny some of John 3:16's most basic impressions and implications.
Hence the purpose of God providing his written infallible word for the common man or woman whereby a lie is a lie and we take no quarter but denounce such. An ancient writer, no matter how far back in history cannot escape the long reach of the Word of truth.
So the denial that Jesus was begotten by God, claiming that his begetting does not at all relate to his birth but somehow relates to the existence of The Word from everlasting seems to be in line with the manifestation of that spirit of antichrist about which John warned us.
[I can understand their overzealousness to reinforce that "the Word" is from everlasting and is God, but to deny the use of the word "begotten" with regard to Jesus' birth, apparently under the fear that accepting his beginning in the flesh by conception somehow suggested a denial of his ultimate existence as from everlasting, is simply inexcusable and ignorant.]
Anything in contradiction to Jesus coming in the flesh or contradictory to anything connected to that is subject to severe scrutiny and may thereby be held suspect as antichrist.

The first Adam that got us into this mess was fully of flesh and blood and the last Adam necessary to redeem mankind also had to be fully flesh and blood. There are some extremely important implications in denying Jesus having been begotten and born as flesh and blood.
Gal. 4:
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

"Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" also very much applies to our flesh. "Christ in you the hope of glory" relates to the Holy Spirit conquering sin in us, as "God was in Christ" reconciling the world unto himself by living sinlessly and thereby being able to make his death a substitute for ours.
The denial therefore of Jesus coming to live in us with the express purpose of giving us the abundant life only found in conquering sin, is a very clear and unmistakable manifestation of that spirit of antichrist about which we are warned. The message therefore that God accepts us as hopelessly sinful and sin cannot be overcome by the power of the Holy Spirit is antichrist in the extreme and should be condemned in the greatest possible way.


God the Father
The Only Begotten Son of God
The Holy Ghost

Since the begetting relates to Jesus conception in Mary, I would put it like this after Jesus' conception:

God the Father
The Word/The Only Begotten Son of God
The Holy Ghost

And to illustrate the great mystery that this topic of the mystery of the Godhead is, I will add this:

1 John 5:
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Jesus speaking of himself as he stood on the earth:
John 3:
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven

watchinginawe
Jul 6th 2009, 04:12 AM
I read your post straight through. I don't see much controversy except for your accusations regarding Scruffy. I'll leave that to you guys, but I will say that I have read literally hundreds of his posts and do not believe that he denies that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.

I think this must be a carryover from the Bible translation discussion. I don't think a defense of a particular Bible translation equals denying that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. I don't see how that logic follows.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to expound the subject.

God Bless!

Scruffy Kid
Jul 6th 2009, 04:17 AM
... Scruffykid appears to have quoted some ancient authoritative sources that deny some of John 3:16's most basic impressions and implications.
No such thing was ever said by me, nor implied by anything I said or referenced.
So the denial that Jesus was begotten by God, claiming that his begetting does not at all relate to his birth but somehow relates to the existence of The Word from everlasting seems to be in line with the manifestation of that spirit of antichrist about which John warned us.[/COLOR]

Is it a good idea to go around calling others liars, and saying they have a spirit of antichrist? Particularly it when it refers not to anything they said but to your misreading of their posts? Making extreme and untrue accusation toward others violates not only elementary politeness, but elementary honesty. "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbors." Kindly refrain from this ungodly behavior.

Make your arguments for whatever positions you want, but please do not go around calling others liars and people with a spirit of anti-Christ. Calling people names -- just like swearing at them -- does not help prove your point. Why not just make the best logical case for your views that you can? Going around reviling others is generally forbidden by Scripture (and by the norms and rules of this board).

As Watching In Awe says, I strongly affirm, as I always have affirmed, that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
I also affirm that He is eternal God, the eternal Word and Son of the Father. Fully God and fully man.

Sirus
Jul 6th 2009, 04:20 AM
You have to understand that the Body of Jesus was heavenly, so was His Blood. It was of the Father. God the Father created a body for the Word in heaven when he was bringing him into the world. That body also contained blood, because mary's blood never touched Jesus blood.The heavenly body was post resurrection. Before that His body was just exactly like ours.

There is nothing in all of Scripture that says His blood was not human blood. As if God has blood :B

Where does scripture speak of more than one blood?
Where does scripture say Adam received a blood transfusion or had different blood before and after he sinned?
That Adam’s blood was the Fathers?
That Jesus’ blood was the Fathers?
That Adam’s, Jesus’, or our blood is or is not the Fathers?
Blood applied, covered, washed, cleansed, is not a blood transfusion. In fact, the very concept proves it is not to be likened to the blood in us. It’s a completely different purpose and application.
What is this Fathers blood stuff, and where can I find it in scripture?

Jesus’ Father was God and not a man simply because the Messiah had to be 100% God and 100% man and for no other scriptural reason. Not because of blood. There’s no scriptural support for this claim that Jesus’ blood was different than ours. Jesus’ did not have a ‘God-edge’ to help Him overcome the world the flesh and the devil. If He did have a God-edge, He would not have qualified as the Savior of man, the man Christ Jesus (1Ti 2:5). He was 100% man, right? You can say yes, but having a theology that says he had different blood says otherwise. Scripture is clear He was 100% man, tempted in all points like as we are. That would not be true with a heavenly body and heavenly blood, whatever that could possibly be, since flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

watchinginawe
Jul 6th 2009, 04:27 AM
Jesus' blood was just like ours (mankind's).

Hebrews 2:14 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;

15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.


Jesus' blood was innocent (guiltless) (righteous) blood. That is where the power comes from in His death.

God Bless!

Alaska
Jul 6th 2009, 04:43 AM
Scruffy, I feel you are way over-reacting and misunderstanding me.
I am not in any way attacking you personally but the teaching you have shared that I supposed were basically a reflection of things you have read.
I supposed some of what you shared was ver-batum ancient-writer because it was so eloquently written, so take that as a compliment.
And that's why I asked.

Scruffy Kid
Jul 6th 2009, 04:59 AM
Alaska,
Thank you for your kind words! :hug:

Scruffy, I feel you are way over-reacting and misunderstanding me.
If I have misunderstood what you said, I apologize. :blush:

By way of explanation: it seemed me that you were attributing things to me -- things I didn't say -- and then (this is what I thought, whether or not I misunderstood) saying that what I said were lies, and the Spirit of anti-Christ. I also thought you said similar things about others. To me it seemed that you were over-reacting and misunderstanding me!

One difficulty is that when I said one thing here, you often seemed to think that I had said something quite different from what I meant and from what I said, or so it seemed to me.

I hope we can both learn to be friendly, and disagree (if we disagree) in ways which lead to productive discussion, and conduct ourselves with mutual friendliness.

In friendship, :hug:
Scruffy Kid

Alaska
Jul 6th 2009, 05:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaska http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=2124442#post2124442)
... Scruffykid appears to have quoted some ancient authoritative sources that deny some of John 3:16's most basic impressions and implications.

No such thing was ever said by me, nor implied by anything I said or referenced.




Therefore, the word "begotten" does not refer to Jesus taking flesh, but to his eternal relationship with God the Father



However it was not that there was a "sperm of God the Father" -- because God the Father (and the Eternal Word, and the Holy Spirit) are not physical beings. (They could not be, among other reasons, because they existed before there was any physical universe.)

This implies a metaphysical kind of existence of Jesus coming into existence in Mary without conception as in fertilization.


The word "begotten" indicates that Christ, the eternal Word, God the Son, our Lord Jesus was not created (made) as the world and all that is in it was made, but rather is in very nature God, of the very same nature, substance, and essence as God the Father, and the Holy Spirit. Human beings beget human beings; God -- we use the word here analogously -- begets God. Thus the church in affirming Christ's full Divinity -- against those who denied it and said of Christ "there was a time when he did not exist" -- affirmed (in the "Nicene Creed"), echoing the Scripture, that He is "God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten not made, being one in being (homoousias) with the Father, and all things were made by Him.



We already covered your understanding of begotten. What do you expect me to understand you believe when you write such things.
If begotten does not relate to flesh and blood conception as you assert, then of course John 3:16's use of the word begotten cannot mean Jesus' conception.
I cannot read your mind.
You are going to have to write more clearly what you mean.
Where did you write that Jesus was conceived acknowledging that the word conceive and begotten are related?
I was looking for acknowledgement of a two part conception, the seed from God and the egg from Mary as a foundational understanding of Jesus having become made of a woman begotten by God. Jesus come in the flesh as we are come in the flesh after having been begotten physically.
All I got was resistance and the changing of the meaning of begotten.

Bladers
Jul 6th 2009, 05:14 AM
The heavenly body was post resurrection. Before that His body was just exactly like ours.

There is nothing in all of Scripture that says His blood was not human blood. As if God has blood :B

Where does scripture speak of more than one blood?
Where does scripture say Adam received a blood transfusion or had different blood before and after he sinned?
That Adam’s blood was the Fathers?
That Jesus’ blood was the Fathers?
That Adam’s, Jesus’, or our blood is or is not the Fathers?
Blood applied, covered, washed, cleansed, is not a blood transfusion. In fact, the very concept proves it is not to be likened to the blood in us. It’s a completely different purpose and application.
What is this Fathers blood stuff, and where can I find it in scripture?

