Dogs and Cats beggetting eachother. :)

[Imagican]

Brad,

Good to see you again my friend.

Nice post brother. It would seem that this would explain much concerning Jesus' Baptism. Many often inquire as to the 'nature' of Christ's baptism and the words that were spoken from above. This offers much insight into who and what Christ truly IS.
Thanks for your offering.

MEC

 

[BenJasher]

That's good stuff Mutz, that blessed me.
Thank you!

 

[BenJasher]

Are you insinuating, Brad, that Jesus wasn't the biological Son of God in reality? That somehow, He was just a man that was chosen for the job???
Do I understand you rightly?

And Imagician, do you mean to imply that there was some "mystery" behind the words that were spoken out of Heaven concerning Him?

If those words from Heaven were anything less than "You are My beloved Son" then Jesus was a bastard devoid of heritage and lineage, and would therefore be ineligible to die in our place as our substitute for the remission of our sins. His death would have been no more meaningful than the death of any other hapless pitiful jerk that ended up being crucified by the Romans. God may as well have slit the throat of a dog for the remission of our sins. And if what you say is true, we are all still trapped in our sins. And those of us who walk His path are of all men most miserable.

There is no mystery behind these words from heaven, except to those who have been blinded that they might not see, and turn and be saved from the perdition that is theirs.

It has to do with the legal recognition of a Son as the heir and joint-holder of all that His Father owns. This had been a part of the Israelite culture for a long time, and is even incorporated into much of the eschatology of the New Testament.
Galatians 4 states that as son, though he is an heir differeth nothing from a common household servant, as long as he is a child. And this is the legal status of the child until the time appointed of the Father. And when that appointed time comes, there was a celebration, and a public declaration by the Father. This declaration elevated the position of the son from household servant to joint-owner and controller of all that his father owns.

In the 8th chapter of Romans, this is referred to as the Manifestation of the Sons of God. Much of what is taught as a "rapture" is manifestation scriptures taken out of context. The whole of the Bible is rife with this teaching, which the unlearned have mistaken for some kind of Rapture foolishness.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 12:06 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dogs cannot beget cats. Monkeys cannot beget rabbits. Fish do not beget birds, lizards do not beget turtles, yet God's only begotten son is a human? We do know that he is Son of Man by his birth through Mary. But he is also God's only begotten son. Eternally begotten

Who was the father of the man Jesus then?

Psalm 2
7: I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my son, today I have begotten you.

Heb 1
5: For to what angel did God ever say, "Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee"? Or again, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"?

Problem is, none of these scriptures suggest an eternal beggetting, but just the opposite.

God beget a man? That's like a man begetting an ant. Even worse

Once again, apparently you don't believe that God is the Father of the MAN Christ Jesus, the PERSON Christ Jesus, which makes you quite the heretic?

Jesus is God folks. Always was, always will be. Now work out the rest of the details for yourselves in this trinitarian/arian debate.

Jesus himself said "God is Spirit". Mary would have had a much easier pregnancy and delivery had she actually given birth to God.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Are you insinuating, Brad, that Jesus wasn't the biological Son of God in reality? That somehow, He was just a man that was chosen for the job???
Do I understand you rightly?

I believe that is what the original NT scriptures taught. Of course we don't have the original NT, we only have what was unintentionally, and, sometimes, intentionally, altered over the first few centuries by scribes who had an evolving doctrinal agenda to present Jesus as God Himself - a concept that is so alien and anathema to the Hebrew mind that it should be apparent to all that this was a theological conspiracy that only took root after Gentiles began to predominate the Church.

 

[BenJasher]

Well, Ok my educated friend; if Jesus wasn't God Himself in the flesh, then pray tell, who was He?

Jesus is God folks. Always was, always will be. Now work out the rest of the details for yourselves in this trinitarian/arian debate.

Did you mean trinitarian/unitarian?
The reason I ask is that "arian" denotes a classification of race, if not the race itself; whereas "unitarian" would be the alternative to "trinitarian", which is what I thinlk you were trying to get across.

