Page 6 of 7
Re: Reason to believe (The learning version)
Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:31 am
by RickD
oldman wrote:Byblos wrote:oldman wrote:Excuse me but I do not deny Jesus is God, neither do I deny the reality of the Trinity. What I do deny however is the idea that Jesus the Son of God, did not come from His Father.
I may have done you a disservice but
honestly I simply could not go on reading after I came across what you wrote above. That one small paragraph speaks volumes on the state of confusion you're in (and I am making no claims as to its cause). It is so full of contradictions from all sides, philosophical, theological, basic logic that I don't even know where to begin. But I will try anyway. So you believe God is eternal, you believe Jesus is God, and yet you believe Jesus came from the Father. Could you explain that in a more coherent way how an eternal being could come to be?
Byblos, if you cannot read beyond what I wrote in that small paragraph then you will never understand the truth... will you?
Oldman,
Byblos is simply asking for clarification. He'd rather ask you to clarify, than assume something you didn't actually mean. It's called "giving the benefit of the doubt". Unlike what you did when you assumed Byblos will never understand the truth.
And actually, I'd like clarification on that paragraph too. Do you know what "Son of God" really means?
Re: Reason to believe (The learning version)
Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:18 am
by Byblos
oldman wrote:Byblos wrote:oldman wrote:Excuse me but I do not deny Jesus is God, neither do I deny the reality of the Trinity. What I do deny however is the idea that Jesus the Son of God, did not come from His Father.
I may have done you a disservice but
honestly I simply could not go on reading after I came across what you wrote above. That one small paragraph speaks volumes on the state of confusion you're in (and I am making no claims as to its cause). It is so full of contradictions from all sides, philosophical, theological, basic logic that I don't even know where to begin. But I will try anyway. So you believe God is eternal, you believe Jesus is God, and yet you believe Jesus came from the Father. Could you explain that in a more coherent way how an eternal being could come to be?
Byblos, if you cannot read beyond what I wrote in that small paragraph then you will never understand the truth... will you?
I would very much like to understand but in baby steps. Forgive my overused brain, it tires very easily. I got stuck on that paragraph and could not go any further. It could very well be my own misunderstanding, hence my questioning it. Will you help me get beyond it? Will you answer my question please?
Re: Reason to believe (The learning version)
Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:21 am
by oldman
RickD wrote:oldman wrote:Byblos wrote:oldman wrote:Excuse me but I do not deny Jesus is God, neither do I deny the reality of the Trinity. What I do deny however is the idea that Jesus the Son of God, did not come from His Father.
I may have done you a disservice but
honestly I simply could not go on reading after I came across what you wrote above. That one small paragraph speaks volumes on the state of confusion you're in (and I am making no claims as to its cause). It is so full of contradictions from all sides, philosophical, theological, basic logic that I don't even know where to begin. But I will try anyway. So you believe God is eternal, you believe Jesus is God, and yet you believe Jesus came from the Father. Could you explain that in a more coherent way how an eternal being could come to be?
Byblos, if you cannot read beyond what I wrote in that small paragraph then you will never understand the truth... will you?
Oldman,
Byblos is simply asking for clarification. He'd rather ask you to clarify, than assume something you didn't actually mean. It's called "giving the benefit of the doubt". Unlike what you did when you assumed Byblos will never understand the truth.
And actually, I'd like clarification on that paragraph too. Do you know what "Son of God" really means?
Hello again Rick, before I answer your question I would first like to hear what B.W. has to say about what I posted this morning. The same goes for Byblos.
Re: Reason to believe (The learning version)
Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:49 am
by B. W.
oldman wrote:Hello again Rick, before I answer your question I would first like to here what B.W. has to say about what I posted this morning. The same goes for Byblos.
The answer is - monogenēs
AMG's Complete Word Study Dictionary Of Old Testament and New Testament Words explains it as...
AMG's Complete Word Study Dictionary Of Old Testament and New Testament Words
Strongs 3439
Μονογενής
monogenēs; gen. monogenoús, masc.-fem., neut. monogenón, from mónos ( 3441), only, and génos (1085), stock. Unique, one of a kind, one and only. The only one of the family (Luke7:12 referring to the only son of his mother; Luke 8:42, the daughter of Jairus; Luke 9:38, the demoniac boy).
