Quote by Mari:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It does not say God sent His Son...but that He sent His only begotten Son. The Second Person of the Godhead, was never begotten. Only the man Jesus was...we have both agreed to that, right?

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

Quote:
Well, to be honest I have a couple problems with that statement. First, no, I believe he was begotten (not in terms of a physical birth) eternally, not just at the physical incarnation/birth. Second, I'm not comfortable with the term "the man Jesus" in contrast to "the Second Person of the Godhead".


I am not getting that...sigh. He became man...was manifested in the flesh. Even the Scriptures say the man Christ Jesus. He was fully man and fully God.

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Begotten eternally implies He was not always God somehow, to me. I have been doing some study and thinking about Abraham and Issac verse Ishmael, and understand that Ishmael was born of the flesh, but Issac by the will of God. Could it be that the scripture was talking about Issac as his only begotten son because he was born of the will and spirit of God?

Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

Somehow, I think if we were sitting down together, discussing this...it would have gone a lot easier. :\

Quote:
I *think* you're just trying to refer to the beginning of his humanness (and I'll agree with you in that sense), but "the man Jesus" is "the Second Person of the Godhead". He is God, manifested in flesh - not God with, but separate from, the flesh. I think you agree, but I'm a stickler for accurate Trinitarian doctrine.


Yes, there was a beginning to His humaness, when He emptied Himself and took on the flesh of man, manifesting God in the flesh.

Quote by Mari:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He does not say that He IS His Father, but that He WILL be TO Him a Father, and that He Jesus, SHALL BE TO Me a Son

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

Quote:
True, but that doesn't preclude him being a Son already. For example, at my 50th wedding anniversary (assuming we live that long ), she "shall be" my wife - even though she is already my wife now.

Also note that the verse is actually not saying that God says this to Jesus, but rather it is asking the rhetorical question: to which of the angels will he say of them, they "shall be" his Son? The answer of course is "none of them". He already has a Son.


True to the last part, but the first paragraph is really reaching for me! :\ Sounds more like forcing it....but I did find some more Scriptures that tell me the relationship was that of Son and Father, but not exactly in the context that we understand Father and Son. I know you understand that, so I won't elaborate.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brian, do you think it makes any difference whether He always was the Son, equal in all ways with the Father, but was called, Son, or had the relationship of Son to the Father? Do you think this is somehow a salvation issue? Just want to be clear, and the importance of knowing this.

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

Quote:
I don't think it's a salvation issue. Mostly, it's just a terminology debate, and a rose by any other name is still a rose. However, I also don't think it's a pointless debate either - I think an accurate understanding of his relationship and role as the second person of the Trinity, not just now but in the past as well, is important.


I agree, because any truth about God is worth knowing to the best of our ability, and through this study I have learned a LOT. :)


Quote by Mari:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have found some others which tell me that the relationship with the Father was always as Son.

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


Quote:
If you agree that he was always "Son", then I don't think it's a big issue about disagreeing over "eternally begotten". I use "eternally begotten" to describe the eternal relationship of Son to Father. Since you agree he was eternally Son and had that relationship, I think you *do* believe in "eternally begotten" even though you don't like the term itself. Does that make sense?


Yes, because eternally begotten, sounds like He had a beginning, to me. This verse is quite telling, and I believe now, that the relationship has always been that of Son. I am so glad of the opportunity to have studied this out with you.

Mic 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Micah 5:2 not only states the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, but also that He pre-existed His birth from all eternity. I cannot pretend to understand it, but it is right there. I have found much more evidence as well in my search to know, and a friend sent me some great references. Thank God I am still learning and rejoicing in the revelations of Him!


Quote by Mari:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a way, yes, but that is not what they meant in the Creed, they meant that Baptism literally the rite and the water absolves sins,

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

Quote:
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I'm a bit puzzled: how do you know it means one thing in the Creed, but another in the scriptures, while they both use the same wording?


Because I was raised a cradle Catholic and know the beliefs, and because to understand baptism, one has to take the whole counsel of God...and there is a progression in the NT that is fairly easy to see and understand, even for me. :D

Quote by Mari:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why? Why do they want to destroy the KJ Bible, and those that love it and hold it as the time tested word of God?

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

Quote:
They (we) don't. Shain, like many KJV-only supporters, takes things too personally and thinks that opposition to a doctrine about the KJV is opposition to the KJV itself.


Thanks for telling me that. Shain loves the King James Bible, as I do, and many have attacked those of us that use it and believe it is the pure word of God, saying that it is not the pure word of God. It bothers me because it is like saying there is no pure word of God that we can read and adhere too. And that to me is calling God a liar, that He did not keep His word pure as He promised.

The problem is that the KJB has stood the test of time, over four hundred years, and through the biggest revival in history, and all the new translations are different, using different manuscripts, interpretations, and many as thought for thought rather than word for word, and started by men who were not even believers in the diety of Christ! I just don't understand why people can't see this.

If folks want to use another version, so be it, I still believe they can be saved by them, but why attack the KJ or those who read it, like it is a second class Bible, or second class Christians who read it..to justify their choice. Many, myself included, have warned brethren about the new translations, because many of them are so poorly done, with different agenda's behind them.

I have ever much enjoyed your posts, and learned more about what I believe and why, and that is a real blessing to me. I hope you too have been blessed in some way.
Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. <br><br><br>Mari