RE: In the Beginning

[RickD]

KBCid wrote:

We either agree that Christ came out from the father or he did not. If you don't believe Jesus came out from his father and has his fathers nature then that would be your free willed choice to so believe. But I fear God and will in no way make such an assertion.
Remember my goal is to test my understanding based on other peoples understanding so if we have a differing opinion here then it should be quite easy to say "here is where you are wrong" and "here is the scripture which explains why it is wrong".

As jlay tried to explain to you before, Jesus is fully God, and is fully human. Jesus existed eternally before his incarnation. It's certainly a difficult concept for us to understand. For example, is Mary the mother of God, or the mother of Jesus? Some would say, "what's the difference?". The difference is that Mary is the mother of Jesus in the flesh, not Jesus Christ, the eternal Word. At least that's how I see it. It is difficult for my finite mind, to understand an infinite God. IMO, the confusion lies in the duality of Christ. There's a fine line between the Jesus Christ of scripture, and all other Jesuses who are someone other than the eternal God, manifest in the flesh.

KBCid, your ideas about Jesus being the first creation of God the father, reeks of Jehovah's Witness theology. See here.

Jesus is Jehovah’s most precious Son—and for good reason. He is called “the firstborn of all creation,” for he was God’s first creation.# (Colossians 1:15) There is something else that makes this Son special. He is the “only-begotten Son.” (John 3:16) This means that Jesus is the only one directly created by God. Jesus is also the only one whom God used when He created all other things. (Colossians 1:16) Then, too, Jesus is called “the Word.” (John 1:14) This tells us that he spoke for God, no doubt delivering messages and instructions to the Father’s other sons, both spirit and human.

[KBCid]

As jlay tried to explain to you before, Jesus is fully God, and is fully human.

To assert that Jesus is 'fully' God is to assert that they are not only one in spirit and form but are also not unique entities. Is this how you see it? You really need to answer the question "is Jesus the Son of God or not" I have asked this several times now and you have not responded to it.

Jesus existed eternally before his incarnation. It's certainly a difficult concept for us to understand. For example, is Mary the mother of God, or the mother of Jesus? Some would say, "what's the difference?". The difference is that Mary is the mother of Jesus in the flesh, not Jesus Christ, the eternal Word. At least that's how I see it. It is difficult for my finite mind, to understand an infinite God. IMO, the confusion lies in the duality of Christ. There's a fine line between the Jesus Christ of scripture, and all other Jesuses who are someone other than the eternal God, manifest in the flesh.

I have no opinion about the state of Jesus relative to the Father in the time prior to 'in the beginning'. All I do know based on scripture is that God the father and Jesus his son worked together to create the heavens and the earth. Thus, each unique entity was in existence prior to the biblical account. Beyond that I am not very big on speculation for anything I cannot specifically refer to from scripture.
Mary was a vessel that carried the 'created' vessel which Christ came to exist in and in this form the holy spirit also dwelled. She was properly the mother of the human created part of Christs new form. It seems so strange that catholics pray to Mary as though she has a divinity derived from her proximity to the holy vessel she carried. Yet somehow a huge number of people that consider themselves catholic and assert a belief in God and his Son believe this is ok. How easy it seems that man is willing to add to what God has commanded.

KBCid, your ideas about Jesus being the first creation of God the father, reeks of Jehovah's Witness theology. See

So even though I have stated multiple times that Jesus is an emergence from the father and 'NOT CREATED' you are going to make a direct assertion that I am saying the same thing as the JW's do? interesting.
JW's believe Christ is not divine.... I say he is equal with his father.
JW's believe that God created the son just as we are a creation. I've stated many times now that Christ was not created.
JW's believe begotten is another way of saying created. This is an error. Parents do not create their children. A child is an emergence from the parents. No one designs their children. Here is a fair analogy;

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
God gave Adam an equal... taken from his own person that was;
Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
This was a shadow of how God viewed that equality could be attained for living beings. take a part of someone out and they are essentially equal. Since Christ came out directly from his father how would he not be equal with him?
JW's dishonor God and Christ by asserting that Christ is less than his father.

So far I have been accused of being a mormon and a JW even though I have specifically stated I am not part of any christian sect. I have reviewed the beliefs of many sects and found them to have many differences in comparison to what I have come to understand.
I have not tried to fit anyone here into any type of niche. I have not talked down or hateful towards anyone. I have been as respectful to everyone and their individual beliefs as I can possibly be. I would hope that I can receive in kind the same as I give.
If there is a specific part of a posting that there is disagreement on then let us make an honest exchange about the specific points within the post rather than making inferences beyond the text.

