Dogs and Cats beggetting eachother. :)

[MrVersatile48]

Sorry I've no time to read all thread, so do forgive any duplication

Just hours ago, I read in a Christian news email that stem cell extraction from umbilical cord during birth puts both mum & baby at risk of infection

An earlier news email said that many scientists actively want to play god & create new species, just as the Bible forecast - specifically mixing human genes with all kinds of animals

'Beast' prophecies, as others, can have several levels of fulfilments

Must go!

Ian

 

[BenJasher]

I like this thread. Let me see if I can steer it back to the original topic.

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...

Actually, Jesus was not only known in the NT as both Son of God, and Son of Man. He was also known as the Son of David. The first two, indicating His dual identity, the third, indicating His right to rule over Israel as King. These things aren't merely NT abberations. These things are prophesied in the OT. As a matter of fact, a quick check of the Wikipedia on Arius shows that the Arian heresy didn't arise til the 4th century, making it necessary for the Church Fathers to adopt the Nicean Creed, to counter the heresy.(*)

And, yes. We do have a God that breeds. And He isn't done yet.
The first covenant God gave to Adam and Eve was the covenant of marriage. It's puprose was to produce life by reproducing themselves. The last significant event we see in the scriptures is a Bride, coming down out of Heaven from God to be united with Her Husband. But this is a marriage on a cosmological scale, whose purpose is the same as the first marriage. And blessed are those who are invited to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

Let me know if you haven't gotten your invitation. I will see to it you get one.


(*) BTW, about my misunderstanding and unfamiliarity with Arius, thinking that Arians were White. Actually, the word I was confused about was Aryans. Aryans are the white race of people. Lots of folks would like to brand this teaching as a heresy, but it isn't. There are those who have taken the Aryan message and gone to places it was never meant to go. When you use a valid truth to hate and kill, you misuse and malign that truth, and bring disgrace to others who embrace that truth.

 

[Novum]

Just hours ago, I read in a Christian news email that stem cell extraction from umbilical cord during birth puts both mum & baby at risk of infection

So does drinking alcohol during birth. Who in their right mind would extract stem cells during birth, instead of waiting until it was over?

An earlier news email said that many scientists actively want to play god & create new species, just as the Bible forecast - specifically mixing human genes with all kinds of animals

Names of scientists? Papers they've written? Any evidence at all?

 

[TanNinety]

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.

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.

Comparing our heavenly Father begetting Yashuah to monkeys begetting monkeys and rabbits begetting rabbits is as gross as how the fallen angels begot the nephilim during the days of noah.

I am not quite sure how a God who flooded the earth because of the gross procreation between spirits and humans would use the same concept to birth a messiah.

DivineNames had the correct answer in my opinion. According to Psalms if God said “today I have begotten you†then before that today what was Yashuah’s relationship with the Father. How can this concept of eternal Father, Son, Holy Spirit be correct?

Psalm 2 is correctly interpreted in Acts.

13:33 that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

What is the begetting in the Psalm 2 linked to? Yashuah’s resurrection. God raising up Yashuah from the grave not the conception of Yashuah in Mary’s womb.

If you have to follow the logic in the original post we have to say that since God can only beget God ..and not human, then Yashuah was never human.

Should I remind you

4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

Spirit+Human = Nephilim not Messiah

 

[thessalonian]

According to Psalms if God said “today I have begotten you†then before that today what was Yashuah’s relationship with the Father. How can this concept of eternal Father, Son, Holy Spirit be correct?

Well if the Psalm is correct as you understand it then it happened many years before Christ was actually born and so the Bible is false anyway. The answer to your question is simple. The son is eternally begotten from the Father. Today is everyday, the Son is generated from the love of the Father every day for all time, past, present, and future. Before that "today" Christ was begotten from the faith as well. Open your mind a bit on this one. It's not that hard to comprehend.

