Jesus the Man Before John !

[RandyK]

I mean God has always been His Father. Thus, He has always been the Son.

What does that even mean? "God has been His Father?" How can anyone be his own father?

In order to make sense of the relationship beween the Father and the Son, you must use the terms properly. God has *not* always been the father of Jesus simply because Jesus, the man, has not always been manifest.

The revelation of Jesus began when he was produced as a human being, and not before. So no, God has not always been the Son! The Person who came to be revealed as "the Son" did indeed preexist the revelation of the Son. In that sense He was known as "the Word," or "God."

I don't read the Father has always existed.

The Father has not always existed in the form of His revelation as the Father of Jesus. But as the Person of God He has indeed always existed. God came to be revealed as "the Father," in relation to Jesus, the Son, only when the Son came to be revealed as a man.

Prior to that, however, God had been known as the Father of mankind. But until Man had been created, God had not been known as the Father of mankind. Nevertheless, He had always been God, and had always had His Word, capable of expressing Himself as Father of both Man and Christ.

I don't read the Father has a beginning either. I did read no God existed before the Father nor one after Him. Therefore "if" the Father has a beginning it could not be by any other being. He is unbegotten.

It makes little sense to say that the "Father is unbegotten." By definition, the Father preexists anything "begotten." However, He is not revealed as "the Father" until something is "begotten" that He Fathers, or until something is created that He is "Father" of.

In other words, God is eternally existent. But He is revealed in time in a particular role when He does something to give Him a title that represents that reality. We refer to God as "Father" only when in time God creates something that provides Him with the role of a father.

In the case of Jesus, God created a revelation of His own Person in the form of a human person, making Him Father of the Son. Both Persons were preexistent, but their roles only came to be known as such when God created a situation that called for that relationship to be revealed.

You say some orthodox things, and some things you say appear to muddle proper expression of things that need to be said properly to properly represent the relationship of Father, Son, and Spirit. If you present the Son as the *legal means* of our redemption, and the Spirit as the *local operation* of God's work in our present lives, then I think the language will work out well. It is indeed difficult to express the relationship of the transcendent to current material realities.

 

[Randy]

What does that even mean? "God has been His Father?" How can anyone be his own father?

In order to make sense of the relationship beween the Father and the Son, you must use the terms properly. God has *not* always been the father of Jesus simply because Jesus, the man, has not always been manifest.

The revelation of Jesus began when he was produced as a human being, and not before. So no, God has not always been the Son! The Person who came to be revealed as "the Son" did indeed preexist the revelation of the Son. In that sense He was known as "the Word," or "God."

The Father has not always existed in the form of His revelation as the Father of Jesus. But as the Person of God He has indeed always existed. God came to be revealed as "the Father," in relation to Jesus, the Son, only when the Son came to be revealed as a man.

Prior to that, however, God had been known as the Father of mankind. But until Man had been created, God had not been known as the Father of mankind. Nevertheless, He had always been God, and had always had His Word, capable of expressing Himself as Father of both Man and Christ.

It makes little sense to say that the "Father is unbegotten." By definition, the Father preexists anything "begotten." However, He is not revealed as "the Father" until something is "begotten" that He Fathers, or until something is created that He is "Father" of.

Jesus is begotten. The Father is unbegotten.
Eternally begotten or 1st begotten. He is a Son. He calls God His Father and His God.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.

Clearly the word "from" has the Father as Jesus's source even though they deny a first begotten beginning or any beginning perhaps they don't understand the meaning of from another.

In other words, God is eternally existent. But He is revealed in time in a particular role when He does something to give Him a title that represents that reality. We refer to God as "Father" only when in time God creates something that provides Him with the role of a father.

It is suggested by God Himself that He was formed. As in speaking of a God such as Himself He states no God was "formed" before me. I only point out He is unbegotten. He didn't state no God existed before me but "formed" before me.

In the case of Jesus, God created a revelation of His own Person in the form of a human person, making Him Father of the Son. Both Persons were preexistent, but their roles only came to be known as such when God created a situation that called for that relationship to be revealed.

I think most believe Jesus has always been the Son and is eternally begotten before all things by the Father alone. I believe Jesus is First begotten by the Father alone and He gifted His Deity without limit to dwell in the Firstborn.
Clearly from the will of another at a point in history before all things. Col 1:19 A creation of God.

Some believe Jesus stopped being the Logos and became the Son and remained the Son. I don't.

You say some orthodox things, and some things you say appear to muddle proper expression of things that need to be said properly to properly represent the relationship of Father, Son, and Spirit. If you present the Son as the *legal means* of our redemption, and the Spirit as the *local operation* of God's work in our present lives, then I think the language will work out well. It is indeed difficult to express the relationship of the transcendent to current material realities.