Jesus’ Father was God and not a man simply because the Messiah had to be 100% God and 100% man and for no other scriptural reason. Not because of blood. There’s no scriptural support for this claim that Jesus’ blood was different than ours. Jesus’ did not have a ‘God-edge’ to help Him overcome the world the flesh and the devil. If He did have a God-edge, He would not have qualified as the Savior of man, the man Christ Jesus (1Ti 2:5). He was 100% man, right? You can say yes, but having a theology that says he had different blood says otherwise. Scripture is clear He was 100% man, tempted in all points like as we are. That would not be true with a heavenly body and heavenly blood, whatever that could possibly be, since flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

I'm not the one who is stating the facts, because actually the scripture says:

Hebrews 10:5 - Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

And this took place when he was bringing in the firstbegotten into the world

The Holy Spirit took away the form of God from Jesus and put on him the form of man, and turned him into a seed.

Now tell me, was that seed of man or of God? was the seed of human or is it heavenly?

Jesus blood came from God, if Mary's blood had mingled with Jesus' blood. We would be damned. Mary isnt the mother of Jesus, she was just a vessel. None of her genes touched him. That is why Jesus never called her, his mother!

Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

God purchased us with HIS OWN BLOOD.
Mary's blood was corruptible, His Blood is not!

Alaska
Jul 6th 2009, 05:22 AM
I hope we can both learn to be friendly, and disagree (if we disagree) in ways which lead to productive discussion, and conduct ourselves with mutual friendliness.



I see you as very patient and willing to get along with the most difficult of rascals as much as lieth in you.
If you try to perceive my reactions as passion for what I see as truth in defense of what I understand the Word of God to be saying, that I am addressing the issue and not the person, that might help.
Or I am addressing what I perceive must be the reasoning behind a particular position.

I agree. I will try harder to be better.

Sirus
Jul 6th 2009, 05:32 AM
I'm not the one who is stating the facts, because actually the scripture says:

Hebrews 10:5 - Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

And this took place when he was bringing in the firstbegotten into the world

The Holy Spirit took away the form of God from Jesus and put on him the form of man, and turned him into a seed.

Now tell me, was that seed of man or of God? was the seed of human or is it heavenly?

Jesus blood came from God, if Mary's blood had mingled with Jesus' blood. We would be damned. Mary isnt the mother of Jesus, she was just a vessel. None of her genes touched him. That is why Jesus never called her, his mother!

Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

God purchased us with HIS OWN BLOOD.
Mary's blood was corruptible, His Blood is not!

You aren't making sense. First you say he had a body, but we all agree with that.

Then you say 'firstbegotten' but it is 'first' 'begotten' emphasise on first having to do with the resurrection not the only begotten.

Then you say the Spirit took away the form of God and in the next breath say it's God's blood, which God doesn't have.

Why does mans blood = damned? Adam had blood was he damned? We are not born damned!!!! We just need to repent and have faith towards God and have a lifetime to do it. I don't want to get into the sin nature lie here. The point is that blood has nothing to do with it. You have 0 scripture for support, as seen in your posts.

Jesus was the seed of David. Whether that dna came from Mary or Joseph is irrelevant. You can argue with others about how God did it. The fact is, it was done.

BTW; the blood of the mother does not touch the baby.....
they can have the fathers blood type!

MarleVVLL
Jul 6th 2009, 05:42 AM
Err..

"All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath."

We are all, BY NATURE, under the wrath of God. You don't even have to sin to be thrown to hell. You being you deserves that. Offensive, I know, but compared to the holiness of our God, we are like filthy rags.

Bladers
Jul 6th 2009, 05:53 AM
You aren't making sense. First you say he had a body, but we all agree with that.

Then you say 'firstbegotten' but it is 'first' 'begotten' emphasise on first having to do with the resurrection not the only begotten.

Then you say the Spirit took away the form of God and in the next breath say it's God's blood, which God doesn't have.

Why does mans blood = damned? Adam had blood was he damned? We are not born damned!!!! We just need to repent and have faith towards God and have a lifetime to do it. I don't want to get into the sin nature lie here. The point is that blood has nothing to do with it. You have 0 scripture for support, as seen in your posts.

Jesus was the seed of David. Whether that dna came from Mary or Joseph is irrelevant. You can argue with others about how God did it. The fact is, it was done.

DNA/Blood did not come from mary nor Joseph. It came from GOD.

John 1:13 - "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

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"

The seed the Holy Spirit put in mary was not made from mary and Joseph, but the Holy Spirit turn the Eternal God into a seed and placed it in mary. "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins."(Heb 10:4)


I do not understand why you cant comprehend Hebrews 10.

Hebrews 10:5-11
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Alaska
Jul 6th 2009, 05:54 AM
I'm not the one who is stating the facts, because actually the scripture says:

Hebrews 10:5 - Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

And this took place when he was bringing in the firstbegotten into the world

The Holy Spirit took away the form of God from Jesus and put on him the form of man, and turned him into a seed.

Now tell me, was that seed of man or of God? was the seed of human or is it heavenly?

Jesus blood came from God, if Mary's blood had mingled with Jesus' blood. We would be damned. Mary isnt the mother of Jesus, she was just a vessel. None of her genes touched him. That is why Jesus never called her, his mother!

Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

God purchased us with HIS OWN BLOOD.

Hi Bladers,
I would ask you to not be offended at what I write.
What the discussion comes down to is one doctrinal position as opposed to another. So the conflict is not really a person against another but an idea or belief against another idea or belief.
I believe that John's test question was designed exactly to catch the very kind of idea that you have proposed here.
Like many other scriptures that reprove us, the end result is getting back on track and being saved from going the wrong way.

John's test question:
John 4:
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
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.

The doctrine you hold does not agree with the concept of Jesus being like any other man with regard to being flesh and blood.
Don't you have genes from both your father and mother? Jesus had genes from both his father and mother to fulfil him coming not as an angel but as of the seed of Abraham.

The reference to Jesus being God's blood is a good reference and was meant to be understood as relating to the sacrifice as it was difficult for God to see his own son suffer as it would be difficult to see our own son suffer. To interpret this as Jesus having different blood than mankind is like the interpretation you have given to other verses to support that position. None of the scriptures you use to support that position are rightly divided according to what I understand those scriptures to be saying. Many on this forum will agree with me.
The inspiration behind your outlook on this issue, the mindset giving you the rationale and the logic etc behind that position, I believe, is not the Holy Ghost as manifested by John's test question above.
But again don't be offended at what I believe concerning this. I believe the Word is there for us to check our mindset and thinking processes and inspiration and logic to help us determine if they are of God or of ourselves or of a deceiving spirit.
If we are brought away from a misunderstanding, that should be a reason to be gladdened and be thankful.

Sirus
Jul 6th 2009, 05:57 AM
Err..

"All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath."

We are all, BY NATURE, under the wrath of God. You don't even have to sin to be thrown to hell. You being you deserves that. Offensive, I know, but compared to the holiness of our God, we are like filthy rags.

For the last time I will not derail the thread. You want to discuss how you won't find the word 'born' there?.... start another thread.

Sirus
Jul 6th 2009, 06:00 AM
BTW; the blood of the mother does not touch the baby.....
they can have the fathers blood type!

kenramse
Jul 6th 2009, 06:02 AM
"Only begotten" pertains exclusively to the flesh.
There was from Creation about 4,000 years when The Word existed as without human form.

Who was it that was walking in the garden of Eden from whom Adam and Eve hid themselves? Do voices walk? Do spirits walk?

Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
Gen 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

Who or what appeared to Abram in the plain of Moreh, who or what was "manifest" to him at that time and place?

Gen 12:6 And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land.
Gen 12:7 And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.

Then who or what was it that appeared to Abram when he was 99 years old (prior to this instance the Lord appeared in dreams or visions to him other than the Gen12:7 appearance.)

Gen 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Who was that who approached Abraham while he was sitting in the door of his tent on the plains of Mamre, who Abraham prayed to have a meal with him? Do spirits eat bread and meat?

Gen 18:1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
Gen 18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
Gen 18:3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: Gen 18:4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:
Gen 18:5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.
Gen 18:6 And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth.
Gen 18:7 And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it.
Gen 18:8 And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.

Three men were with Abraham that day and Abraham recognized one of them as the Lord.

Gen 18:13 And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?
Gen 18:14 Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.
Gen 18:15 Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh.
Gen 18:16 And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way.
Gen 18:17 And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do;
Gen 18:18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?
Gen 18:19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.
Gen 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
Gen 18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
Gen 18:22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.

The encounter ends with 2 of the 3 men leaving and going down to Sodom and later scripture shows these 2 men to be angels. The 3rd man who continued with Abraham was who? He himself stated that He would return to Abraham and Sarah and that she will bear a son. This man was the Lord.

The point I am making is that God was manifest in the flesh before he was manifest as Jesus, before the Holy Spirit came upon Mary and the power of God overshadowed her and she conceived and that holy thing that was born was called the Son of God.

Yes, Jesus is the Son of God, born of the virgin Mary. I also believe that this same Jesus who was born into the world as that babe in the manger, that young boy that discussed the scriptures in the temple with the elders and who was baptized by John so that all things could be fulfilled, was the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world and did so at Calvary. I believe that this same Jesus rose from the tomb on the third day and ascended to the throne of God from whence He came and is there today, sitting on the right hand of the Father.