If you have to follow the logic in the original post we have to say that since God can only beget God ..and not human, then Yashuah was never human.

Christ got his humanity from Mary. I do not know that I would disagree that God in spirit did not (though I suppose maybe he "could have" beget Christ in the flesh except that he was responsible for the generation of his flesh in Mary's wormb. Your statement does not flow logically as a neccessity with Mary in the equation.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Christ got his humanity from Mary. I do not know that I would disagree that God in spirit did not (though I suppose maybe he "could have" beget Christ in the flesh except that he was responsible for the generation of his flesh in Mary's wormb. Your statement does not flow logically as a neccessity with Mary in the equation.

Got his humanity from Mary...that would make him 50% human wouldn't it?

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Actually, Jesus was not only known in the NT as both Son of God, and Son of Man. He was also known as the Son of David. The first two, indicating His dual identity, the third, indicating His right to rule over Israel as King

Is God the "Son of Man" or the "Son of David"?

These things aren't merely NT abberations. These things are prophesied in the OT

HIGHLY debatable, but another subject.

As a matter of fact, a quick check of the Wikipedia on Arius shows that the Arian heresy didn't arise til the 4th century, making it necessary for the Church Fathers to adopt the Nicean Creed, to counter the heresy.(*)

But the Trinity also "arose". You assume the church of the 4th century believed what the original church did.

And, yes. We do have a God that breeds. And He isn't done yet

Are you saying that God is involved in fornication?

The first covenant God gave to Adam and Eve was the covenant of marriage. It's puprose was to produce life by reproducing themselves. The last significant event we see in the scriptures is a Bride, coming down out of Heaven from God to be united with Her Husband. But this is a marriage on a cosmological scale, whose purpose is the same as the first marriage. And blessed are those who are invited to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb

But when Adam and Eve or anyone else reproduce they reproduce other beings who are not themselves. Now you offer a God who reproduces Himself but the problem is you have to reconcile this with the fact that there is only ONE God. One God who biologically has a son who is also God but is not his Father makes more than one God or else language has lost it's meaning and "one" is no different than "more than one".

Let me know if you haven't gotten your invitation. I will see to it you get one

Good to know you are in charge of the invitations. I always say, it's not what you know it's who you know :wink:

 

[thessalonian]

Christ got his humanity from Mary. I do not know that I would disagree that God in spirit did not (though I suppose maybe he "could have" beget Christ in the flesh except that he was responsible for the generation of his flesh in Mary's wormb. Your statement does not flow logically as a neccessity with Mary in the equation.

Got his humanity from Mary...that would make him 50% human wouldn't it?

Your math is bad but that is because you cannot grasp what spirit is. Spirit does not take up space. Thus Christ was whole spirit of God and completely man. Making arguements like you have will only produce for you a god that is bound by human reasoning and therefore no greater than your ability to comprehend him. That is no God at all.

 

[Imagican]

Thess,

The same argument could be used to describe the god that has been 'created' through 'trinity'. ANY God that is NOT the 'true' God is of NO EFFECT. Simply an 'empty' shell with NO power. The 'three headed god' of 'trinity' would seem an oddity from any perspective other than that of those who 'created' it or those 'taught' it by the 'creators'. And it only stands to reason that the explanation would be that those that refuse this doctrine 'just don't know God'. That would certainly force those that are 'weak' to either 'accept it' or be denied a relationship with the Father. Fortunately there ARE those among us that are NOT that weak.

 

[thessalonian]

there ARE those among us that are NOT that weak

Yes, we know you are not "weak". Not according to how Paul speaks of himself anyway:

2 Cor 12 for when I am weak, then I am strong.

 

[mutzrein]

Your math is bad but that is because you cannot grasp what spirit is. Spirit does not take up space. Thus Christ was whole spirit of God and completely man. Making arguements like you have will only produce for you a god that is bound by human reasoning and therefore no greater than your ability to comprehend him. That is no God at all.