I have been wrong before when I try to second-guess what someone meant to say. I am starting to get used to it. :

 

[mutzrein]

+JMJ+


If you don't mind. I would like to hear your'e point of view about the Word of God.

Thanks for offering. 8-)

Fulton

To bring the meaning of the ‘Word of God’, as it is spoken of in John, into a perspective which can be understood, I would like to use a human analogy.

When I speak, the words that I speak come from within me. As the scripture says, “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.†So while the words physically emanate from me, the words are actually a reflection of what is in my heart. So when you hear the words that I speak, although your ears physically discern the audible sound of my voice, it is not just my voice that you are ‘hearing.’ It is me, because the words spoken by my voice reflect who I am. And they do this because they come from within me. They say who I am. They are who I am. Or to put it another way, my word is with me, and my word is me.

Now, there are two elements involved here. One is me, and the other is the conduit (for want of a better word) through which I make myself known - that is, the word of my mouth. But in reality you cannot separate me from the word of my mouth because we are one. So, my ‘word’ is me because it is a manifestation of who I am. But while I can say, ‘my word is me’ it is impossible for each (that is my ‘word’ and ‘me’) to be precisely the same thing because each has a different function. Together they are one but are still distinctly different.

And the relationship between God and the Word of God (Jesus) can be likened to this. Of course all I am able to do is to describe in human terms something which man, on an intellectual plain, may never understand. But now with the understanding of the human analogy I will briefly describe what John 1:1 is saying. I think the rest should fall into place when one has the understanding of it.

In the beginning was the Word. The Word of God was in the beginning.
and the Word was with God. The Word of God was with God - by virtue of the fact that He (Jesus) is distinctly different to God. That is why it says He was with Him.
and the Word was God. And ‘the Word was God’ does not describe physically what he is (ie that Jesus is God), but what His function in relationship to God is. He is the Word of God, He is the conduit through which God speaks, through which God creates. He is the One who reflects all that God is. The Word is what God speaks, and Jesus being the Word and reflecting the Father, shows us the Father. So without a doubt the Word is God.

And as Jesus said, “I and the Father are one." And again he said, –The words that I speak are not just my own. Rather it is the Father living in me who is doing his work.â€Â

Regards

 

[mutzrein]

That's good stuff Mutz, that blessed me.
Thank you!

I'm not sure what it was that blessed you but thankyou my friend. I guess there must be stacks more bushells of blessings just waiting for you

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

Actually Ben, in this context, Arian refers to the followers of Arius, a heretic who taught against the divinity of Jesus. This became a major cause of the east/west split of the Catholic Church. So Thess was quite acurate in calling it a trinitarian/arian debate. Unitarian suggests that there is also no Holy Spirit, and I havent seen mention of that yet in here.

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

and good post mutz. very Thomist. i was actually just about to break out my copy of summa theologica and post about the Word. so, you saved me some trouble.

 

[Georges]

Are you insinuating, Brad, that Jesus wasn't the biological Son of God in reality? That somehow, He was just a man that was chosen for the job???
Do I understand you rightly?

I believe that is what the original NT scriptures taught.

Do a little research on the Nazarene/Ebionites who were decended from the Chruch in Jerusalem (James, Peter, John et al). This group of believers Messianic Jews included descendents of the relatives (ie brothers and sisters) of Jesus. According to historical document, they believed that Jesus was the Messiah and that he was man, not God.

Of course we don't have the original NT, we only have what was unintentionally, and, sometimes, intentionally, altered over the first few centuries by scribes who had an evolving doctrinal agenda to present Jesus as God Himself - a concept that is so alien and anathema to the Hebrew mind that it should be apparent to all that this was a theological conspiracy that only took root after Gentiles began to predominate the Church.

yup....