I understand who Jesus is and its the throne of God the Father and the lamb forever no Spirit acknowledged. One God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ no Spirit acknowledged. Glory to Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb. No Spirit acknowledged. In regard to the Spirit I see the person of the Father and that same Spirit sent in Jesus name who represents and conveys the presence of Christ in a believer in that context I see the person of the Son. What I don't see in regard to the Spirit is a 3rd person with His own mind.

No Spirit acknowledged
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

As I stated this is my belief as written I guess He forgot about the 3rd person of the Spirit.
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

In regard to the Son I hold that He has the Fathers very nature in Him and is all that the Father is. "God" the begotten, or the only like to like begotten Son of the Father. God from true God not true God from true God.

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being,
or
The Son is the radiance of the Fathers glory and the exact representation of his being,

In Him as opposed to being that Deity as is the Father.
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority.

Colossians 1:19 - The Supremacy of Christ

For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him,

biblehub.com

I agree in part
Begotten before all worlds of the Father alone but not made.

I think a honest reading is that the Logos has the Fathers very nature.
God was the Logos.

 

[RandyK]

Jesus is begotten. The Father is unbegotten.
Eternally begotten or 1st begotten. He is a Son. He calls God His Father and His God.

This tells me you didn't understand my last comments on this? As for "eternally begotten," that has to be explained.

Origen spoke of it, although he is often criticized on some matters. But it is an orthodox formulation and indicates that God in eternity brought, via revelation, into time a form of His Son in the man Jesus.

In crossing from Eternity to Time the identity of Deity was not lost, but emerged from the Person of the Father to the Person of the Son through the Word spoken by God.

It is suggested by God Himself that He was formed. As in speaking of a God such as Himself He states no God was "formed" before me. I only point out He is unbegotten. He didn't state no God existed before me but "formed" before me.

What are you saying here, that other gods preexisted God--just weren't "formed?"

I think most believe Jesus has always been the Son and is eternally begotten before all things by the Father alone.

This statement can, I feel, be misleading. Is this saying that the Son preexisted Jesus as "the Son" before he existed as a man?

I don't think so. I think the Son emerged *from Eternity* to become the "Son" in time, ie when he became a man.

Put another way, God, who is "before all things," spoke a Word of revelation that produced Jesus, the man, in time. Jesus preexisted his humanity only as the eternal Word of God, and not as "the Son."

We say the "Son existed in eternity" only in the sense he was God, and not in the sense he has always been a human. So the Son was "from eternity," but became the Son only in time.

I believe Jesus is First begotten by the Father alone and He gifted His Deity without limit to dwell in the Firstborn.

I don't understand this statement? Jesus "gifted His Deity to dwell in the 1st-born?"

I would say that the Father, in producing the revelation of Jesus, the Son, begot His Deity in a human form, who is the preeminent man, or God's 1st-born. He did this simply by speaking via His Word, or producing it at will.

Clearly from the will of another at a point in history before all things. Col 1:19 A creation of God.

God in eternity obviously stands *before time* in order to create time.

Some believe Jesus stopped being the Logos and became the Son and remained the Son. I don't.

The Logos, or Word of God, always remains the Word of God because God never stops being able to speak! ;) When the Word created the world, the Word didn't stop being the Word. When the Word produced the revelation of Jesus, the Son, the Word didn't stop being the Word.

What happened with Jesus is that when God spoke His Word to produce the revelation of Jesus He imparted His own Person into this revelation to produce His own divine Person in human form. We might limit what God can do, but what He says is what He can do.

Even now that God's Word has produced the divine Jesus, the Word remains the Word. God continues to be able to speak things, just as He did when He created the world and when He produced the revelatioin of Jesus, His Son.

Since Jesus is the Person of God, he is God's Word as well as Deity. That's why we say "the Word became flesh." But the Word, encapsulated in Jesus, remains expressive of God's creativity. The Word of God is still the Word of God.

I understand who Jesus is and its the throne of God the Father and the lamb forever no Spirit acknowledged. One God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ no Spirit acknowledged. Glory to Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb. No Spirit acknowledged. In regard to the Spirit I see the person of the Father and that same Spirit sent in Jesus name who represents and conveys the presence of Christ in a believer in that context I see the person of the Son. What I don't see in regard to the Spirit is a 3rd person with His own mind.

The Word assigns a distinct Personhood to the Spirit, via His Word, because He is manifest within the universe whereas the Person of the Father remains outside of the universe. They are one God but speak in separate voices.