[PaulSacramento]

Jw's also believe that Jesus was the Archangel Michael before he was Incarnate in the Flesh as Jesus.
I am pretty sure that KBCid doesn't believe any of that.
I think what is getting mixed up here is IF KBCid believes that if there was ANY point BEFORE creation in which Jesus as The Word, didn't exist at all.

[KBCid]

Jw's also believe that Jesus was the Archangel Michael before he was Incarnate in the Flesh as Jesus.
I am pretty sure that KBCid doesn't believe any of that.

Yay I get a positive vote!!!! and you sir would be right. My reviews of both mormonism and JW's revealed their mass of error fairly quickly. Not to say however that I know the truth more than any other here. Its just that the illogic of their concepts hurts my head.

I think what is getting mixed up here is IF KBCid believes that if there was ANY point BEFORE creation in which Jesus as The Word, didn't exist at all.

This is quite close. From scripture we are told that Christ (the word) was there for every creation. The unknown part is whether there was any creation prior to the biblical one. I will be the first to say that I have nothing to infer such a thing. I am restricted to the extent that the text allows and so far I can see only a glimps of what existed just prior to the first act of creation. The question of whether the Son and Father always existed is unanswerable. The only thing we are told is that the Son has a Father and they together created all things and who am I to question such a plainly described assertion.

[RickD]

KBCid wrote:

The question of whether the Son and Father always existed is unanswerable.

Here's where we disagree. I believe it is answerable. In order to be the uncaused cause, of everything that has been created, God must have always existed. Unless you're claiming that God himself was created. Then there was an uncaused cause of God, and that uncaused cause would be the real God. I don't see what's so difficult about understanding this. If I can understand it, it must be pretty basic.

The unknown part is whether there was any creation prior to the biblical one.

There was another creation besides the heavens and the earth. The creation of angels. Were angels created before the big bang? Since the big bang is the creation of our physical universe, and angels are spiritual beings, then it's possible that they were created before the big bang. You would have to agree, biblically speaking, that the angels were created, and some fell, before man sinned, correct?

[KBCid]

Begotten would relate to the dual nature of Christ in the flesh.

I would disagree on this.

I John 4:9: "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him."

As we can clearly see in this verse Christ was Gods only begotten Son prior to being sent into this world.

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

again it is confirmed that the Son existed with the Father prior to his incarnation.

Probably one of the most confusing and mind twisting aspects of the incarnation. One, that for me (at least if I'm being honest) seems to raise questions about the unchanging nature of God. I'm only saying raise questions, not challenging the immutability of God. "but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." Phil 2:7

Confusion can begin when someone puts a line in the sand and says "this is specifically what unchanging means" I challenge the concept of what is believed as unchanging when it concerns God. If God is unchanging then why would he begin a creation? If he had made no creation prior to ours then why would he start? He obviously changed from not creating to creating. So what is really meant by unchanging? Where does one draw the line between what is an acceptable action that allows for the description of unchanging. What if it simply means that he remains holy. Can a being begin to create and still be holy and thus unchanging? Can he have a son and remain holy and still unchanging. By what measure do we interpret unchanging? by human understanding?

The view in Classical Theism is that God is really completely seperate from the universe. So, when Jesus came to be, we see how Phil. 2:7 is incredibly amazing.

The classical view is the tradition of mans understanding right? How many times does the bible denounce the traditions of men? Man has notoriously altered the simple commands of God and passed these errors on to following generations. Each of us is responsible for his own soul, where do you draw the line on what to accept from others.

2Ki 13:2 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, and followed the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat...
2Ki 21:20 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, as his father Manasseh did.
2Ki 23:32 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his fathers had done.
2Ki 24:19 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that Jehoiakim had done.
Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Mat 15:6 Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition...
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men...
Mar 7:9 ...Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men...

In the beginning, the Word was both with God and God. Can anyone here really understand that? Honestly?

actually yes I can. Consider this; Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. In this verse we see God finding a help meet for his new creation... man. What would be an equal for Adam since he was made in the likeness of God?
Gen 2:21-22 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

The only equal for him would be that which came from within his own self. That which was a part of him. These verses reveal the Thinking of God himself and what did God find was a help meet for himself...... That which came directly from himself... his son... the word.

Then the Word BECAME flesh. (John 1:14) And let us not forget that is says, Christ, being in the form of God "made Himself nothing, TAKING the nature...."