Did there have to be a "physical seed" planted in the womb of Mary by God?

I don't know and neither do you.

Is Jesus any less God, manifest in the flesh, because the scripture does not provide forensic evidence to show that there was a physical injection of seed into the fertile egg in Mary's womb? No He is not. He is very God of very God.

Luk 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.


In the fulness of times The Word became manifest in the flesh, by way of a conception. This is about which the word "begotten" has everything to do.
It appears that your deductions are not made from the actual words left us in scripture but by ancient writers who gave their opinions, opinions no greater in value than yours or mine; they being not ordained apostles but mere believers as you and I. They, like you or I, having access to Scripture.

To relegate "begotten'' to "The Word" prior to the beginning of Christ's flesh also denotes beginning, which the Word is incapable of having. It appears that your commentators have taken the classic route of redefining terms to accomodate a 'higher' preconception based on fleshly reasoning.

Psa 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

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?
Heb 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

These two scriptures give indication that Jesus was begotten before the foundation of the world. as in he bringeth the firstbegotten into the world.

Our finite minds relate being begotten as being birthed. Jesus has always been the begotten and the first begotten of God. He has and always will be the unique Son of God. He was and is so before the worlds were created. He was so before he was born in Bethlehem and before he was conceived in the natural course of time, 9 months prior.

This same Jesus was and is the Word, the logos of God. He has forever been the Son and yet He was begotten before the foundation of the world.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.



I think you should say "some" Christians believed that. All those Chritians of whom you refer were by the authority of scripture, very sadly mistaken.
Here, in that above quote, contrary to context, definition, and plain comon sense, "begotten" has taken on a purely analogous application.



But there was around 4000 years from creation when the Word did not exist in a manifest-in-the-flesh form. Again, this is what "begotten" is all about; that glorious event in time when God became manifest in the flesh in Jesus.


What could be a greater admission and manifestation of heresy?
This is offensive to the little ones that would believe in Jesus. They will not deny God's ability to manifest himself by a miraculous begetting the conception of his only Son.
This claim that since God is not physical he could not therefore manifest physical seed from himself to beget his manifestation of himself in the flesh is an insult to the faith, as is much of the confusion seen manifested in the Nicene Creed, which is another Catholic manifestation of that same Catholic confusion afflicting much of Protestinism today.

Who has claimed this in the thread? "since God is not physical he could not therefore manifest physical seed from himself to beget his manifestation of himself in the flesh" (your quote).

You obviously reject the Nicene creed as an affirmation of the Trinity. From your opinion that God had to have physical intercourse with Mary, as explained here:


In the fulness of times The Word became manifest in the flesh, by way of a conception. This is about which the word "begotten" has everything to do.

You must also hold to the Arian doctrine that declared that although Jesus Christ was divine, God had actually created him, and there was a time when he was not. This made Jesus less than the Father and contradicted the doctrine of the Trinity. That was the purpose of the Nicene creed, (should you choose to read church history)

You also must apparently hold that the Trinity is a creation of the RCC.


Do you realize what you are declaring here?
True, God cannot lie: but to declare things that he cannot do without Biblical affirmation is a scary road to go down. To declare that God could not have had Mary conceive by a sperm God miraculously introduced, makes Jesus' flesh not begotten and not the same as yours and mine, which John is stating is a manifestaion of 'that spirit of antichrist'.
Your phrase above, "the Holy Spirit causing Mary to conceive" in light of what you have said concerning "begotten" separates conception from the begetting.


But what they are declaring as a matter of indisputable fact, which they do supposedly know, is that it was absolutely not by a process of God begetting Jesus.

Was your post all your own paraphrasing of things that you have read or was some of it quotes from commentaries etc.?
If it was partially quoted, I think it would be right to specify what are those parts.

The Nicene Creed takes on a non biblical position on the great mystery of the Godhead. This is the Catholic position that places the number 3 as the dominating component in this mystery whereby the number 1 (One God) takes on a subservient role of conforming to number 3 (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) as being greater.

Instead of One God, One Supreme Being, the confusing Nicene Creed position would accomodate One God, three supreme beings.

Are you a part of the "Oneness" movement, a modalist, teaching that the Godhead is not three persons; God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the blessed Holy spirit? Do you instead believe that God has manifested Himself in different modes or forms to accomplish His will? You haven't stated as much but your post(s) tend to that inclination.

Blessings and enlightenment be yours,
ken

Alaska
Jul 6th 2009, 06:13 AM
Err..

"All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath."

We are all, BY NATURE, under the wrath of God. You don't even have to sin to be thrown to hell. You being you deserves that. Offensive, I know, but compared to the holiness of our God, we are like filthy rags.


The writer places the ill behaviour in the past tense; as Christians no longer partaking of such things.
Seeing the nature and topic of this thread, I take your post as somewhat of an invitation to express my understanding concerning whether John's test question judges your doctrinal position.
I believe John's test question does in fact determine whether or not your doctrinal position is of God.

John's test question:
John 4:
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
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.

Bladers
Jul 6th 2009, 06:18 AM
John's test question:
John 4:
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
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.

I don't like how you are attacking people, especially when you believe the Father is Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Scruffy Kid
Jul 6th 2009, 06:38 AM
Dear Alaska,
You just said



Therefore, the word "begotten" does not refer to Jesus taking flesh, but to his eternal relationship with God the Father
However it was not that there was a "sperm of God the Father" -- because God the Father (and the Eternal Word, and the Holy Spirit) are not physical beings. (They could not be, among other reasons, because they existed before there was any physical universe.)This implies a metaphysical kind of existence of Jesus coming into existence in Mary without conception as in fertilization.
(1) You are incorrect in saying "This implies a metaphysical kind of existence of Jesus coming into existence in Mary without conception as in fertilization."

To claim that "God the Father ... not [a] physical being" does not imply "Jesus coming into existence in Mary without conception as in fertilization."

Do you think God the Father is a physical being?

The Scriptures say God is Spirit, meaning by that not physical.

(2) Also, you are incorrect that God miraculously causing Mary to conceive logically implies God creating a sperm. God can act any way He chooses to. He could create and implant an additional set of DNA molecules without a spermatazoa, or do something different that I cannot imagine. Miracles are miracles, and to suppose that they must conform to the scientific mechanisms currently known to us seems an unwarranted assumption.

Incidentally, I did not say that God did not create a spermatazoa. I said I don't know exactly how He worked the miraculous conception of Christ.
I don't presume to know how God caused Mary to conceive. What we know and affirm is that Jesus Christ is fully man -- like us in all things but sin -- and that He was born from the virgin Mary, and thus of David's, and Abraham's, lineage, or seed (descendents). You happen to think that you know the precise physical mechanism by which God caused that to happen. I don't presume to know that. How does my lack of knowing exactly what physical mechanism God used -- something not stated in Scripture -- constitute a denial that God did, miraculously, cause Mary to conceive? It doesn't.

I also don't regard it as particularly healthy to enquire into these details. The Scripture says that the Angel said "the Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God." I want to leave it right there. To poke into the details appears to me unseemly at the very least.

(3) I don't know what you are getting at when you use the phrase "a kind of metaphysical existence of Jesus". Are you suggesting that, apart from Christ's incarnation in this world, God is some shadowy and unreal thing?

God is the ultimate reality, the fount of being, the One who is real. All else borrows its reality from Him, or rather receives its reality as His gift. His existence does not depend upon our material world; rather, this world depends upon Him. He made it. Out of nothing. Simply by speaking it into existence.

(4) The statement "Therefore, the word "begotten" does not refer to Jesus taking flesh, but to his eternal relationship with God the Father" has nothing to do with the matters concerning the virgin birth of Christ that you seem to be mainly concerned with. It's a claim that Christ, the eternal Word, was eternally the Son of God. Do you deny that?

That statement has nothing to do with denying the incarnation, or the virgin birth. I -- and the Church through the ages which has understood Christ as eternally begotten of His Father "before all ages" -- also affirm strongly and unequivocally that Christ was "born of the Virgin Mary".

(5) My statement "it was not that there was a "sperm of God the Father" -- because God the Father (and the Eternal Word, and the Holy Spirit) are not physical beings" was a response to your words
Jesus' conception was by a process of Mary's egg being fertilized by a miraculous event of God, God having introduced physical seed into Mary. The seed has to belong to God as the fertilizing agent in order for Jesus to have been begotten by God; for Jesus to be declared as having come in the flesh. This made it sound (it seemed to me) like you are saying that God has a physical body, which produces physical products, just as if He was a human being or an animal, and that it is God's sperm that impregnated Mary. You don't think, do you, that God the Father has a physical body (which produces sperm, and other human byproducts)? Without intending to suggest that you believed such a thing, it's that notion which I was trying to make sure was not picked up by anyone.