John alone uses monogenēs to describe the relation of Jesus to God the Father, presenting Him as the unique one, the only one (mónos) of a class or kind (génos), in the discussion of the relationship of the Son to the Father (John1:14, John1:18; John3:16, John3:18; 1Jn4:9).
Génos, from which genēs in monogenēs is derived, means race, stock, family, class or kind, and génō comes from gínomai (1096), become, as in John1:14, "and the Word became [egéneto] flesh." This is in distinction from gennáō (1080), to beget, engender or create. The noun from gennáō is génnēma (1081), the result of birth. So then, the word means one of a kind or unique.
There are two schools of thought regarding the meaning of this term.
The first view, which began with Origen, teaches that Christ's unique Sonship and His generation by the Father are eternal being predicated of Him in respect to His participation in the Godhead. Although monogenēs was traditionally cited in proof of this explanation, modern proponents, recognizing the mistaken identification of genēs as a derivative of gennáō instead of génos, understand the word to be descriptive of the kind of Sonship Christ possesses and not of the process establishing such a relationship.
This would serve to distinguish the Sonship of Christ to God from that spoken of other beings, e.g., Adam (Luke 3:28), angels (Job 1:6), or believers (John1:12).
The last view teaches that Christ's unique Sonship and generation by the Father are predicated of Him in respect to the incarnation. The proponents of this interpretation unequivocally affirm the triune nature of the Godhead and Christ's deity teaching that it is the word lógos (3056), Word, which designates His personage within the Godhead.
Christ's Sonship expresses an economical relationship between the Word and the Father assumed via the incarnation. This stands in fulfillment of OT prophecies which identify Christ as both human, descending from David, and divine, originating from God. Like David and the other kings descending from him, Christ is the Son of God by position (2 Sam 7:14), but unlike them and because of His divine nature, He is par excellence the Son of God by nature (Psa2:7; Heb1:5).
Thus the appellation refers to the incarnate Word, God made flesh, not simply the preincarnate Word. Therefore, monogenēs can be held as syn. with the God- Man. Jesus was the only such one ever, in distinction with the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Triune God.
He is never called téknon Theoú (téknon [5043], child; Theoú [2316], of God) as the believers are (John 1:12; John 11:52; 1 John 3:1-2, 1John 3:10; 1 John 5:2). In John 5:18, Jesus called God His very own (ídion [2398]) Father. To Jesus, God was not a Father as He is to us. See John 20:17. He never spoke of God as the common Father of Him and believers. The term monogenēs also occurs in Heb 11:17.
...so my answer is found in the AMG quote above... and from Vines Expository Dictionary Of NT Words quoted below...
Vines Expository Dictionary Of NT Words
Only Begotten
monogenes (G3439) is used five times, all in the writings of the apostle John, of Christ as the Son of God; it is translated "only begotten" in Heb11:17 of the relationship of Isaac to Abraham.
With reference to Christ, the phrase "the only begotten from the Father," John 1:14, RV (see also the marg.), indicates that as the Son of God He was the sole representative of the Being and character of the One who sent Him. In the original the definite article is omitted both before "only begotten" and before "Father," and its absence in each case serves to lay stress upon the characteristics referred to in the terms used.
The apostle's object is to demonstrate what sort of glory it was that he and his fellow apostles had seen. That he is not merely making a comparison with earthly relationships is indicated by para, "from." The glory was that of a unique relationship and the word "begotten" does not imply a beginning of His Sonship. It suggests relationship indeed, but must be distinguished from generation as applied to man.
We can only rightly understand the term "the only begotten" when used of the Son, in the sense of unoriginated relationship. "The begetting is not an event of time, however remote, but a fact irrespective of time. The Christ did not become, but necessarily and eternally is the Son. He, a Person, possesses every attribute of pure Godhood. This necessitates eternity, absolute being; in this respect He is not 'after' the Father" (Moule). The expression also suggests the thought of the deepest affection, as in the case of the OT word yachid, variously rendered, "only one," Gen 22:2, Gen 22:12; "only son," Jer 6:26; Amos 8:10; Zec 12:10; "only beloved," Proverbs 4:3, and "darling," Psalms 22:20; Psalms 35:17.
In John 1:18 the clause "the only begotten son, which is in the bosom of the Father," expresses both His eternal union with the Father in the Godhead and the ineffable intimacy and love between them, the Son sharing all the Father's counsels and enjoying all His affections. Another reading is monogenes Theos, "God only-begotten."