God, speaking within the universe, can only represent God in the duality of His being both outside of the universe and inside of the universe. I'm covering some of my previous material, but I grow weary for now.

 

[Randy]

This tells me you didn't understand my last comments on this? As for "eternally begotten," that has to be explained.

So I don't understand your message. But I know my Lord.
-Begotten but not made -A Son of the Father though
Nicene creed-
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father

Origen spoke of it, although he is often criticized on some matters. But it is an orthodox formulation and indicates that God in eternity brought, via revelation, into time a form of His Son in the man Jesus.

The Son who was, His spirit, was in the body prepared for Him.

In crossing from Eternity to Time the identity of Deity was not lost, but emerged from the Person of the Father to the Person of the Son through the Word spoken by God.

?

What are you saying here, that other gods preexisted God--just weren't "formed?"

God stated NO God was FORMED before Him in speaking of a God such as Himself. This suggests a beginning but an unbegotten beginning for the only true God.

This statement can, I feel, be misleading. Is this saying that the Son preexisted Jesus as "the Son" before he existed as a man?

A Son of the Father. He is begotten of the Father.

I don't think so. I think the Son emerged *from Eternity* to become the "Son" in time, ie when he became a man.

His source as stated in the Nicene creed is the Father

Put another way, God, who is "before all things," spoke a Word of revelation that produced Jesus, the man, in time. Jesus preexisted his humanity only as the eternal Word of God, and not as "the Son."

Not my understanding nor stated belief. If God spoke a Word and produced Jesus how is that Jesus not His Son? Jesus like us all is Spirit. His spirit was in that human body.

We say the "Son existed in eternity" only in the sense he was God, and not in the sense he has always been a human. So the Son was "from eternity," but became the Son only in time.

The Son is begotten from the Father. Where the Father came from is a mystery, but He is unbegotten.

I don't understand this statement? Jesus "gifted His Deity to dwell in the 1st-born?"

Col 1:19 was pleased -from the will of another. Its clear to me that other was the Father and He gifted His Deity. He did not form another God. He and His Son are ONE.

I would say that the Father, in producing the revelation of Jesus, the Son, begot His Deity in a human form, who is the preeminent man, or God's 1st-born. He did this simply by speaking via His Word, or producing it at will.

His Deity is unbegotten. Again He willed His Deity without limit, (fullness), to dwell in His Firstborn.

God in eternity obviously stands *before time* in order to create time.

I believe God is an eternal being who exists forever through the passage of time.

The Logos, or Word of God, always remains the Word of God because God never stops being able to speak! ;) When the Word created the world, the Word didn't stop being the Word. When the Word produced the revelation of Jesus, the Son, the Word didn't stop being the Word.

I believe the Son, (His spirit), descended and ascended to where He was before. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. And the Father is living in Him. They are ONE.

What happened with Jesus is that when God spoke His Word to produce the revelation of Jesus He imparted His own Person into this revelation to produce His own divine Person in human form. We might limit what God can do, but what He says is what He can do.

Even now that God's Word has produced the divine Jesus, the Word remains the Word. God continues to be able to speak things, just as He did when He created the world and when He produced the revelatioin of Jesus, His Son.

Since Jesus is the Person of God, he is God's Word as well as Deity. That's why we say "the Word became flesh." But the Word, encapsulated in Jesus, remains expressive of God's creativity. The Word of God is still the Word of God.

The Word assigns a distinct Personhood to the Spirit, via His Word, because He is manifest within the universe whereas the Person of the Father remains outside of the universe. They are one God but speak in separate voices.

God, speaking within the universe, can only represent God in the duality of His being both outside of the universe and inside of the universe. I'm covering some of my previous material, but I grow weary for now.

Its not that complicated or hard to understand. Jesus was and is a living being. His spirit was formed or begotten by the Father as the beginning of the creation of God. As in the firstborn of all creation, The Father, from whom all things come is unbegotten. He willed His Deity, the only true God, to dwell without limit with Jesus's spirit. In that unity the Son is all that the Father is. God. The very image of the invisible God. The radiance of the Fathers glory and the exact imprint of the Fathers very being.

So is Jesus God?
He never dies.
Yes, He is all that the Father is.
No, He has always been the Son.

 

[RandyK]

So I don't understand your message.

Then we really can't discuss our agreements/differences, because we have to know what each other is arguing! But I keep trying--hopefully others will understand? It's a complex matter, but my argument is rather simple. The "Trinity" involves a single eternal God. But the expressions of the various Persons are revealed in *time.*

God stated NO God was FORMED before Him in speaking of a God such as Himself. This suggests a beginning but an unbegotten beginning for the only true God.

