ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 758
Nov 17 06 9:49 PM
Lover of the Word
Quote:they interpret "only begotten God" as meaning his Godhood had a beginning
Posts: 258
Nov 18 06 7:06 AM
Posts: 838
Nov 18 06 12:50 PM
Nov 18 06 3:58 PM
Posts: 1425
Nov 18 06 6:17 PM
Nov 18 06 6:36 PM
Quote:There are no capital letters in Hebrew. So that reading if read as bar would only be 'son' and not Son.
Posts: 1191
Nov 18 06 7:12 PM
KJV God's Word
Nov 18 06 7:43 PM
Nov 18 06 8:03 PM
Nov 18 06 10:32 PM
Quote:This section of Daniel was written in Aramaic, not Hebrew. However, the same principle applies, as there are no upper case letters in Aramaic.
Quote: maybe it would be a good idea to get back to the subject instead of a further discussion of the use of capitals, which I in innocence began.. sorry for the thread drift Shain..
Nov 18 06 10:49 PM
Posts: 1861
Nov 19 06 7:32 PM
Quote:wow...talk about a twisting and turning conversation!I don't believe this for a moment!Jesus Christ has always been the Second Person of the Godhead, however, Jesus is the begotten Son of God, the only begotten God, because while Jesus was fully human He is also fully God, and always has been, God, while not always manifested, in the flesh.
Quote:Where in the Old Testament do you find Son of God? He is called the Lamb, the King, the Lord of Hosts, the Lord, your Redeemer, the King of Israel, the first and the last, the glory of the Lord, the Lord thy God, the Saviour, Mighty One of Jacob, son of Man, Servant, and more I am probably missing, but I do not find Him referred to as the Son of God until the New Testament. Do you?
Nov 20 06 5:11 PM
Quote:Many Christians believe that Daniel 3:25 refers to Jesus
Nov 20 06 5:29 PM
Quote:Brian: As already mentioned by Franciscan Monkey, many look to Dan 3:25 (I have yet to hear an explanation, from KJV-only supporter who rejects eternal Sonship, about this passage). Also, previously mentioned on this board, Prov 30:4b is often is used to defend eternal Sonship.
Posts: 469
Nov 20 06 10:14 PM
Posts: 85958
Nov 21 06 5:16 PM
Administrator
Quote:.."(many KJV-only supporters believe Jesus was not "Son" until his incarnation) and claimed I believed I had info on Ruckman and Riplinger on this issue. Shain1611 challenged me on this.
Quote: - I provided many quotes from the Aug, Sep and Oct 2002 editions of Ruckman's "Bible Believers' Bulletin" showing where they explicity deny that Jesus was the "Son" before his incarnation.
Nov 21 06 5:23 PM
Quote:Okay, bear with me here, as I have no axe to grind, and never fully understood this, nor had a belief one way or the other, as there has been no teaching on this in my life that I remember, or the subject ever even coming up.I see in the OT the "Us" and the Godhead...but no teaching or belief that part of the Godhead included a Son of God, simply, (yikes) Three Persons in One God. Nothing to indicate that God had fathered Jesus, until the NT, when Jesus was born of a woman, GOD manifested in the flesh, Jesus the Christ. Fully God and fully man. I believe Jesus is fully human, and fully divine. That Jesus the man was created, the only begotten Son of God, come in the flesh.
Quote:Do you believe that Jesus the man has always been? Even though we know that flesh and blood cannot enter heaven? Do you believe God is a Spirit...or a man/spirit in heaven, as the Mormons do?
Nov 21 06 5:32 PM
Quote:wow...talk about a twisting and turning conversation!
Nov 21 06 6:34 PM
Quote:Ruckman and Riplinger never said they didn't believe that Jesus Christ was not " Son " until his incarnation.
Quote: I would like for you to go to page 8 in the September 02 issues of the " Bible Believers Bulletin " and tell me what is on the bottom left side of that page.
Quote:I have either missed them or have yet seen them in the three " Bible Believers Bulletin's," you have mentioned. Could you give me those again with the page number you found them on so I can check them out. I have all three copies and I havent seen them yet. I may have missed them, and it wouldnt be the first time for that.Let me try and refresh your memory; the issue was that you claim that Ruckman said he didn't not believe in the " Eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ?"
Quote:This is exactly what I'm talking about. Ad I'm glad you seen this. It just proves what I have been saying all along. They have invented a lie and then tried to pin it on KJVonly's.
Nov 21 06 6:56 PM
Quote:BrianT: Yes, it is not common in the OT to refer to the Godhead in terms of Father, "Son", and Holy Spirit. However, there are many things that are not readily clear in the OT that the NT clarifies - this fact of course does not prove Jesus was "Son" in the OT, but it does prove that he at least could be without the OT being explicit about it.But consider: The "Father" in the OT. Why was he called "Father"? One can only be a "Father" if one has a "Son" (or daughter). Yes, he is "our Father" and the "Father" of all creation in one sense, but what about even before creation? The orthodox Christian belief is that it was still "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit", not "the Big Guy, the Word and the Holy Spirit".
Quote:The orthodox Christian belief is that because the Father and Son are eternal (i.e. not temporal), the Son being "begotten" (thus establishing the Father-Son relationship) is likewise eternal - not occurring at a specific point in time, but instead the Son is begotten from eternity past. The Athanasian Creed says in part:"The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
Quote:Likewise, the Nicene Creed says in part: "the Son of God, eternally begotten from the father,God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,begotten not made, one in Being with the Father."
Quote:I believe Jesus has always been, always been the "Son", and always been "God". He was not also "man" until the incarnation. I believe the Father is Spirit, and is "God". Yet they are the same God, not different Gods. I am strongly Trinitarian in my beliefs, and reject the Mormon understanding.
Share This