The core statement there is "God the Father (and the Eternal Word, and the Holy Spirit) are not physical beings". [I]Of course, the statment is not denying that Christ (the Eternal Word and Son of God) took human flesh: it's speaking of Christ with the Father and the Holy Spirit in eternal existence in the Divine Nature. Do you think God (other than the incarnate Christ) has fingernails, gets tired, needs food, and so on? Or that He exists on earth as opposed to Andromeda galaxy? That He has a brain which is required for Him to think? Surely not! God is the Eternal, Almighty, All-knowing, Self-Sufficient God, the I Am. He does not exist within time and space -- for He made them! He exists in the fullness of His own being.

There's a good deal more that could be said, but I have to go to bed, and have a full week in front of me.

Also, I'd appreciate your answering the questions I asked for the purpose of trying to understand your position.

Finally, the English word "begotten" has force only in so far as it reflects what the Greek and Hebrew texts say. I discussed, at length, in a previous post in this thread, the meaning of gennaō (G1080), "beget" or "bear", and of yalad (H3205) with a similar range of meaning. The verbs are not gender specific, but indicate parenthood, or birth, you will note. I explained that the term monogenēs (G3439) ordinarily in Greek means "only", and does not derive from the word for beget or bear, gennaō (G1080), but from a different Greek verb γίνομαι (G1096), to arise, or come into being. This is absolutely relevant to the discussion since "begotten" (gennaō ) is not part of the Greek word monogenēs which the KJV rendered "only-begotten". These seem to be standard results from the Greek and Hebrew bible tools available on the web (as well as other places) I would like to know what you think of these things.

kenramse
Jul 6th 2009, 06:39 AM
The heavenly body was post resurrection. Before that His body was just exactly like ours.

There is nothing in all of Scripture that says His blood was not human blood. As if God has blood :B

Where does scripture speak of more than one blood?
Where does scripture say Adam received a blood transfusion or had different blood before and after he sinned?
That Adam’s blood was the Fathers?
That Jesus’ blood was the Fathers?
That Adam’s, Jesus’, or our blood is or is not the Fathers?
Blood applied, covered, washed, cleansed, is not a blood transfusion. In fact, the very concept proves it is not to be likened to the blood in us. It’s a completely different purpose and application.
What is this Fathers blood stuff, and where can I find it in scripture?

Jesus’ Father was God and not a man simply because the Messiah had to be 100% God and 100% man and for no other scriptural reason. Not because of blood. There’s no scriptural support for this claim that Jesus’ blood was different than ours. Jesus’ did not have a ‘God-edge’ to help Him overcome the world the flesh and the devil. If He did have a God-edge, He would not have qualified as the Savior of man, the man Christ Jesus (1Ti 2:5). He was 100% man, right? You can say yes, but having a theology that says he had different blood says otherwise. Scripture is clear He was 100% man, tempted in all points like as we are. That would not be true with a heavenly body and heavenly blood, whatever that could possibly be, since flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

Excellent post!

I have been associated with some (many?) who have somehow come to believe that Jesus' blood has taken on some "magical" force to defend against the wiles and attacks of the devil. Proclaiming "the blood" is effective, but not in the sense that some (many?) do. Often "the blood" is mentioned or requested to be applied by these, (sometimes chanted) while praying for someone struggling in sin or oppressed in some way, under demonic attack.
It is not the "magic in the blood" that delivers and heals. Its the sacrifice! It's Christ's death at calvary. It's that which was accomplished when that (human) blood was spilled for us by the Lamb of God.

may God richly bless you for this post,
ken

Alaska
Jul 6th 2009, 07:08 AM
You must also hold to the Arian doctrine that declared that although Jesus Christ was divine, God had actually created him, and there was a time when he was not. This made Jesus less than the Father and contradicted the doctrine of the Trinity. That was the purpose of the Nicene creed, (should you choose to read church history)

You also must apparently hold that the Trinity is a creation of the RCC.



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.

The Word did not become flesh until Jesus was conceived, hence, the only begotten had not been begotten until then. This is with the understanding that begotten relates to conception and does not in any way relate to the existance of the Word from everlasting.
As the above verses show, the Word was God. God is inseparable from His Word. He is the Word. The Word is from everlasting because God is from everlasting.
The verses from Psalms declaring "This day have I begotten thee" are prophetic, like "my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me".
If someone would simply accept the basic definition of begotten, they would not have made such an error.
Jesus is the only begotten son of the father. No other manifestation of God, as it were in the flesh, such as the possible case with Melchizadech, was the result of a begetting from the womb and growing into maturity as is the case with Jesus.

You have lots of speculation such as the three angels appearing to Abraham.
God is omnipotent, he is capable of manifesting himself in the flesh at any time he chooses instantly.
But if he were to do that, that would not be a begetting. A begetting is a conception. The begetter causes the conception.

Take Adam. He was not begotten. He was created fully mature and programmed with speech, intelligence, ability to walk etc.
Though Jesus is the last Adam, (being the second Adam) he is the only begotten son. There is no other. Only one was "begotten".

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.


Did there have to be a "physical seed" planted in the womb of Mary by God?

Wasn't Jesus a physical being like us, fully human?
Jesus being come in the flesh indicates him coming in the flesh as we come in the flesh in which situation 2 sides of the physical are required for the single physical product of the child.
For Jesus to have been begotten of the Father means Mary was impregnated by God's seed (without sex), God miraculously having provided the other half of the physical in order for Jesus to have come in the flesh.
To say there was no physical fertilization, yet try to claim Jesus was fully human, makes Jesus not fully human no matter how you cut it.
I believe such a position is a good example of what John's test question was intended to manifest as antichrist.
The bottom line implication and necessity for Jesus to have been of the same flesh as we, is that sin had to be defeated in the same flesh as the fallen Adam, Jesus being the last Adam. This makes what might be seen as an inordinately harsh charge of being antichrist more readily acceptable.
Gal. 4:
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

BadDog
Jul 6th 2009, 03:12 PM
Alaska,

Interesting, and very critical question. I added some comments below in green. Now regarding John's first letter, it helps to be aware of what John was dealing with toward the of the first century when this letter was written:

All Christians understood that Jesus was the Messiah, and that He was worshiped as God's Son, meaning that He was God Himself. He was fully deity as was the Father. But some people had an issue with God becoming a human being and dying. God cannot die, it was reasoned, so Jesus could not have become a human being. Some saw the flesh as evil-which likely came from gnostic influences at the time. To be more specific there was also the influence of docetism. The champion of docetism was Cerinthus, against whom John fought so as to keep the gospel message unblemished. Cerinthus taught that the Son of God was brought into existence, though before the incarnation. Nevertheless if Jesus did not always exist, He could not have been God in the same sense as His Father.

But the real issue was that Cerinthus taught that the Son came upon Jesus, a human being who was born. This happened at the baptism when the Holy Spirit was seen coming to rest upon Christ. Then just before Jesus' crucifixion the Son left Jesus it was claimed. Hence the Son of God did not die, nor did He really become a human being... He just took flesh upon Himself like a coat, and laid it back down after the crucifixion. This was the "spirit of the antichrist" of which John speaks in his first letter. According to Irenćus, Cerinthus claimed angelic inspiration. According to Irenaeus, Polycarp (a direct disciple of the apostle John) told the story that John the Evangelist so detested Cerinthus that he once fled a public bathhouse in Ephesus when he found out Cerinthus was inside, yelling "Let us flee, lest the building fall down; for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is inside!" Against Heresies[/U] III.3.4. He specifically opposed Gnosticism and Cerinthus' docetism form of it in Against Heresies, which was written in about AD 170.]

You can see in both John's gospel and in his first letter how John fought this heretical teaching by making the incarnation clear:

1 John 1:1-3 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have observed, and have handled with our hands, concerning the Word of life -- that life was revealed, and we have seen it and we testify and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us -- what we have seen and heard we also declare to you, so that you may have fellowship along with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

His incarnation is clear above. The we is likely an apostolic we. That He is eternal was also made clear. Look at the prologue of John's gospel:

John 1:1-4; In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were created through Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created. Life was in Him, and that life was the light of men.
Jesus (the Word) has always existed, with the Father. He created all things, and is not a created being Himself.

[9, 10] The true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was created through Him, yet the world did not recognize Him.
He came into the world at a point in time - the incarnation. He was always God. He became a human being at a point in history.

[14, 15] The Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We observed His glory, the glory as the One and Only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John testified concerning Him and exclaimed, "This was the One of whom I said, 'The One coming after me has surpassed me, because He existed before me.'")
Again, probably the apostolic "we." He existed before John the Baptizer. According to Jesus Himself in chapter 8 of John's gospel, He existed before Abraham as well.

[18] No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son -- the One who is at the Father's side -- He has revealed Him.
Jesus' purpose for coming into he world in history was to reveal His Father. BTW, the Greek word translated by some Bibles as "begotten" just means "only," or "one and only." It does not refer to Jesus' physical birth. There was a misunderstanding about this point by earlier translators. Modern studies have clarified this point.



The question, "at what point was God manifest in the flesh" is important because of the implication the answer has with regard to John's "test question":
1 Jn. 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.

BD: See above. Jesus was always deity in the same sense and the same essence as the Father. But He became a human being at His birth. He became a human being. He is still fully human and fully God. He was referred to by Paul as the second Adam. Jesus' incarnation was prophesied first in Genesis 3 regarding the seed of Eve.

This question is also important with regard to the fact that Jesus is said to have been begotten of the Father.