Of course Christ was obligated to suffer in an eqivalent state as we would. Otherwise how would his sacrifice have any meaning.

Heb 2:17 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.
Heb 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

[RickD]

KBCid wrote:

I John 4:9: "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him."

As we can clearly see in this verse Christ was Gods only begotten Son prior to being sent into this world.

Sorry, KBCid, I'm with jlay on this one. It's not clear that Christ was The Fathers only begotten son before his incarnation. I think this is where the disagreement lies. I believe Christ becomes "begotten", when he takes his dual nature. That way, the son is eternally existent, and unchanging in nature.

[KBCid]

The question of whether the Son and Father always existed is unanswerable.

Here's where we disagree. I believe it is answerable. In order to be the uncaused cause, of everything that has been created, God must have always existed.Unless you're claiming that God himself was created. Then there was an uncaused cause of God, and that uncaused cause would be the real God. I don't see what's so difficult about understanding this. If I can understand it, it must be pretty basic.

It would appear that you are not really taking in what that sentence means nor are you considering what I have said in previous posts. There is no question that we have been told about the eternal existence of God the father and I assert that God has always existed and I have asserted this a multitude of times;

This first verse begins by asserting that God -The uncaused cause

by KBCid » Thu May 03, 2012 1:07 am

And then The eternal God makes his first command!!!

by KBCid » Thu May 03, 2012 1:07 am

God the father who is a unique being is eternal existing always.

by KBCid » Thu May 03, 2012 12:50 pm

God is eternal, he has always existed and will always exist. He is the uncaused cause.

by KBCid » Tue May 01, 2012 12:51 am

From what I have read in the biblical text God experiences time, it simply has no effect on his persistant existence.

by KBCid » Tue May 01, 2012 12:51 am

So what did that sentence mean if it wasn't in reference to the fathers continuous eternal existence? I'll try expressing this a different way; "The question of whether the Son 'as well as the' Father always existed (as a unique entity) is unanswerable."

The unknown part is whether there was any creation prior to the biblical one.

There was another creation besides the heavens and the earth. The creation of angels. Were angels created before the big bang? Since the big bang is the creation of our physical universe, and angels are spiritual beings, then it's possible that they were created before the big bang.

Hey an actual point of difference that we can examine. Pls provide the scriptural support for the big bang.

You would have to agree, biblically speaking, that the angels were created, and some fell, before man sinned, correct?

I would agree that angels are a creation. A great question here would be "were they created as part of this creation?"
I have no scriptural support for 'some' falling before man sinned. I only have reference to satans initial fall. I must also admit that I have not seriously studied all the aspects pertaining to angels so this could be a very fruitful exchange on this subject and I must admit this is a very intriguing subject.

[KBCid]

Sorry, KBCid, I'm with jlay on this one. It's not clear that Christ was The Fathers only begotten son before his incarnation. I think this is where the disagreement lies. I believe Christ becomes "begotten", when he takes his dual nature. That way, the son is eternally existent, and unchanging in nature.

Alright this is good. Would you mind if we do a bit of exploration from scripture and see what texts led us to our current conclusions?
It will be several days for me to review my notes and how my understanding was derived.

Thx for clarifying a point

[RickD]

Sorry, KBCid, I'm with jlay on this one. It's not clear that Christ was The Fathers only begotten son before his incarnation. I think this is where the disagreement lies. I believe Christ becomes "begotten", when he takes his dual nature. That way, the son is eternally existent, and unchanging in nature.

Alright this is good. Would you mind if we do a bit of exploration from scripture and see what texts led us to our current conclusions?
It will be several days for me to review my notes and how my understanding was derived.

Thx for clarifying a point

Just to clear up the confusion, or confuse the confusion even more, I'm not saying I believe the son wasn't the son(second person of the trinity), before his incarnation. I'm just saying I believe he wasn't begotten, before the incarnation. I think?

[RickD]

I would agree that angels are a creation. A great question here would be "were they created as part of this creation?"
I have no scriptural support for 'some' falling before man sinned. I only have reference to satans initial fall. I must also admit that I have not seriously studied all the aspects pertaining to angels so this could be a very fruitful exchange on this subject and I must admit this is a very intriguing subject.

Ok, fair enough. Would you agree that at least, lucifer fell before Adams sin?

Hey an actual point of difference that we can examine. Pls provide the scriptural support for the big bang.