God is eternal, but formation takes place *in time.*

His source as stated in the Nicene creed is the Father

God is eternal, but His "Fatherhood" is expressed in *time.* Terms like "Father, Son, and Spirit" get confused only because we naively use them in the context of eternity, when they only make sense in time. Their own relationship to eternity is their source in a single eternal God and His being the mouth to express His Word in time.

Not my understanding nor stated belief. If God spoke a Word and produced Jesus how is that Jesus not His Son?

Jesus and his Sonship are God expressing Himself in time in the context of His revelation as a man in time. What the Son was before he was revealed as such is inexpressible except with reference to God as the source of all of His revelations.

Jesus like us all is Spirit. His spirit was in that human body.

Jesus was a human spirit encased in a human body--a man. A spiritual being can be separated from its body, but that is not who it is determined to be.

The entire man, spirit and body, is the man--not just the spirit. The revelation of man can be temporarily reduced to just his spirit nature, but that is only part of the entire revelation of man, which involves both spirit and body.

The Son is begotten from the Father. Where the Father came from is a mystery, but He is unbegotten.

The Father is unbegotten because He is by necessity *before creation.* He comes to be revealed in the context of creation as "begotten" with reference to His revelation as a man.

God's revelation appears to us only in terms of time. Even His eternal nature is expressed to us in finite terms, in terms of time. His eternal nature is expressed to us as *endless time.*

The Eternal God is expressed as *before time and creation.* But He is also expressed in the form of His revelation when He appears within time through the Spirit and the Son, and through any revelation God wishes to make use of via His Word. This would include theophanies.

Even what we know about the Father is revealed to us in terms of time. What God was before He revealed to us His being a Father is beyond our comprehension. We know Him as Father because He created us as sons.

Its not that complicated or hard to understand. Jesus was and is a living being. His spirit was formed or begotten by the Father as the beginning of the creation of God.

Jesus was the "beginning" only in the sense that from eternity he was God, and the Source of His plan for Man. He foresaw His own divine image as the blueprint for human existence and behavior.

That is how Christ was the "beginning." More specific to our dilemma with Sin, His blueprint contained within it the necessity of our redemption. God's plan was predestined to succeed.

But as "Jesus" he was not known as such in eternity because the terms "Jesus" and "Son" only make sense to us in time. We only know that these revelations emerged from the eternal Word of God *before time.*

The entire Trinity preexisted time, but can only be known by us in temporal terms via His revelations in time, ie via His Word. If we refer to Father, Son, Spirit, or Word we must understand we are only using finite terms, preventing us from understanding Him beyond these terms.

We can source them all in Eternity, but we cannot pretend to know them except in their temporal sense. We can refer to the "Eternal Son" but we cannot know what the "Son" means except with respect to who He came to be revealed as and where he came from.

As in the firstborn of all creation, The Father, from whom all things come is unbegotten. He willed His Deity, the only true God, to dwell without limit with Jesus's spirit. In that unity the Son is all that the Father is. God. The very image of the invisible God. The radiance of the Fathers glory and the exact imprint of the Fathers very being.

So is Jesus God?
He never dies.
Yes, He is all that the Father is.
No, He has always been the Son.

You cannot tell me what the Son was before he was revealed as Jesus, except that he issued from God and was the Eternal God. When you call him the "Eternal Son" you are only saying that he preexisted what we know about him in time. We cannot describe His "Sonship" in Eternity!

 

[Randy]

Then we really can't discuss our agreements/differences, because we have to know what each other is arguing! But I keep trying--hopefully others will understand? It's a complex matter, but my argument is rather simple. The "Trinity" involves a single eternal God. But the expressions of the various Persons are revealed in *time.*

God is eternal, but formation takes place *in time.*

God is eternal, but His "Fatherhood" is expressed in *time.* Terms like "Father, Son, and Spirit" get confused only because we naively use them in the context of eternity, when they only make sense in time. Their own relationship to eternity is their source in a single eternal God and His being the mouth to express His Word in time.

Jesus and his Sonship are God expressing Himself in time in the context of His revelation as a man in time. What the Son was before he was revealed as such is inexpressible except with reference to God as the source of all of His revelations.

Jesus was a human spirit encased in a human body--a man. A spiritual being can be separated from its body, but that is not who it is determined to be.

The entire man, spirit and body, is the man--not just the spirit. The revelation of man can be temporarily reduced to just his spirit nature, but that is only part of the entire revelation of man, which involves both spirit and body.

The Father is unbegotten because He is by necessity *before creation.* He comes to be revealed in the context of creation as "begotten" with reference to His revelation as a man.