 

[Klee shay]

Yikes! :o Deleted my post...it was meant for another thread. All fixed now. Sorry for any confusion. :

 

[mutzrein]

and good post mutz. very Thomist. i was actually just about to break out my copy of summa theologica and post about the Word. so, you saved me some trouble.

Thanks BWoG. I'm not sure what 'Thomist' is. I googled it and got lost in the number of hits. Anyway, I've never studied theology and I'm not gonna start now :wink:

 

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

+JMJ+

Thanks BWoG. I'm not sure what 'Thomist' is. I googled it and got lost in the number of hits. Anyway, I've never studied theology and I'm not gonna start now

Hey Mutz,

Thomism is the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Your description of the Word sounds allot like what St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in his "Summa Theoligica".

 

[mutzrein]

+JMJ+

Thanks BWoG. I'm not sure what 'Thomist' is. I googled it and got lost in the number of hits. Anyway, I've never studied theology and I'm not gonna start now

Hey Mutz,

Thomism is the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Your description of the Word sounds allot like what St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in his "Summa Theoligica".

Good grief. Does that mean that what I have said was actually taught by a 'saint'? Surely not. Did he believe that Jesus was God? Can anyone direct me to something I can read on this? Thanks.

 

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

+JMJ+


http://www.newadvent.org/summa/103400.htm

 

[BenJasher]

Actually Ben, in this context, Arian refers to the followers of Arius, a heretic who taught against the divinity of Jesus. This became a major cause of the east/west split of the Catholic Church. So Thess was quite acurate in calling it a trinitarian/arian debate. Unitarian suggests that there is also no Holy Spirit, and I havent seen mention of that yet in here.

Thank You BWOG. I guess I was asleep in class the day the Professor talked about Arius. I never heard of him til now. But I would think that in that context, followers of Arius would be known of as Ariuns, not Arians. An Arian is a person of the Adamic White race of peoples. Would that not be correct?

I stand corrected on the Unitarian thing though. But I got confused when you threw in the Arian thing. What does the white race of people have to do with how many Persons there are in the Godhead? Had me sucking air for a minute.

 

[thessalonian]

Thank You BWOG. I guess I was asleep in class the day the Professor talked about Arius. I never heard of him til now. But I would think that in that context, followers of Arius would be known of as Ariuns, not Arians. An Arian is a person of the Adamic White race of peoples. Would that not be correct?

No. Not from a religous historical perspective. We are not talking about Arian Nation. But Arianism that denies the divinity of Christ. 4th Century heretic.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Dogs cannot beget cats. Monkeys cannot beget rabbits. Fish do not beget birds, lizards do not beget turtles, yet God's only begotten son is a human? We do know that he is Son of Man by his birth through Mary. But he is also God's only begotten son. Eternally begotten

Let's think this through. First of all, dogs only beget dogs because they only mate with OTHER DOGS. If a dog and a cat could somehow have an offspring, the creature produced would be NEITHER dog nor cat but some weird hybrid. It certainly would not be FULLY DOG and FULLY CAT.

A God that breeds... an offspring that is the "Son of Man" yet is not human...a Deity who is one yet has an eternally begotten Son who also is God but not the same person which makes God his own Father and his own Son... :roll:

If "The Producers" were looking for the worst theology instead of the worst play they would have to choose this. It is the essence of confusion and self-contradiction.

 

[BenJasher]

Brad, looking at your sig file:

"What effect will logic have upon a religious gentleman who firmly believes that a God of infinite compassion sent 2 bears to tear 30 or 40 children in pieces for laughing at a bald-headed prophet"? (Voltaire)

I am impressed with the wisdom Voltaire displayed when he made that statement. Even he realized that some were immune to logic. (That can be a good and/or a bad thing.) His whole life was based on logic and philosophy. He couldn't understand what it would be like to be convinced of the validity of something if there wasn't firstly tangible proof. As intelligent as he was, he couldn't make that leap. That was one bridge he couldn't cross. Poor guy!

But it plainly wasn't given to him to be able to have faith.