In John 3:16 the statement, "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son," must not be taken to mean that Christ became the only begotten son by incarnation. The value and the greatness of the gift lay in the Sonship of Him who was given. His Sonship was not the effect of His being given. In John 3:18 the phrase "the name of the only begotten son of God" lays stress upon the full revelation of God's character and will, His love and grace, as conveyed in the name of One who, being in a unique relationship to Him, was Proverbsvided by Him as the object of faith.
In 1 John 4:9 the statement "God hath sent His only begotten son into the world" does not mean that God sent out into the world one who at His birth in Bethlehem had become His Son. Cf. the parallel statement, "God sent forth the Spirit of His Son," Gal 4:6, RV, which could not mean that God sent forth One who became His Spirit when He sent Him.
Oldman, So how do you understand - monogenēs?
-
-
-
Re: Reason to believe (The learning version)
Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 3:21 am
by oldman
B. W. wrote:
Oldman, So how do you understand - monogenēs?
Differently to you apparently.
So how do you understand – Spirit of truth?
The highest form of love is never self-centered but is a love that gives and sacrifices for the sake of others and remains faithful to love unto death.
Only this love can be trusted to speak the truth, for only this love will have no reason to deceive and offend any of us. Such is the essence and character of the Holy Spirit, revealed to us in full through the finished work of the Father's Son.
Through the Father and His Son came their endless joy in their pure and perfect caring, sharing and giving to each other all that they are and all that they care to create. This Spirit of free and pure eternal love naturally embraces all knowledge and wisdom and would mean nothing without being the heart or the innermost ruling character of a person. This Spirit, this God, will live and rule only in those of us who will value Him above all others.
Do you honestly still believe my understanding of God is a work of evil?
-
Byblos wrote, “you believe God is eternal, you believe Jesus is God, and yet you believe Jesus came from the Father. Could you explain that in a more coherent way how an eternal being could come to be?”
God has an infinite mind and therefore knows the beginning of all things including His first perceptions of Himself, He knows when He first conceived the words, “I AM”. We do not have an infinite mind and therefore our finite minds must be content to accept that for us there is no conceivable beginning to God, and having no conceivable beginning must mean He is eternal.
"
In the beginning was the Word” (The Son first existed only in the thoughts of God the Father.), “
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (This Word of the Father became a facsimile of the Father,
not a creation as such but another part of the Father, a new free thinking mind,
but still with no conceivable beginning to our finite minds. This new mind became another person like the Father: The Father's Son.) “
He was with God in the beginning. All things were made through Him,” (through the Father and the Son's pure and perfect love for each other they began creating everything whilst showing and giving that love to all who they created.) “
without him nothing was made that has been made.” John 1:1-3.
-
RickD wrote, “Do you know what "Son of God" really means?”
Yes.
-
Re: Reason to believe (The learning version)
Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:59 am
by Byblos
oldman wrote:
Byblos wrote, “you believe God is eternal, you believe Jesus is God, and yet you believe Jesus came from the Father. Could you explain that in a more coherent way how an eternal being could come to be?”
God has an infinite mind and therefore knows the beginning of all things including His first perceptions of Himself, He knows when He first conceived the words, “I AM”. We do not have an infinite mind and therefore our finite minds must be content to accept that for us there is no conceivable beginning to God, and having no conceivable beginning must mean He is eternal.
Please forgive me oldman but I have no clue what that all means. I am a man of logic so things have to be put in as black-and-white as possible for me to begin to make sense of them. Saying things like "God knows the beginning of all things including His first perceptions of Himself", while it might the most profound statement ever said about God, is simply talking gibberish to me. On the one hand we have God, an eternal being, with no beginning and no end, and on the other we have Jesus, a created being whom you claim came from God. And yet you also claim Jesus is God. To me all I see is a violation of the law of non-contradiction, which is contrary to God's nature.
- God is eternal
- Jesus is God
- Jesus began to exist (contradiction)
That's what your position boils down to. Please explain to me how it doesn't (without going into some philosophical mumbo-jumbo please).
Re: Reason to believe (The learning version)
Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:54 am
by oldman
Byblos wrote:oldman wrote:
Byblos wrote, “you believe God is eternal, you believe Jesus is God, and yet you believe Jesus came from the Father. Could you explain that in a more coherent way how an eternal being could come to be?”
God has an infinite mind and therefore knows the beginning of all things including His first perceptions of Himself, He knows when He first conceived the words, “I AM”. We do not have an infinite mind and therefore our finite minds must be content to accept that for us there is no conceivable beginning to God, and having no conceivable beginning must mean He is eternal.