God's revelation appears to us only in terms of time. Even His eternal nature is expressed to us in finite terms, in terms of time. His eternal nature is expressed to us as *endless time.*

The Eternal God is expressed as *before time and creation.* But He is also expressed in the form of His revelation when He appears within time through the Spirit and the Son, and through any revelation God wishes to make use of via His Word. This would include theophanies.

Even what we know about the Father is revealed to us in terms of time. What God was before He revealed to us His being a Father is beyond our comprehension. We know Him as Father because He created us as sons.

Jesus was the "beginning" only in the sense that from eternity he was God, and the Source of His plan for Man. He foresaw His own divine image as the blueprint for human existence and behavior.

That is how Christ was the "beginning." More specific to our dilemma with Sin, His blueprint contained within it the necessity of our redemption. God's plan was predestined to succeed.

But as "Jesus" he was not known as such in eternity because the terms "Jesus" and "Son" only make sense to us in time. We only know that these revelations emerged from the eternal Word of God *before time.*

The entire Trinity preexisted time, but can only be known by us in temporal terms via His revelations in time, ie via His Word. If we refer to Father, Son, Spirit, or Word we must understand we are only using finite terms, preventing us from understanding Him beyond these terms.

We can source them all in Eternity, but we cannot pretend to know them except in their temporal sense. We can refer to the "Eternal Son" but we cannot know what the "Son" means except with respect to who He came to be revealed as and where he came from.

You cannot tell me what the Son was before he was revealed as Jesus, except that he issued from God and was the Eternal God. When you call him the "Eternal Son" you are only saying that he preexisted what we know about him in time. We cannot describe His "Sonship" in Eternity!

Ok we will disagree. But according to you God brought about the Logos. If I am correct in this then explain how His offspring can't be His Son at that beginning.

He's eternal because He lives by the Deity in Him, (the Father), and never dies. Just as we live by Him and never die. He is before all things and the Father brought all those things He is before into existence through, by and for His Firstborn.

 

[RandyK]

Ok we will disagree. But according to you God brought about the Logos. If I am correct in this then explain how His offspring can't be His Son at that beginning.

Well, you can't really disagree with me if you don't really understand what I'm saying, or what my argument is? You claim that I don't believe Jesus, as God's Offspring, is God's Son "at the beginning?" With respect to my position, this question doesn't seem to make much sense?

I do see Jesus as God's Son in temporal terms, but can never hope to understand them in eternal terms except that Jesus, God's Son, has always been Divine and has always been God's Word. He just wasn't known as "God's Son" before he was revealed as a man.

So in the "beginning," we are talking about creation, and not *before creation." Creation begins at the beginning. And that's where the finite terminology about God begins to make sense, when things are created and a relationship between God and His creation begins to make sense.

But Jesus had not been produced yet as a man, and so his Sonship could not be established as a reality, but only as a future reality. I can't say I know whether God planned to send His Personhood in the form of a man prior to the Fall of Man? But clearly, once mankind fell, God had to come in the form of His Son in order to redeem us from that Fall.

He's eternal because He lives by the Deity in Him, (the Father), and never dies.

The Deity in Jesus is not "the Father." The Father exists distinct from His Word because He is defined as the source of His revelation. The Deity in the Son is the revelation itself, which orignates from the Father.

We can say that the Son existed as the Eternal God from Eternity, as well as in the "beginning." But we cannot say the Son existed in the form of the Son in eternity or even in the beginning. The form of the Son took shape when Jesus was born as a man. That's when he officially was revealed as "the Son."

Even if we do not agree I hope you come to understand my position? It can be difficult to understand, but it really isn't that complicated.

 

[Randy]

Well, you can't really disagree with me if you don't really understand what I'm saying, or what my argument is? You claim that I don't believe Jesus, as God's Offspring, is God's Son "at the beginning?" With respect to my position, this question doesn't seem to make much sense?

Jesus was and is a living being. If you do not believe His spirit was a Son of the Father before the world began despite all your word play I disagree with you. Jesus is not my Heavenly Father. God is. We have the same Father and the same God. (My Jesus and I) God brought all things into existence through, by, and for His/the Son.

I do see Jesus as God's Son in temporal terms, but can never hope to understand them in eternal terms except that Jesus, God's Son, has always been Divine and has always been God's Word. He just wasn't known as "God's Son" before he was revealed as a man.

I see Him as a real Son,First begotten of the Father. The church states begotten of the Father but not made. True God FROM true God. I state God from true God as the Deity that was pleased to dwell IN Him, (col 1:19), is and remains the Fathers. There is only one God and therefore only one Deity - the Fathers. The Father in the Son and the Son in the Father they are ONE. Not two Deitys. The Son has the Fathers very nature and therefore is the image of the invisible God. The radiance of Gods glory and the imprint of Gods very being. God being the Father in this context. The Son is all that the Father is. Such a being/Son would be called God.