I hope this helps:

http://www.reasons.org/articles/big-ban ... t-it-first

It would appear that you are not really taking in what that sentence means nor are you considering what I have said in previous posts. There is no question that we have been told about the
eternal existence of God the father and I assert that God has always existed and I have asserted this a

multitude of times;

I understand that you believe God the Father is eternal. My point, is that I believe God in three persons, is eternal. The bible says God is unchanging. I believe His nature us unchanging. I believe the Son is in the Father, not from the Father, as you are saying. Not that that makes it any less confusing.

[jlay]

Alright this is good. Would you mind if we do a bit of exploration from scripture and see what texts led us to our current conclusions?
It will be several days for me to review my notes and how my understanding was derived

It is just as important to make sure that we are following a sound exegesis when handling those scriptures. For example, it seems too me that you are intent on applying your notions of Father/Son to the text. Are you sure that your use of these terms is consistent with what they meant to a 1st century Jew?

Here is a paper by our resident philospher Jac, that actually touches on this point. http://cmmorrison.files.wordpress.com/2 ... n-john.pdf Just what is meant by the term, "Son of God." What does it confer?

There is no question that we have been told about the eternal existence of God the father and I assert that God has always existed and I have asserted this a multitude of times;

OK, so questions.
-Does the scripture in its whole counsel reveal the divine nature of Jesus?
-Does begotten mean created?
-When John 1:1 says "the Word was God," is it saying that the Word was God? If no, then what is it saying in your opinion?
-What is meant "by the Word became flesh?" (John 1:12)
-How does this relate to Phil.2:7 ?
-According to this verse, how did Christ become human?
-Is God immutable?
Does the incarnate Christ have a dual nature?
If yes, then did the eternal nature of the Word change?
Is the incarnate Christ fully God and fully man? Yes or no.

[dayage]

KBCid,

RickD gave you a good link on the Biblical evidence for the Big Bang.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/big-ban ... t-it-first

I would like to add a little to this:
In the above article it is shown that the Bible speaks of God as having stretched the heavens in the past and continually stretching them in the present, but could that have implied a universe that is growing larger and larger to the original audience?

Some have rejected a literal understanding of the Bible's teaching on an expanding universe by pointing out that the heavens (universe) are likened to a tent and/or curtains which make up a tent (Ex. 26:1-13, 36:13-16; Is. 40:22; Psalm 104:2). They claim that this means that it should not be taken literally.

The Hebrew verb natah (stretch) was used for the initial stretching out (pitching, setting up) of a tent (Gen. 12:8, 26:25; Jeremiah 10:20), but it was also used in reference to a tent being made larger (Is. 54:2-3). So, indeed natah would have suggested, what astronomers now know to be true, that space was initially stretched out when it was created (Isaiah 42:5; at the Big bang) and the Qal active participle form of natah would suggest its continued expansion.

[PaulSacramento]

I think the issue MAY be the notion of God being unchanging/unchangeable, which means that IF The Word is God the Son, that means that ever since there was GOD, there was The Word ( and the HS of course), because IF there was a point where there was only God The Father THEN came God the Son, that means that GOD changed.

In regards to taking what is written literally and concrete, we must first understand the genre of writing before deciding that what was written is to be take as such and if so, how much of what was written was meant to be literal and concrete or how much is analogy and how much is "poetic language".

I would also caution about using OT verses to "counter" or "offset" NT verses, lets remember that the OT writers did NOT have AS full a grasp of God as was after revealed to the NT writers through Christ and the HS.

[KBCid]

Just to clear up the confusion, or confuse the confusion even more, I'm not saying I believe the son wasn't the son(second person of the trinity), before his incarnation. I'm just saying I believe he wasn't begotten, before the incarnation. I think?

Thx for clarifying your position. This 'I think' also is a salient point to have understanding of. Each of us should at all time be able when asked to explain what we believe and why we believe it. So officially I have your understanding correct. Our question to determine then is when begotten becomes applicable. Of course you do realise that if it was not applicable prior to the incarnation then The father was not a father until that point nor was the son a son until that point if your position is correct.

I would also like to say Rick that this is definitely touching the very core of the questioning that I was after to determine if my understandings are correct. I am still reearching my 10 year old notes on the subject so I will get something out shortly.
As an aside I am finding that my notes when they were created were the result of confrontational concepts between my reading and what a group of JW's were asserting. These people used to come to my door every so often and I gave them the time to express their views so, for some reason my understanding differed enough to eliminate their 'truth' as they saw it from my consideration.