Wow, that is rich "Making arguements like you have will only produce for you a god that is bound by human reasoning and therefore no greater than your ability to comprehend him."

Who has created a god from human reasoning? It is human reasoning from beginning to end that has created the trinity and made three gods instead of one. And you know what? These people proclaim knowledge of the Spirit of God, judging left right and centre who is a Christian and who isn't without themselves realising that they could not say these things if the Spirit of Truth & righteousness of Christ were in them.

 

[Imagican]

Your math is bad but that is because you cannot grasp what spirit is. Spirit does not take up space. Thus Christ was whole spirit of God and completely man. Making arguements like you have will only produce for you a god that is bound by human reasoning and therefore no greater than your ability to comprehend him. That is no God at all.

Wow, that is rich "Making arguements like you have will only produce for you a god that is bound by human reasoning and therefore no greater than your ability to comprehend him."

Who has created a god from human reasoning? It is human reasoning from beginning to end that has created the trinity and made three gods instead of one. And you know what? These people proclaim knowledge of the Spirit of God, judging left right and centre who is a Christian and who isn't without themselves realising that they could not say these things if the Spirit of Truth & righteousness of Christ were in them.

Mutz,

Amen Brother!!
_______________________________________________________________________

Thess,

I thought you would know what I meant. I am no stronger than the Spirit within me, what I was refering to was 'weak in understanding', and I DON'T believe that was what Paul was referring to. Weak in the flesh, NOT weak in SPIRIT.

And I feel compelled to offer the same sentiment offered by Mutz. It seems that this 'trinity' thing insists that those that accept it MUST, by the nature of the doctrine, condemn ALL others that don't. No different than what began to happen upon it's inception into Christianity. The CC began to systematically destroy any that opposed this 'doctrine of hate'.

Look folks, there is NOT A ONE of US capable of judging another as far as Salvation is concerned. We may certainly judge the 'fruit' to discern those that follow Christ and those that don't, but judgement of an eternal sort is NOT capable of being passed by human beings. Sorry Mr Pope, it don't work that way.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Got his humanity from Mary...that would make him 50% human wouldn't it?

Your math is bad but that is because you cannot grasp what spirit is. Spirit does not take up space

: My math is bad? You are inventing your own math just to make this come out the way you want it to. And what does "Spirit not taking up space" have to do with anything?

Thus Christ was whole spirit of God and completely man

Wasn't it you that said Christ wasn't human? Now you say he was "completely man". Well if Jesus was completely man and also completely God, what does that make you and I who are not God at all? MORE than completely man? And what does that make God the Father who is not man at all - MORE than completely God?

Making arguements like you have will only produce for you a god that is bound by human reasoning and therefore no greater than your ability to comprehend him. That is no God at all.

The only 2 types of reasoning there are is CORRECT AND INCORRECT. The "heavenly reasoning" you imagine you are using is not above human reasoning, it's BELOW it. It's actually just stating an irrationality. What you prepose, that Jesus was fully God and fully man, is no different than if you preposed that someone was fully evil and fully good, or completely non-intelligent and supremely intelligent. Each characteristic VOIDS the other. Each characteristic renders the other of no effect.

A human being is one person, and God is at least one person (though the Trinitarian would say 3). How many persons is Jesus? If he is one person he can't be God and man BOTH because in order to be a man you've got to be a human person and to be God you've got to be a divine person. That's 2 persons. If Jesus is the biological offspring of God and an earth-woman (if that were possible) , then he would be a hybrid, a demigod at best. You yourself said something along the lines that (i.e.) chimps don't beget another kind of animal when you were arguing that Jesus wasn't human because he was "begotten by God". You argue that the "glass is full" but you neglect to realize that it is also "half empty". If Jesus is God then he is NOT man, and if he is man then he is NOT God. This reversal of your premise (that he is both God and man) is equally valid, which makes the whole proposition inane and irrational. When you say Jesus is God and man, you are saying nothing - it has no meaning. It is just another absurd dogma which your church believes a mere mindless assent to somehow gives an infinite God goose bumps.