Please forgive me oldman but I have no clue what that all means.
Don't worry Byblos, the truth concerning Father and Son will be more clearly revealed to everyone soon, if you cannot see now you will do eventually.
Re: Reason to believe (The learning version)
Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:59 am
by Jac3510
Unfortunately for you, you are right, OM. And you'll find rather experientally that God is none to appreciative when speak falsely about Him (Job 42:7). It's even worse when you are shown plainly how what you say is not merely unscriptural but self-contradictory and yet you persist in your blasphemy.
But as you note, you'll see the truth clearly enough. I just hope you figure it out sooner rather than later, because if later, I'd way rather have been standing in Korah's shoes at his judgment than in yours when on your knees you acknowledge your lie.
Re: Reason to believe (The learning version)
Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 8:04 am
by oldman
One other thing, try and remember, if the Son did not come from His Father He would not have told us He was the Son of His Father.
Re: Reason to believe (The learning version)
Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 8:50 am
by B. W.
oldman wrote:B. W. wrote:
Oldman, So how do you understand - monogenēs?
Differently to you apparently.
So how do you understand – Spirit of truth?
The highest form of love is never self-centered but is a love that gives and sacrifices for the sake of others and remains faithful to love unto death.
Only this love can be trusted to speak the truth, for only this love will have no reason to deceive and offend any of us. Such is the essence and character of the Holy Spirit, revealed to us in full through the finished work of the Father's Son.
Through the Father and His Son came their endless joy in their pure and perfect caring, sharing and giving to each other all that they are and all that they care to create. This Spirit of free and pure eternal love naturally embraces all knowledge and wisdom and would mean nothing without being the heart or the innermost ruling character of a person. This Spirit, this God, will live and rule only in those of us who will value Him above all others.
Do you honestly still believe my understanding of God is a work of evil?
Byblos wrote, “you believe God is eternal, you believe Jesus is God, and yet you believe Jesus came from the Father. Could you explain that in a more coherent way how an eternal being could come to be?”
God has an infinite mind and therefore knows the beginning of all things including His first perceptions of Himself, He knows when He first conceived the words, “I AM”. We do not have an infinite mind and therefore our finite minds must be content to accept that for us there is no conceivable beginning to God, and having no conceivable beginning must mean He is eternal.
"
In the beginning was the Word” (The Son first existed only in the thoughts of God the Father.), “
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (This Word of the Father became a facsimile of the Father,
not a creation as such but another part of the Father, a new free thinking mind,
but still with no conceivable beginning to our finite minds. This new mind became another person like the Father: The Father's Son.) “
He was with God in the beginning. All things were made through Him,” (through the Father and the Son's pure and perfect love for each other they began creating everything whilst showing and giving that love to all who they created.) “
without him nothing was made that has been made.” John 1:1-3.
RickD wrote, “Do you know what "Son of God" really means?”
Yes.
Please simply answer the question -
how do you understand - monogenēs?
-
-
-
Re: Reason to believe (The learning version)
Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:29 am
by Byblos
oldman wrote:Byblos wrote:oldman wrote:
Byblos wrote, “you believe God is eternal, you believe Jesus is God, and yet you believe Jesus came from the Father. Could you explain that in a more coherent way how an eternal being could come to be?”
God has an infinite mind and therefore knows the beginning of all things including His first perceptions of Himself, He knows when He first conceived the words, “I AM”. We do not have an infinite mind and therefore our finite minds must be content to accept that for us there is no conceivable beginning to God, and having no conceivable beginning must mean He is eternal.
Please forgive me oldman but I have no clue what that all means.
Don't worry Byblos, the truth concerning Father and Son will be more clearly revealed to everyone soon, if you cannot see now you will do eventually.
![Shakes head :shakehead:](./images/smilies/shakeshead.gif)
Why is it that you never answer any questions directly and honestly? Don't you think that alone ought to give you pause to re-examine your entire philosophy? You're telling me not to worry because the
truth will be revealed soon? The truth was revealed long ago oldman and the ones who espoused your brand of theology were also exposed as heretics long ago. Answer the questions directly and honestly or please, please do us all a favor and quit this idiotic charade.