So in the "beginning," we are talking about creation, and not *before creation." Creation begins at the beginning. And that's where the finite terminology about God begins to make sense, when things are created and a relationship between God and His creation begins to make sense.

But Jesus had not been produced yet as a man, and so his Sonship could not be established as a reality, but only as a future reality. I can't say I know whether God planned to send His Personhood in the form of a man prior to the Fall of Man? But clearly, once mankind fell, God had to come in the form of His Son in order to redeem us from that Fall.

I state the Son who was, His spirit, was in the body prepared for Him. And we read His words that the Father was living in Him doing His work and they are ONE. As I state the Fathers Deity not His own.

The Deity in Jesus is not "the Father." The Father exists distinct from His Word because He is defined as the source of His revelation. The Deity in the Son is the revelation itself, which orignates from the Father.

I disagree and only believe in ONE God. Two persons but one shared Deity and it should be clear to all the source is the Father from whom the whole family derives its name and as in the one from whom all things came. Our Heavenly Father.

We can say that the Son existed as the Eternal God from Eternity, as well as in the "beginning." But we cannot say the Son existed in the form of the Son in eternity or even in the beginning. The form of the Son took shape when Jesus was born as a man. That's when he officially was revealed as "the Son."

I can state what I stated. I believe what I stated.

Even if we do not agree I hope you come to understand my position? It can be difficult to understand, but it really isn't that complicated.

I think you believe in two Gods from what and how you state things. As in Jesus Deity is not the Fathers. It has to be at the very least shared Deity as in both but it's clear to me the source is the Father. True God FROM true God.

 

[RandyK]

Jesus was and is a living being. If you do not believe His spirit was a Son of the Father before the world began despite all your word play I disagree with you.

Fine, you disagree with me. I'm okay with that. I believe this, which sounds similar to what you say you believe:

1 Pet 1.20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

I believe the Son was planned for and was the Image of God Man was created in at the beginning. So that "Image" had to preexist the beginning, in order for Man to be created "in it."

But before the beginning Christ was not yet "the Son," and was not known as such, since Man had not yet even been created. The Son was a Person who preexisted the creation not as a man but as God Himself. He was the Word that designed Man.

As such, the Word of God preexisted the creation of Man. And only after that creation could the Word be expressed as "the Son."

Jesus is not my Heavenly Father. God is. We have the same Father and the same God. (My Jesus and I) God brought all things into existence through, by, and for His/the Son.

Jesus is distinct from the Father, but not from "God." Jesus is your "God," but not your "Father." These are titles of God that have to be used properly to convey our proper relationship to them, both of which are "God."

We relate to God as "Father" when we address Him in heaven as the Source of all His revelations. We relate to God as "Son" when we are dealing with God in the form of a man.

There is only one God and therefore only one Deity - the Fathers.

That is not orthodox faith. The "one God" is not just the "Father's Deity." There is indeed only "one God," but that God is revealed in all 3 Persons, Father, Son, and Spirit. And He can reveal His Person in any number of ways, assuming it is really Him being revealed.

The Father in the Son and the Son in the Father they are ONE. Not two Deitys.

The Deity of the Father and the Deity of the Son are not indicative of "two Deities." One Divine substance, and two Persons.

The Son has the Fathers very nature and therefore is the image of the invisible God. The radiance of Gods glory and the imprint of Gods very being. God being the Father in this context. The Son is all that the Father is.

The Son is all Deity, yes, but not "all that the Father is" in terms of how He is defined as a distinct Person. The Son is not "the Father."

The Son is defined by his revelation as a man. And the Father stands distinct from the revelation He has produced of His Divine Personality as a man.

Such a being/Son would be called God.

I state the Son who was, His spirit, was in the body prepared for Him.

This is similar to the Apollinarian Heresy, in which it was believed Deity inhabited Jesus' body as strictly his "mind." It is also similar to the Docetist Heresy in which it was believed God existed outside of the body of Jesus and only appeared in a sort of "human representation."

If you want to be truly orthodox, you must express Jesus' entire being, body, soul, and mind as a divine expression of God's Person--only in the form of a man. Jesus had a human personality as well as a divine personality.

But His human person stands distinct from the divine personality of the Father, which must always be kept distinct from Jesus' human personality, or risk representing God, falsely, as a pantheistic reality. God exists not just in creation, but necessarily, outside of creation, as well.

I think you believe in two Gods from what and how you state things. As in Jesus Deity is not the Fathers. It has to be at the very least shared Deity as in both but it's clear to me the source is the Father. True God FROM true God.