BD: This simply means to have proceeded from Him. Most Bibles correctly translated μονογενὴς as "the one and only from the Father."

Since Jesus was begotten, and since his flesh was exactly like ours while he lived his 30 years down here, Jesus' conception was by a process of Mary's egg being fertilized by a miraculous event of God, God having introduced physical seed into Mary.

The seed has to belong to God as the fertilizing agent in order for Jesus to have been begotten by God; for Jesus to be declared as having come in the flesh.
Since Jesus was a physical being like we are, fully human, and since it is specified that Jesus came in the flesh, having been begotten, which is a very physical event, though in this case not sexual, I understand that God manifesting himself in the flesh had to have been at the physical introduction of seed into Mary.

BD: Agreed. Sounds reasonable. Though scripture does not specifically tell us how it was done.


"Begotten" is a very strong word. It has everything to do with conception by way of seed.
To call Jesus the Son of God and yet deny God begat him is a contradiction of terms.
We are to accept, that though God is a Spirit, he was able, in order to fulfil his word, to introduce physical seed somehow from himself that fertilized Mary's egg.

BD: I do not agree here. That was the understanding about 150 years ago. Since then superior scholarship has determined that it does not have to do with being conceived. People used to think that γενὴς from μονογενὴς referred to γεναώ (to bear). Actually it comes from γἰνομαὶ (to become). μονο means "only," hence the idea is to become the only or to be the "one and only." It simply means "unique," "only" or "one and only." It has nothing to do with conception. Check out almost all modern translations. They translate it as indicated. [I][edited-added: I see that Scruffy Kid said the same thing at the end of his post (#31) above. Nicely explained, Scruffy.]


It was God's Spirit in that begotten flesh that made all the difference with regard to him not sinning and having ability to do miracles etc.
Jesus' physical body was the vehicle for God, who is a Spirit to be manifested in the flesh.
[BD: enlarged and colored red for emphasis.]

BD: ?? Not sure what you mean here, but it sounds pretty heretical to me. Jesus was not inferior in any way to either the Father or the Spirit. Your description above indicates differently. It was declared to be heresy at the councils at Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). The incarnation was miraculous, and the Spirit was involved in the incarnation, agreed, just as the Son and the Spirit were both involved in creation (as was the Father as well, of course). But you need to be cautious about how you express it. You also imply that Jesus did not really become flesh, but simply manifested Himself in a fleshly cover. That is serious error, the kind that John opposed in his first letter as well as his gospel. Jesus' body was not simply a "vehicle." He became flesh!

Jesus was not enabled to not sin because of any action by the Spirit! He did not sin because it is not possible for God to sin! I do not imagine you intend it as such, but this is actually serious heresy. It reduces Jesus to a God inferior or subordinate to the Father and the Spirit as well. It is referred to as "semi-Arianism" or "Eusebianism." It was proposed by Basil of Ancyra and Gregory of Laodicea if you want to research it. Jesus was not subordinate to the Father. The Father and the Son are of one essence, though two Persons.
Also, your reference to Jesus being manifested is essentially modalism (Sabellianism) and a distortion of biblical trinitarianism
Here's Luke's comments:

Luke 1:35 The angel replied to her: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the holy One to be born will be called the Son of God.

Here in James 1 we see that it is not possible for God to be tempted such that He could sin:

James 1:13 No one undergoing a trial should say, "I am being tempted by God." For God is not tempted by evil, and He Himself doesn't tempt anyone.


The word "begotten" is omitted in some places in the modern translations derived from very old but also very deliberately corrupted copies of the NT.
I suppose that 'spirit of antichrist' was responsible for those omissions.
Also the verse declaring that God was manifested in the flesh is also known to be omitted in some versions.
Seems like human reasoning and inability to accept that God was able to do what we cannot explain, was reponsible for such omissions.

BD: Deliberately corrupted? Get serious. The word is not "omitted. It was misunderstood by earlier translators. And it is not missing in some Greek manuscripts. It is correctly translated as "Every spirit who confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God." Obviously if He actually came, He was "manifest" (revealed). The modern translation is a more powerful translation which fully attests Jesus to be both God and man. Here it is in the Greek:

1 John 4:2 ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκετε τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ: πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ ὁμολογεῖ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν,

The bold word above means:
1) to come 1a) of persons 1a1) to come from one place to another, and used both of persons arriving and of those returning 1a2) to appear, make one's appearance, come before the public 2) metaph. 2a) to come into being, arise, come forth, show itself, find place or influence 2b) be established, become known, to come (fall) into or unto 3) to go, to follow one

Now "manifest" kinda works, but "to make His appearance" or "to reveal Himself" or simply "to come" works better. Now let's not turn this into a KJV vs. all the modern translations kind of thread. Let's stick with the OP premise. I believe your premise to be heretical, so I must state that clearly so that no one else gets sucked into this.

I do understand your concern that anyone express Jesus' incarnation in some way as to imply that He did not become a human being. But you have actually opened the gate to just such error. Jesus was revealed, manifest, appeared, came. The spirit of the antichrist of which John speaks is the claim by Cerenthus and his followers that Jesus did not really become a human being. Do not all modern translations, and any others as well, make that absolutely clear?


butchering the genealogical record left us by Luke. It is declared, very contrary to Luke's record, that this record pertains to Mary; giving no respect that it was God's seed that fertilized Mary's egg: Jesus being then recognized as of the seed of David by Joseph, Mary's husband.
The Catholics, on the other hand, declare that Matthew's record belongs to Mary, which is just as much a butchering of the Word, since, like Luke's record, Matthew's record follows men's names from David to Joseph. Not from David to Mary.

I added some comments above in Green. Sorry, but I see no butchering of the Lukan text. I do see heresy in your OP. Perhaps if you expressed it more carefully, that would help. But as you expressed it and I colored in red above, it is serious error. I don't take lightly using the expression "heresy," and I want to assume that there has been some misunderstanding here. But as I read some of the other responses to your posts, and your responses to those, it is clear that you are intentionally espousing heretical teachings. Of course you do not see it as such.

Take care,

BD

BadDog
Jul 6th 2009, 03:37 PM
The Granville-Sharp rule, if correctly applied to Titus 2:13, results in a clear expression of Jesus as God.

There are four texts with grammatical forms proving that Jesus Christ = God based upon the G-S rule (2 Thessalonians. 1:12, 1 Timothy 5:21, Titus 2:13, and 2 Peter 1:1). Each fit the "Granville Sharp" Greek grammatical rule proving 2 titles describe the same person. IOW, in each of those instances above the Greek actually states that Jesus is God - though it is not always as clear in the English.

The format followed is referred to as the NKAN format: noun, "kai" ("καὶ"-conjunction), article (such as "τοῦ"), noun. So we have two nouns, connected by a conjunction and the 2nd noun is articulated. Both nouns are singular and of the same case. In each instance in the NT when this occurs, over 100 cases, it is referring to the same person. It is what is referred to as an "appositive." "My wife and the mother of my children came to see me at work." Is it not clear that "my wife" and "the mother of my children" are referring to the same person, not two? That's what is happening here in Titus 2:13. (You can look up Daniel Wallace's Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics in his chapter on the article for a detailed explanation.)

Here is Titus 2:13 in some modern translations:

HCSB - while we wait for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

NASB - for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus

NRSV - while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ

"God's Word" translation - At the same time we can expect what we hope for--the appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

WEB - looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ;


Greek: προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,


Similarly 1 Timothy 5:21 should read, "I charge you before God, Christ Jesus, and the chosen angels..." or something like that. "Christ Jesus" and "God" are referring to the same person. It doesn't translate smoothly, but that's the meaning.


Also, regarding Jesus' eternal nature (not his incarnation-which occurred at a point in history), John's gospel is so clear:

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were created through Him, and apart from Him not one thing came into being that has come into being. Life was in Him, and that life was the light of men.

Clearly Jesus was with God from the very beginning. Nothing that has come into being came into being apart from Christ, and life emanates from Him.

Take care,

BD

Alaska
Jul 6th 2009, 07:02 PM
It was God's Spirit in that begotten flesh that made all the difference with regard to him not sinning and having ability to do miracles etc.
Jesus' physical body was the vehicle for God, who is a Spirit to be manifested in the flesh.
[BD: enlarged and colored red for emphasis.]

BD: ?? Not sure what you mean here, but it sounds pretty heretical to me. Jesus was not inferior in any way to either the Father or the Spirit. Your description above indicates differently. It was declared to be heresy at the councils at Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). The incarnation was miraculous, and the Spirit was involved in the incarnation, agreed, just as the Son and the Spirit were both involved in creation (as was the Father as well, of course). But you need to be cautious about how you express it. You also imply that Jesus did not really become flesh, but simply manifested Himself in a fleshly cover. That is serious error, the kind that John opposed in his first letter as well as his gospel. Jesus' body was not simply a "vehicle." He became flesh!

Jesus was not enabled to not sin because of any action by the Spirit! He did not sin because it is not possible for God to sin! I do not imagine you intend it as such, but this is actually serious heresy. It reduces Jesus to a God inferior or subordinate to the Father and the Spirit as well.


Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. There is the God element and there is the flesh element. The flesh element is corrupt and sinful by inclination because of Adam.
Jesus therefore experienced temptation like we experience it. But because it was God in Christ (God in the flesh), the flesh inclination to sin was overcome by the power of God in that flesh.
To exalt the state of his flesh is to be antichrist.
If those counsels you refer to above attributed super human abilities to his flesh and not rather recognizing his flesh as identical to ours but that it was God in that flesh that made him "super", then those counsels were heretical.
That is the point that John is making and that exposes that spirit of antichrist because it directly relates to believers who are the body of Christ now.
They are supposed to be God manifest in the flesh, the light of the world, the bread of life. They are the reflection of Christ in them the hope of glory. The body of Christ is supposed to be a continuation of Christ's life in the world manifested in the lives of his followers.
Jesus was godly though possessing the same vile flesh as we.
His ability to be godly is parallelled with us, his brethren and fellow sons of God, who have received the Holy Spirit and are similarly able to become godly having Christ in us the hope of glory. Jesus is the pattern which the body of Christ is to fall in line with, not of themselves, lest they should boast, but by the power of the Holy Spirit and the washing of regeneration by that power.

1 Tim. 3:
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

The ability to become godly as Christians is because of what Jesus did in enabling us to overcome the flesh by the power of the Holy Spirit in the same way that God in Christ enabled him to not sin.



It reduces Jesus to a God inferior or subordinate to the Father and the Spirit as well.

You appear to be unable to make a distinction between Jesus' flesh and God in that flesh.
It was God who reduced himself to taking on the form of a man along with the temptations and negativity of the flesh. He placed limitations on himself for our sakes.
If you equate that to making Jesus a God inferior to the Father, I think you have some serious theological problems. There seems to be a line of reasoning behind this similar to what is seen among Muslims.

God was manifest in the flesh. The flesh was conceived like ours and was fully human like ours. That flesh had its beginning at conception.
That Word that was manifested in that flesh was from everlasting and could therefore refer to having seen Abraham etc.
Do you suppose The Word had some fleshly bodily form dwelling somehow in the spiritual realm and that like got compressed like a computer file and turned into the seed which fertilized Mary so that Jesus' physical body as an adult is like some kind of decompressed program remanifested?

Our bodies are our houses or temples or vehicles if you will. In this sense as we would relate our own bodies to ourselves is where I am coming from.
To exalt his flesh prior to his death and resurrection as somehow having an edge over ours as being different is what John's test question is all about because that manifests an opposing mindset and spirit to the truth of the Gospel message.



He became flesh!



In the context which you present this, it would seem that becoming flesh would be in the sense that the flesh is not differentiated from the Spirit so that the concept of Jesus' flesh presenting problems like temptation, if occurring at all, would be quite different than what we experience in our flesh as normal flesh and blood. To designate Jesus as not normal flesh and blood is what manifests 'that spirit of antichrist'.

Were not those counsels of which you speak basically Catholic?
When was the first leader of the Caths appointed (That man that goes by that "P" word)
God has left us the written Word to which all doctrine, no matter how long held and cherished is able to be scrutinized and corrected if need be.
Modern Christianity is in serious need of reformation not unlike in Luther's time when the religious machine then had people thoroughly under control and without knowledge of some of even the most basic understandings.

BadDog
Jul 7th 2009, 12:36 AM
Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. There is the God element and there is the flesh element. The flesh element is corrupt and sinful by inclination because of Adam.
BD: Got no problem here, regarding mankind, but this is not true regarding Christ since as God he did not have a sin nature. I quoted James 1:12 before where it says that God cannot be tempted to sin. Jesus is the perfect man. Like Adam and Eve before the fall. Jesus is God - fully. (Colossians 2:9 - For in Him the entire fullness of deity dwells bodily)

Jesus therefore experienced temptation like we experience it. But because it was God in Christ (God in the flesh), the flesh inclination to sin was overcome by the power of God in that flesh.
BD: Yes, He experienced temptation, but it was not possible for Him to fall, since He did not have a sin nature.

To exalt the state of his flesh is to be antichrist.
If those counsels you refer to above attributed super human abilities to his flesh and not rather recognizing his flesh as identical to ours but that it was God in that flesh that made him "super", then those counsels were heretical.
That is the point that John is making and that exposes that spirit of antichrist because it directly relates to believers who are the body of Christ now.
BD: Where do you get this from scripture?! (Bold above) Do you call Adam (before the fall) a super human? You cannot mix the divine and the human natures of Christ. And pretty much 99% of Christianity accepted what was concluded in those councils. I only mention them as they are typically the basis for recognizing teachings as heretical. In those councils men of God came together to deal with specific issues in the church, and try to come to an agreement regarding what scripture teaches.

Jesus was fully divine and fully human. To combine (mix) his natures is dangerous as it reduces the divinity of Christ. It makes Him subordinate to the Father. You cannot be 99% divine. Either you are God, or you are not. By its very meaning you cannot become God. God must exist outside time. Even relativity theory affirms this.

He was a human being, as we are. He appeared physically just like us. But He did not have a sin nature since He did not inherit it from Adam. He experienced temptations, they were heavy upon Him, though it was not possible for Him to be tempted to sin (James 1:12). His divine nature did not overpower His human nature.


They are supposed to be God manifest in the flesh, the light of the world, the bread of life. They are the reflection of Christ in them the hope of glory. The body of Christ is supposed to be a continuation of Christ's life in the world manifested in the lives of his followers.
BD: I talked about the meaning of those verses in my previous post. You have not addressed what I said, so should I assume you agree?



Jesus was godly though possessing the same vile flesh as we.
BD: Absolutely NOT! He did not inherit the sin nature since He did not descend (after the flesh) from Adam. He did not have the "same vile flesh" as we have. He experienced the same sort of temptations as we do.


His ability to be godly is parallelled with us, his brethren and fellow sons of God, who have received the Holy Spirit and are similarly able to become godly having Christ in us the hope of glory. Jesus is the pattern which the body of Christ is to fall in line with, not of themselves, lest they should boast, but by the power of the Holy Spirit and the washing of regeneration by that power.
BD: What you are saying is that we can be just as Christ since we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. That is anathema. We can live victoriously (though not perfectly without sin) since we have trusted Christ and been indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Jesus lived without sinning, even once, in thought, deed or attitude. In John 1:14 we read that "we" (apostolic we) beheld His glory-glory as of the one and only (unique one) from the Father. Such glory cannot be evidenced by any human-even those re-born.


1 Tim. 3:
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
BD: Jesus was "revealed in the flesh to mankind, justified (declared to be righteous-vindicated) in (by) the Spirit, seen by angels, preached to the Gentiles, believed in by many in the world, ascended to glory." Jesus demonstrated that he was the Son of God by the aforementioned ways. He did not become godly by such. That would be to say that Jesus was not God while here upon the earth.


The ability to become godly as Christians is because of what Jesus did in enabling us to overcome the flesh by the power of the Holy Spirit in the same way that God in Christ enabled him to not sin.
BD: I spoke on this earlier. We do not become godly in the same way that Jesus became godly. He was and always will be 100% godly. We can never become 100% sinless while we live in this flesh. When we receive our new resurrected bodies, we will not sin, though we will not become just like Jesus. That ignores His deity.


You appear to be unable to make a distinction between Jesus' flesh and God in that flesh.
It was God who reduced himself to taking on the form of a man along with the temptations and negativity of the flesh. He placed limitations on himself for our sakes.
If you equate that to making Jesus a God inferior to the Father, I think you have some serious theological problems. There seems to be a line of reasoning behind this similar to what is seen among Muslims.
BD: No, I have no such problem. What I have done is refuse to mix Jesus' natures into one god-man nature. Jesus IS God. You seem to have a serious issue with the deity of Christ. I'll talk about that after this quote.
Now I agree that he limited the exercise of certain non-moral attributes while here on the earth. I agree with the underlined above, but not the bold. He did not reduce Himself. To do so is to not be God. Either you're God or you're not.


God was manifest in the flesh. The flesh was conceived like ours and was fully human like ours. That flesh had its beginning at conception.
BD: Sounds basically correct. The last "like" should not be equated to "just like."


That Word that was manifested in that flesh was from everlasting and could therefore refer to having seen Abraham etc.
BD: Good. Glad to hear that you hold to the eternalness of Christ.

Do you suppose The Word had some fleshly bodily form dwelling somehow in the spiritual realm and that like got compressed like a computer file and turned into the seed which fertilized Mary so that Jesus' physical body as an adult is like some kind of decompressed program remanifested?
BD: From what of that which I've said did you infer such an idea? The Bible does not say just how the Son came into Mary's womb, but He was conceived of the Spirit, though obviously not in the same manner as we were. It appears that we do not agree completely here, but I don't see it as a big deal.


Our bodies are our houses or temples or vehicles if you will. In this sense as we would relate our own bodies to ourselves is where I am coming from.
To exalt his flesh prior to his death and resurrection as somehow having an edge over ours as being different is what John's test question is all about because that manifests an opposing mindset and spirit to the truth of the Gospel message.
BD: Understood. Thx. But Jesus' body was different. It does not violate John's test. Jesus came in the flesh. I affirm it. He did not have a sin nature, which we have through Adam. That's why Paul refers to Him as the second Adam. I do not think that Jesus' body was different in the sense of not growing weary, needing to be fed, and other bodily functions. It was the same in every way in that regard. But He did not and could not sin.