 

[thessalonian]

Wasn't it you that said Christ wasn't human?

No that would not be me.
Can you quote me?

If he is one person he can't be God and man BOTH because in order to be a man you've got to be a human person and to be God you've got to be a divine person. That's 2 persons

My you have reasoned that out well haven't you. God in a box is what you have. God's spirit was so united with Christ such that spirit, body, and soul were one person. I know that's a bit much for you to grasp but that is what the scriptures tell us. It is beyond your abitilty to reason just as it is beyond your ability to understand that Jesus Christ was not half man and half God but fully man and fully God. This is what the scriptures tell us but you with your logic and reasoning are above the God you have created in your mind. He is no God at all but a creation of your mind. Why don't you trust in what he tells us about himself?

 

[TanNinety]

Wasn't it you that said Christ wasn't human?

No that would not be me.
Can you quote me?

Thess, from your original post in this thread.

yet God's only begotten son is a human?
...
God beget a man? That's like a man begetting an ant. Even worse.

May be that's what Brad was referring to.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Wasn't it you that said Christ wasn't human?

No that would not be me.
Can you quote me?

"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?"

This certainly appears to be a rhetorical denial that Christ was human?

If he is one person he can't be God and man BOTH because in order to be a man you've got to be a human person and to be God you've got to be a divine person. That's 2 persons

My you have reasoned that out well haven't you

yup

God in a box is what you have

At least my "God box" is bigger than the one you used when you likened the issue of Jesus' birth to the nature of how animals breed, which, if anything, is a much cruder form of "human reasoning" than what you accuse me of (and a blasphemous enough thought to make any decent Jew who came across it jump up from their computer terminal and tear their clothing)

God's spirit was so united with Christ such that spirit, body, and soul were one person. I know that's a bit much for you to grasp but that is what the scriptures tell us. It is beyond your abitilty to reason just as it is beyond your ability to understand that Jesus Christ was not half man and half God but fully man and fully God

But it is not beyond my ability to understand that what you are saying is simply a contradiction. Every offspring is a genetic mixture of 2 parents. If 2 different species were able to produce an offspring, that offspring could not be "fully" either parent's species. It would be a hybrid. I am simply taking the same reasoning you used to it's logical conclusion, which you don't. You constantly employ what you disdain as "human reasoning" until you realize it's actually proving you wrong, then you pull the string on your imaginary "escape hatch" which denies that reason has any part in this.

This is what the scriptures tell us but you with your logic and reasoning are above the God you have created in your mind

Rather, if there is a God who created us, He also created what we call logic and reasoning and that is one of the principle characteristics that seperates us from the animals. It is how we differentiate between what is true and what is not. It is what organized religion has always feared and tried to convince us we shouldn't envoke when it comes to theological questions. That opposition to "human reasoning" is what put the "dark" in the Dark Ages. You fail to understand that you are also using reason, (as there is no possibility of discussion apart from it), but you employ it inconsistently. You only reason till you realize you have painted yourself into a corner then you try and relocate the whole issue to some limbo where you claim reason doesn't apply.

He is no God at all but a creation of your mind

And your God is the creation of the minds of men who provided you with the creeds by which you interpret the bible.

Why don't you trust in what he tells us about himself?

Where does he tell us Jesus is "fully man and fully God"? That Jesus is "God the Son"? That God is "3 Persons in one", etc? What you are giving me is creedal language and this creedal language is a result of REASONING that tries to fit scripture together with no contradiction. I just believe the reasoning of the individuals you are, for some reason, obligated to follow, is incorrect.

 

[TanNinety]

Acts 13 cannot get any clearer than how God begat Yashuah.