Yes, I believe the Source is the Father and that Deity is shared by both Father and Son. No, I don't believe this constitutes belief in "two gods."

 

[brightfame52]

More on Christ as Michael the ArchAngel !


The Lord Jesus Christ is none other than Michael the Archangel, The Lord/Prince of all the Angels of God,who by the way [The Angels of God] were Created for the Redemptive Purpose in Christ as indicated Heb 1:13-14

13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

And no other Angel but Michael, the Chief of them could execute what happens to satan in Rev 12:7-9

7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

And its also Christ/ Michael here when the Angel did this Rev 20:1-2

And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

That Angel was Christ that bound satan, the strong man ! Matt 12:29

Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.

Mk 3:27

No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

The word bind in both Matt 12:29 and Mk 3:27 is the same exact word bound in Rev 20:2 ! Thats because its Christ by His work of the Cross binding the strong man satan and that is what is happening in Rev 12:7-9 ! 5

 

[Randy]

Fine, you disagree with me. I'm okay with that. I believe this, which sounds similar to what you say you believe:

1 Pet 1.20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

I believe the Son was planned for and was the Image of God Man was created in at the beginning. So that "Image" had to preexist the beginning, in order for Man to be created "in it."

But before the beginning Christ was not yet "the Son," and was not known as such, since Man had not yet even been created. The Son was a Person who preexisted the creation not as a man but as God Himself. He was the Word that designed Man.

As such, the Word of God preexisted the creation of Man. And only after that creation could the Word be expressed as "the Son."

Jesus is distinct from the Father, but not from "God." Jesus is your "God," but not your "Father." These are titles of God that have to be used properly to convey our proper relationship to them, both of which are "God."

We relate to God as "Father" when we address Him in heaven as the Source of all His revelations. We relate to God as "Son" when we are dealing with God in the form of a man.

That is not orthodox faith. The "one God" is not just the "Father's Deity." There is indeed only "one God," but that God is revealed in all 3 Persons, Father, Son, and Spirit. And He can reveal His Person in any number of ways, assuming it is really Him being revealed.

The Deity of the Father and the Deity of the Son are not indicative of "two Deities." One Divine substance, and two Persons.

The Son is all Deity, yes, but not "all that the Father is" in terms of how He is defined as a distinct Person. The Son is not "the Father."

The Son is defined by his revelation as a man. And the Father stands distinct from the revelation He has produced of His Divine Personality as a man.

This is similar to the Apollinarian Heresy, in which it was believed Deity inhabited Jesus' body as strictly his "mind." It is also similar to the Docetist Heresy in which it was believed God existed outside of the body of Jesus and only appeared in a sort of "human representation."

If you want to be truly orthodox, you must express Jesus' entire being, body, soul, and mind as a divine expression of God's Person--only in the form of a man. Jesus had a human personality as well as a divine personality.

But His human person stands distinct from the divine personality of the Father, which must always be kept distinct from Jesus' human personality, or risk representing God, falsely, as a pantheistic reality. God exists not just in creation, but necessarily, outside of creation, as well.

Yes, I believe the Source is the Father and that Deity is shared by both Father and Son. No, I don't believe this constitutes belief in "two gods."

I agree to disagree. no point in having a continuous disagreement

 

[Randy]

More on Christ as Michael the ArchAngel !


The Lord Jesus Christ is none other than Michael the Archangel, The Lord/Prince of all the Angels of God,who by the way [The Angels of God] were Created for the Redemptive Purpose in Christ as indicated Heb 1:13-14

13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

And no other Angel but Michael, the Chief of them could execute what happens to satan in Rev 12:7-9

7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

And its also Christ/ Michael here when the Angel did this Rev 20:1-2

And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

That Angel was Christ that bound satan, the strong man ! Matt 12:29

Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.

Mk 3:27

No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

The word bind in both Matt 12:29 and Mk 3:27 is the same exact word bound in Rev 20:2 ! Thats because its Christ by His work of the Cross binding the strong man satan and that is what is happening in Rev 12:7-9 ! 5

Michael is one of the chief princes. Jesus is the only like to like begotten Son of the Father. The writer of Hebrews took pain as He contrasted Jesus's Sonship vs the Angels of God in Hebrews 1. About the Son. Are you a JW?

 

[RandyK]

I agree to disagree. no point in having a continuous disagreement

I agree. I normally continue arguing as long as I think there may be lack of a full understanding of the argument. In this case, we may both suffer "burn out?" And I sure don't want to be overly repetetive, which is what it was becoming.