If you do not agree with the portion above that Jesus "could not sin," I got no problem with that, as some Christians hold to the peccability of Christ, and some hold to my position (impeccable). The issue is that he did not sin and did not have a sin nature.


In the context which you present this, it would seem that becoming flesh would be in the sense that the flesh is not differentiated from the Spirit so that the concept of Jesus' flesh presenting problems like temptation, if occurring at all, would be quite different than what we experience in our flesh as normal flesh and blood. To designate Jesus as not normal flesh and blood is what manifests 'that spirit of antichrist'.
BD: No, that is not what I think. I simply say that Jesus did not have a sin nature.


Were not those counsels of which you speak basically Catholic?
When was the first leader of the Caths appointed (That man that goes by that "P" word)
BD: Well, it depends what you mean by "catholic." If you mean universal church, then "yes." But otherwise, "no." The RCC did not start before Gregory the Great (590) at the earliest. Now Catholics will not agree, but then they say the RCC started with Peter, the first Pope and Bishop of Rome - which would mean around 60AD. I do not think either of us agree with that. (Peter was never the bishop of Rome, though he did visit it and it is generally accepted that he was executed by Nero around 64AD or so.)

The point is that the churches from every city in the empire participated - leaders (bishops) from over 300 cities were present at the Nicean Council in AD 325.

And the conclusions of those councils mentioned are accepted by nearly every denomination in Protestant churches and Eastern Orthodox churches today as well. They are referred to as the first, second, etc. ecumenical councils. They are not Catholic councils. During the mid to late middle ages there were essentially Catholic councils, but remember, there was no other, except the Greek Orthodox church at that time. The councils I mentioned were not Catholic councils.


God has left us the written Word to which all doctrine, no matter how long held and cherished is able to be scrutinized and corrected if need be.
Modern Christianity is in serious need of reformation not unlike in Luther's time when the religious machine then had people thoroughly under control and without knowledge of some of even the most basic understandings.

BD: Agree. But they needed to come to an agreement regarding what the scriptures said on various issues.

Alaska,

Again, I commented within the text above in green text. Now do you hold that Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God who has always and will always live, is fully God in the same manner as the Father and Spirit?

Here's the Nicene creed (as improved upon in Constantinople-AD 381) as it relates to the Son:
We believe in... and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (ćons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

Again, "begotten" means that He is the one and only from the Father. Now if you can say "amen" to each point here, you're thinking here is sound. Here's the "apostolic creed," though it did not come from the Apostles, as claimed by some. It's more basic, and earlier (late 2nd century):
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

Alaska, let's not argue over whether or not you or I are heretics. I imagine that we both are holding to some twists of doctrine that would be considered heretical by some. The issue is your OP and how you described the incarnation of Christ and how He is both God and man at the same time. (Hypostatic union.)

BD

Alaska
Jul 7th 2009, 02:12 AM
this is not true regarding Christ since as God he did not have a sin nature

Again there is this confusion and denial that Jesus was all man: This lack of ability of drawing a distinction between the spiritual and the fleshly.
He was tempted in all points as we are. He had to be "Adam" as the rest of us are, in order to redeem us. Of course he had a sin nature or he was not made of the seed of Abraham as watchinginawe has aptly pointed out.
I understand that statement of yours above is exactly the kind of thing the test question given by John was intended to catch and manifest as antichrist.
We understand we are both addressing doctrinal positions as antichrist or heretical. We can do that without being in strife and despiteful. It is the positions we are discussing and not the persons holding them.

Sirus
Jul 7th 2009, 02:39 AM
what is 'sin nature'?

watchinginawe
Jul 7th 2009, 02:58 AM
what is 'sin nature'?I think reformed theology would say that man's "sin nature" is defined by man's total depravity. Extending that thought, since Jesus was not totally depraved, He did not have a "sin nature". I think I am going to refrain from discussing the reformed doctrines for a spell though.

I believe that the "sin nature", or that which was brought about by sin in the fall of man, is composed of birth, as in pro-creation, death, as in corruption and a certain end, and the knowledge of good and evil. I believe Jesus partook of the entire nature of man, and thus the "sin nature". Jesus was victorious over man's "sin nature" in all aspects; in His birth, in His submission and obedience, and in His death. All of this being shown openly in His resurrection and glorification.

The knowledge of good and evil allows for condemnation. We can look some at Romans 7 and see how that operates. But I should mention that many take the following passage as the struggle within the born again Christian. (Some theologies neccessitate this because of verse 22, and others.) I don't see it that way though. In either case, I think it explains how we as man struggle with sin.

Romans 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

God Bless!

Zack702
Jul 7th 2009, 03:00 AM
Wasn't Jesus a physical being like us, fully human?


It in the bible that Adam was created out of water and dirt.
And Eve out of Adam.

Also in there is Jesus came by blood and water.

So then maybe that is a clue on how his birth may of been different.

Jesus had all the symptoms of being human. But I do think his birth was a little different than ours.

slightlypuzzled
Jul 7th 2009, 04:22 AM
The question, "at what point was God manifest in the flesh" is important because of the implication the answer has with regard to John's "test question":
1 Jn. 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.



This question is also important with regard to the fact that Jesus is said to have been begotten of the Father.

Since Jesus was begotten, and since his flesh was exactly like ours while he lived his 30 years down here, Jesus' conception was by a process of Mary's egg being fertilized by a miraculous event of God, God having introduced physical seed into Mary.
The seed has to belong to God as the fertilizing agent in order for Jesus to have been begotten by God; for Jesus to be declared as having come in the flesh.
Since Jesus was a physical being like we are, fully human, and since it is specified that Jesus came in the flesh, having been begotten, which is a very physical event, though in this case not sexual, I understand that God manifesting himself in the flesh had to have been at the physical introduction of seed into Mary.

"Begotten" is a very strong word. It has everything to do with conception by way of seed.
To call Jesus the Son of God and yet deny God begat him is a contradiction of terms.
We are to accept, that though God is a Spirit, he was able, in order to fulfil his word, to introduce physical seed somehow from himself that fertilized Mary's egg.

It was God's Spirit in that begotten flesh that made all the difference with regard to him not sinning and having ability to do miracles etc.
Jesus' physical body was the vehicle for God, who is a Spirit to be manifested in the flesh.

The word "begotten" is omitted in some places in the modern translations derived from very old but also very deliberately corrupted copies of the NT.
I suppose that 'spirit of antichrist' was responsible for those omissions.
Also the verse declaring that God was manifested in the flesh is also known to be omitted in some versions.
Seems like human reasoning and inability to accept that God was able to do what we cannot explain, was reponsible for such omissions.

This kind of reasoning may also be responsible for butchering the genealogical record left us by Luke. It is declared, very contrary to Luke's record, that this record pertains to Mary; giving no respect that it was God's seed that fertilized Mary's egg: Jesus being then recognized as of the seed of David by Joseph, Mary's husband.
The Catholics, on the other hand, declare that Matthew's record belongs to Mary, which is just as much a butchering of the Word, since, like Luke's record, Matthew's record follows men's names from David to Joseph. Not from David to Mary.




Mary could just have been the vessel for the development....in a nutshell, we are not told when, or what or all that much of what you want to know. It's possible that God used nothing from Mary. All we are told is that from an early age, Jesus was aware of 'his father's work', that Jesus is the Word made flesh, that in him [Jesus] dwelt the fullness of the God head bodily...
The angel Gabriel told Mary
Luke 2:34Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"

35The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

It was by the power of God that the child was put in her womb, and it was because of that power in the child that Jesus was to be called the Son of God.

Alaska
Jul 7th 2009, 07:00 AM
I don't see it that way though. In either case, I think it explains how we as man struggle with sin.

I believe that Rom. 7 in that section is Paul using himself in the first person to explain by way of testimony the situation all men face with regard to knowing what is right but sin getting them to do otherwise.
This is not his testimony as a Christian but a reflection from experience before becoming a Christian of that state of condemnation and guilt and defeat under the power of sin. His question, "who shall deliver me" is answered in the next chapter where he declares the victory over that former state that he lived under. This victory is walking in the Spirit, a law or principle being dominant there over the former law or principle that he had previously been dominated by as an unbeliever.
Sin nature is by those words simply the human nature or tendency to sin inherited from Adam.
Jesus was human and therefore had the sin nature as far as the flesh pulling him toward sin as in temptation. But temptation is not sin. Yielding to temptation is sin. He did not yield to temptation when tempted but behaved in the same manner that Christians behave who have the Spirit who are tempted, but by that Spirit do not yield to it.
So His flesh was the same as ours in every way physically and also every way as far as the works-of-the-flesh tendency that accompanies human flesh.
To deny this and hence the victory of the Spirit over this conflict against the strong power of the sin nature of the flesh, is to deny Christ's fundamental purpose in dying for us. He died for us so he could get us to that state of conquering the works of the flesh by the Holy Spirit like he did.
We should be able to see by this how those denying that Jesus is come in the flesh, are manifesting "that spirit of antichrist".

1 Jn. 3:
7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Titus 2:
14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity

1 Pet. 2:
24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness

Rom. 1:
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

Titus. 2:
11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, 12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

It makes a lot of sense for God to have provided a test question for Christians to be able to identify that spirit of antichrist by that spirit's denial of what could be called the most basic purpose for Christ's coming.

"Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" though a short phrase, appears to be multi faceted and far reaching in its ability to manifest that spirit of antichrist.
The "saved, not of works" folks are, I believe, designated as antichrist by the far reaching and exposing power of that test question as revealed by the above quoted scriptures.
Those declaring that Jesus was in a way partly angelic or whatever, not fully flesh and blood as we are, I believe, are also exposed as under the influence.
The influence of that spirit appears very involved in the denial that Jesus was begotten by the father in Mary. Jesus being designated as conceived, but not begotten, I believe, is a very subtil twist, opening the door for the Jesus-not-fully-flesh manifestation of that spirit.
And this appears to have some connection with a further manifestation of that spirit as seen in a polytheistic view of who God is.

I had always believed that somehow John's test question had a connection with exposing the polytheistic lean given to Christianity by certain explanations of the Godhead. This discussion has clarified and affirmed that as a reality in my understanding.
I believe any explanation of the Godhead making Christianity semi-polytheistic is the direct result of that spirit of antichrist through the denial that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

BadDog
Jul 7th 2009, 02:28 PM
This is not true regarding Christ since as God he did not have a sin nature


In the context which you present this, it would seem that becoming flesh would be in the sense that the flesh is not differentiated from the Spirit so that the concept of Jesus' flesh presenting problems like temptation, if occurring at all, would be quite different than what we experience in our flesh as normal flesh and blood. To designate Jesus as not normal flesh and blood is what manifests 'that spirit of antichrist'.

No, that is not what I think. I simply say that Jesus did not have a sin nature.



Again there is this confusion and denial that Jesus was all man: This lack of ability of drawing a distinction between the spiritual and the fleshly.
He was tempted in all points as we are. He had to be "Adam" as the rest of us are, in order to redeem us. Of course he had a sin nature or he was not made of the seed of Abraham as watchinginawe has aptly pointed out.
I understand that statement of yours above is exactly the kind of thing the test question given by John was intended to catch and manifest as antichrist.
We understand we are both addressing doctrinal positions as antichrist or heretical. We can do that without being in strife and despiteful. It is the positions we are discussing and not the persons holding them.
Alaska,

The confusion is what it means to be human. Jesus was 100% human--the perfect man. He did not have a sin nature. IOW he did not have the nature such that when encountering temptation He would inevitably sin at some point. After the fall, mankind changed. Why the confusion over this?

Now, regarding your last paragraph, how can you understand simply saying that Jesus is God and we are not as being equivalent to saying that Jesus did not come in the flesh? Let's look at that text again:

1 John 4:1-3 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

This is how you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit who confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the fleshF15 is from God. But every spirit who does not confess JesusF16 is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist; you have heard that he is coming, and he is already in the world now.
F15: Or confesses Jesus to be the Christ come in the flesh

I fully confess (acknowledge) that Jesus came in the flesh--became a human being. You are defining a human to be one that sins (whether you recognize it or not).

1 Timothy 3:15, 16 But if I should be delayed, [I have written] so that you will know how people ought to act in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. And most certainly, the mystery of godliness is great:

He was manifested in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit,
seen by angels,
preached among the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.

To be manifested in the flesh simply means that He was revealed to mankind at the incarnation.

BD

theBelovedDisciple
Jul 7th 2009, 07:49 PM
Manifested the flesh...

He was manifested in the flesh.. because He was Sent by the Father... He took on NOT the nature of Angels..

but of His Brethern..

partakers of flesh and blood...


It Behoved Him to be made like unto His Brethern...

so that thru Death.. His Physical death.. and Subsequent Resurrection from the Dead....... in His Flesh and Blood... he could destroy him that had the power of death.. that is the devil... to set those free from the bondage of the fear of death.. who satan holds captive.... He did this thru His Own Sacraficial Death.. by the Grace of God... He has 'tasted' death for every living soul.. and He conquered it by His Pure and Sinless Life...

He came into this World at the Incarnation.. when the Holy Spirit came upon Mary.. and He became a baby in the womb... He was born and grew up.. and fullfilled what He was Sent and Called to do by the Father.. that is to Die on a Bloody Tree... and He arose from the Dead.. and Ascended on High on the clouds.. and is seated at the Right Hand of the Power of God.. and He will Return Again to this Earth.. in all Power and Glory..

the Revelation of Jesus the Christ..

God was revealed To Isreal and this planet in the Person of Jesus the Christ... God in the flesh... His 1st Advent... He came as the suffering Servant of Isaiah... the Lamb Slain from the Foundation of the World...

but He is coming again.. His 2nd Advent..... from Heaven.....at His Revelation... this public and global... He is coming from Heaven.. in all Power and Glory.. and He is Coming with His Armies and Saints by His Side... as lightning lights the sky from the east to the west...


so shall it be in the Day when the Son of Man is Revealed from Heaven with all power and Glory..

BadDog
Jul 7th 2009, 09:46 PM
Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tested in every way as we are, yet without sin.

I thought it might be good to comment briefly on the idea of just how Jesus was tempted.

Jesus was tempted in the same sort of things with which we are tempted. Unlike every other person, however, those temptations did not originate from within Himself. They were not temptations arising from fallen sinful flesh such as in the case of every other human, but the temptations placed in front of him by Satan and others. The phrase in Hebrews 4:15 which says that he was tempted in every way as we are actually says "κατὰ πάντα καθ' ὁμοιότητα" meaning "according to every respect," or "according to the likeness" in which we are tempted. So Jesus was tempted according to the ways that we are tempted. It was not identical to how we are tempted.

Some would say that if it was not possible for Jesus to sin that He really cannot relate to sin in every aspect that we've experienced it. However one who endures a temptation yet without sinning has actually resisted temptation farther and knows its full force better than those who do not.

So Jesus is quite familiar with this vehicle of temptation - the flesh. But those temptations originated from outside His flesh, since He has never fallen and did not inherit Adam's fallen sin nature.

BD

BadDog
Jul 7th 2009, 10:15 PM
What we should really be asking is not the meaning of "begotten" but the meaning of "μονογενῆς," the Greek word translated by a few Bibles as "begotten." That is not the correct meaning of the word. I am going to post part of a recent post by Alaska below, then repeat what Scruffy Kid and I have already posted on this:


The Word did not become flesh until Jesus was conceived, hence, the only begotten had not been begotten until then. This is with the understanding that begotten relates to conception and does not in any way relate to the existance of the Word from everlasting.
As the above verses show, the Word was God. God is inseparable from His Word. He is the Word. The Word is from everlasting because God is from everlasting.
The verses from Psalms declaring "This day have I begotten thee" are prophetic, like "my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me".
If someone would simply accept the basic definition of begotten, they would not have made such an error.
Jesus is the only begotten son of the father. No other manifestation of God, as it were in the flesh, such as the possible case with Melchizadech, was the result of a begetting from the womb and growing into maturity as is the case with Jesus.

You have lots of speculation such as the three angels appearing to Abraham.
God is omnipotent, he is capable of manifesting himself in the flesh at any time he chooses instantly.
But if he were to do that, that would not be a begetting. A begetting is a conception. The begetter causes the conception.

Take Adam. He was not begotten. He was created fully mature and programmed with speech, intelligence, ability to walk etc.
Though Jesus is the last Adam, (being the second Adam) he is the only begotten son. There is no other. Only one was "begotten".
Jesus was the "one and only" Son of God. The unique Son of God. It means "only, one of a kind, one and only, unique." It can be used of an only child and when thus viewed in relation to their parents it indicates that the child is the one and only child of its parents. Jesus was the one and only Son from the Father. People improperly get this metaphysical idea of μονογενῆς (translated by the KJV as "begotten"), as if it has to do with physical birth. In English begotten means to bring about, and can specifically mean to bring about through the conception process. That is not what this is referring to in John 1:18 and John 3:16 based on the Greek.

As Scruffy Kid has pointed out, there is a misunderstanding about the root of the Greek word, μονογενῆς. γενῆς is not related to γεναώ (to bear), as people used to think that γενὴς from μονογενὴς derived. Actually it comes from γἰνομαὶ (to become). It hence does not refer to human conception at all, though if one is an only child he is a μονογενῆς child.

Now just FYI, from above, I agree that Jesus was not incarnate, did not take on flesh, until His birth. He was always God. He became a human being at a point in time. He has not always been a human being.

CYL,

BD

Alaska
Jul 7th 2009, 10:43 PM
The corrupted manuscripts being used have ommitted "God was manifest in the flesh". There is a subtil difference to "He was manifest in the flesh".
The corrupted manuscripts have also omitted "only begotten", which again lends to Satan's overall attempt (successful) at subtilly contradicting the great exposing effect of John's test question.
Making Jesus not experiencing temptation as we, making his flesh different, which is exactly what BD has done, qualifies such a position as antichrist.
The assumption that if the temptation came from within his own flesh, like with us, somehow makes Jesus sinful, is a wrong assumption as is one among many assumptions responsible for the carnal reasoning behind the little leaven that has leavened the whole lump in this embarrassing expose of the spirit of antichrist having run rampant for so long in professing Christianity.