Acts 13:28And though they found no cause of death [in Yashuah], yet desired they Pilate that He should be slain.
29. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of Him, they took [Yashuah] down from the tree, and laid [Him] in a sepulchre.
30. But God raised Him[Yashuah] from the dead:
31. And He was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are His witnesses unto the people.
32. And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
33. God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Psalm 2 is pointed out in reference to Yashauah being raised AGAIN. That is when God said “thour art my Son, this day have I begotten thee†on the day of Yashuah’s resurrection NOT when Yashuah was born in mary’s womb.

Equating Yashuah’s birth to a hybrid spirit-man is nothing but reducing Yashuah to nephilim in Genesis.

But men would rather take their own interpretation for what Psalm 2:7 is saying instead of Acts 13:28-33 where it was explained.

 

[thessalonian]

Thanks Tan for another interpretation on this matters that I have not heard. It never ceases to amaze me how many interpretations MEN have. This is what every man and his bible (sola scriptura) gives us. Each man asserting himself as the one who has it right. He is the pillar and support of the truth.

I do agree that the Psalm is not specifically speaking of Christ in Mary's womb.

 

[thessalonian]

"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?"

This certainly appears to be a rhetorical denial that Christ was human?

Nope. You twist. Jesus recieved his humanity from Mary. His divinity was begotten of God. (of course so was his humanity through Mary). The humanity and divinity were hypostatically joined in to one person.

until you realize it's actually proving you wrong, then you pull the string on your imaginary "escape hatch" which denies that reason has any part in this.

'

Oh ye wisest of theologians. No brad you have proven nothing except in your own mind which is rather closed to the truth. No I do not deny reason has anything to do with it. The nature of the trinity and Jesus as fully God and fully man is fully reasonable. You cannot reason it however because you reject the revelation based on your own understanding. Revelation says "trust not in your own understanding" but that is what you do. God is not able to be reasoned by the natural man but this does not mean that who God is is not reasonable. But it takes a correct understanding of revelation, which requires being born from above. I am not your judge on these matters but it certainly appears that you are not.

Blessings

 

[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?"

This certainly appears to be a rhetorical denial that Christ was human?

Nope. You twist. Jesus recieved his humanity from Mary. His divinity was begotten of God. (of course so was his humanity through Mary)

So then God's only begotten Son is human? Yes or no? The only thing here that is "twisted" is your point. You object, in your statement, to the idea that "God's only begotten Son" is a human. Now you object to my pointing out that that's what you said.

[quote:462ab] The humanity and divinity were hypostatically joined into one person

And how was this one person COMPLETELY God if he was a mixture of human and divine natures? That is my point. Are you saying that the "God" in him was 100% divine, and that the "man" in him was 100% human? Is that the way in which you mean he was "fully" both?

]until you realize it's actually proving you wrong, then you pull the string on your imaginary "escape hatch" which denies that reason has any part in this.

'

Oh ye wisest of theologians. No brad you have proven nothing except in your own mind which is rather closed to the truth. No I do not deny reason has anything to do with it. The nature of the trinity and Jesus as fully God and fully man is fully reasonable. You cannot reason it however because you reject the revelation based on your own understanding. Revelation says "trust not in your own understanding" but that is what you do. God is not able to be reasoned by the natural man but this does not mean that who God is is not reasonable. But it takes a correct understanding of revelation, which requires being born from above. I am not your judge on these matters but it certainly appears that you are not. Blessings

[/quote:462ab]

The verse you quote ("Lean not unto thine own understanding") is from Proverbs 3 and has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It has to do, in context, with honoring and keeping the commandments, ironically, the "first and greatest" of which contains a statement which has always prohibited Jews from believing in a tripartite God - a tripartite God dogma which only became necessary when Jesus was elevated to Godhood equal (but not the same one as) the Father.

Did you ever consider that the inventors of the creeds you have bought into may have been "leaning unto THEIR own understanding" when they developed their theology, and that you, using your own limited human reasoning, have "reasoned" that they must have been right?