Re: Reason to believe (The learning version)
Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:11 am
by oldman
Byblos wrote:oldman wrote:Byblos wrote:oldman wrote:
Byblos wrote, “you believe God is eternal, you believe Jesus is God, and yet you believe Jesus came from the Father. Could you explain that in a more coherent way how an eternal being could come to be?”
God has an infinite mind and therefore knows the beginning of all things including His first perceptions of Himself, He knows when He first conceived the words, “I AM”. We do not have an infinite mind and therefore our finite minds must be content to accept that for us there is no conceivable beginning to God, and having no conceivable beginning must mean He is eternal.
Please forgive me oldman but I have no clue what that all means.
Don't worry Byblos, the truth concerning Father and Son will be more clearly revealed to everyone soon, if you cannot see now you will do eventually.
![Shakes head :shakehead:](./images/smilies/shakeshead.gif)
Why is it that you never answer any questions directly and honestly? Don't you think that alone ought to give you pause to re-examine your entire philosophy? You're telling me not to worry because the
truth will be revealed soon? The truth was revealed long ago oldman
But clearly not to everyone... was it?
Re: Reason to believe (The learning version)
Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:18 am
by RickD
One last chance oldman. Answer Byblos' question please.
Re: Reason to believe (The learning version)
Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:47 am
by Byblos
I say this:
Byblos wrote: ![Shakes head :shakehead:](./images/smilies/shakeshead.gif)
Why is it that you never answer any questions directly and honestly?
And you come back with this:
oldman wrote:But clearly not to everyone... was it?
I expected nothing more.
Rest assured there is no argument you can put forth that hasn't been thought of and answered millennia ago. As to your question how the son could come from the father and still be God eternal, it is rather elementary and has been explained numerous times. The Blessed Trinity along with the hypostatic union, making Jesus fully God and fully man. Look it up some time, you might actually learn how not to put forth contradictory arguments.
Re: Reason to believe (The learning version)
Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:03 am
by oldman
RickD wrote:One last chance oldman. Answer Byblos' question please.
Sorry Rick, I didn't realise you had reached the point of wanting me banned for not answering as you would like.
I am not sure what question you mean so I will start with this one that Byblos asked me when he wrote,
Byblos wrote:So you believe God is eternal, you believe Jesus is God, and yet you believe Jesus came from the Father. Could you explain that in a more coherent way how an eternal being could come to be?
This I believe is the most coherent way I can think of, so far...
God alone has an infinite mind and therefore knows all things. He knows His first perception of Himself because He knows the beginning of all things. The infinite God is the beginning of all things. We on the other hand, do not have infinite minds and we must therefore be content to accept that for us, there is no conceivable beginning to the infinite God of reason, and having no conceivable beginning must mean this God is eternal. God will always be without a conceivable beginning to our finite minds because we will never have an infinite capacity to reason in infinite terms. We shall never comprehend the infinite past as the infinite mind of God does. Even so, we can still comprehend this, God is the beginning, He has an infinite mind and He knows all things including the beginning of all things. Now then, if you can accept this then you should also be able to accept this:
"In the beginning was the Word” (The Son first existed only in the thoughts of God the Father.), “and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (This Word of the Father became a facsimile of the Father, not a creation as such but another part of the Father, a new free thinking mind, but still with no conceivable beginning to our finite minds. This new mind became another person like the Father: The Father's Son.) “He was with God in the beginning. All things were made through Him,” (through the Father and the Son's pure and perfect love for each other they began creating everything whilst showing and giving that love to all who they created.) “without him nothing was made that has been made.” John 1:1-3.
It all adds up very nicely to me: The Father and the Son's love is what governs creation, “God is love” as Scripture clearly proclaims and this God governs creation. This God would not exist without the Son, and the Son would not exist without the Father. Such is the Triune God of reason who has no conceivable beginning to our finite minds. It is this eternal God who created everything.
If however you Byblos still cannot see what I see then please tell me
the very first sentence from what I have just explained, and which you do not understand. I will then endeavour to keep explaining myself more clearly until you do. God willing, we can then move on to any other sentence here that you find incomprehensible until we see eye to eye.
In the meantime let us remember this, if “the Son” did not come from “the Father” before creation began, then He would not have led us to believe He was the Son of His Father. The first and second person of the Godhead would not have been revealed to us as being “Father” and “Son” if they were not in reality “Father” and “Son”. So therefore, let us not forget this either, no amount of convoluted philosophy from fallen man can alter God's written word, and God has not revealed Himself as “Father” and “Son” for nothing!