 

[brightfame52]

Michael is one of the chief princes. Jesus is the only like to like begotten Son of the Father. The writer of Hebrews took pain as He contrasted Jesus's Sonship vs the Angels of God in Hebrews 1. About the Son. Are you a JW?

Do you deny God appeared as an Angel in scripture

Michael is one of the chief princes. Jesus is the only like to like begotten Son of the Father. The writer of Hebrews took pain as He contrasted Jesus's Sonship vs the Angels of God in Hebrews 1. About the Son. Are you a JW?

Gen 16:7-11

7 And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.

8 And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.

9 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.

10 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.

11 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.

Who is the Angel of the Lord speaking to Hagar ?

 

[LeviR]

Michael is one of the chief princes. Jesus is the only like to like begotten Son of the Father. The writer of Hebrews took pain as He contrasted Jesus's Sonship vs the Angels of God in Hebrews 1. About the Son. Are you a JW?

Yes, I believe Michael was the angel of the Lord. And no he was not Jesus. Michael carried the name of the Lord, “My name is in Him”, and is called such. The Father, the only true God, does not allow His face to be seen by mortal man.
Jesus, who was made lower than the angels has been exalted high above all of them, including Michael. God’s name has been transferred from Michael to Jesus. “I have come in my Father’s name”, he says. He now carries the name of the Lord.

 

[Randy]

Do you deny God appeared as an Angel in scripture

Yes, in regard to the Father and the Son. At the burning bush before Moses I believe God's presence was there "with" His Angel by His "Spirit". The Holy Spirit. Where the Father goes His glory follows. Read about His descending on the Mountain top to speak to Moses. His glory greatly disrupted His creation. A consuming fire with rumblings and peals of thunder. Why do you think it's written our God is a consuming fire?

Gen 16:7-11

7 And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.

8 And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.

9 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.

10 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.

11 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.

Who is the Angel of the Lord speaking to Hagar ?

The Angel was not named but was identified as a Angel.

Are you a JW?

 

[brightfame52]

Yes, in regard to the Father and the Son. At the burning bush before Moses I believe God's presence was there "with" His Angel by His "Spirit". The Holy Spirit. Where the Father goes His glory follows. Read about His descending on the Mountain top to speak to Moses. His glory greatly disrupted His creation. A consuming fire with rumblings and peals of thunder. Why do you think it's written our God is a consuming fire?

The Angel was not named but was identified as a Angel.

Are you a JW?

So your point is moot if you agree God appeared as an Angel

 

[LeviR]

Yes, in regard to the Father and the Son. At the burning bush before Moses I believe God's presence was there "with" His Angel by His "Spirit". The Holy Spirit. Where the Father goes His glory follows. Read about His descending on the Mountain top to speak to Moses. His glory greatly disrupted His creation. A consuming fire with rumblings and peals of thunder. Why do you think it's written our God is a consuming fire?

The Angel was not named but was identified as a Angel.

Are you a JW?

God Himself remained in heaven when the angel appeared in the midst of the bush. The angel was there, the Father was not.
The angel was representing the Father to Moses.
He might just as well say, “the words I speak to you are not my own but of the only true God. The works I do, and will do, to bring you into the land, are not my works but of the only true God in heaven.
When I speak, He speaks, what I do, He does.

And the only true God might say,

20 Behold, I send an Angel before you to keep you in the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. 21Beware of Him and obey His voice; do not provoke Him, for He will not pardon your transgressions; for My name is in Him. 22But if you indeed obey His voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. 23For My Angel will go before you and bring you in to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites and the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will [e]cut them off.

This is the angel who Jesus now has been exalted over. What applied to him applies to Jesus.

 

[Randy]

God Himself remained in heaven when the angel appeared in the midst of the bush. The angel was there, the Father was not.
The angel was representing the Father to Moses.
He might just as well say, “the words I speak to you are not my own but of the only true God. The works I do, and will do, to bring you into the land, are not my works but of the only true God in heaven.
When I speak, He speaks, what I do, He does.

And the only true God might say,

20 Behold, I send an Angel before you to keep you in the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. 21Beware of Him and obey His voice; do not provoke Him, for He will not pardon your transgressions; for My name is in Him. 22But if you indeed obey His voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. 23For My Angel will go before you and bring you in to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites and the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will [e]cut them off.

This is the angel who Jesus now has been exalted over. What applied to him applies to Jesus.

I think the Fathers Spirit was there as in the Spirit of God or Holy Spirit. That the angel was standing in the presence of God. Hence the ground was Holy ground.

 

[Randy]

So your point is moot if you agree God appeared as an Angel

No, the Angel appeared as an Angel. Gods Holy Spirit is not visible to man.

You keep avoiding the question. Are you a JW?