ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 469
Nov 21 06 9:20 PM
Quote:I believe Jesus is eternal, but His flesh had a beginning, and it began with Mary. Did it not? His flesh was created, was it not?
Posts: 85958
Nov 22 06 9:19 AM
Administrator
Quote: I disagree with the statements above simply because God did the whole thing, Mary was the willing vehicle which He chose to use. Now as to if His flesh was created??? Let's see...
Quote:With God all things are possible. God did it all and I don't believe it really depended on any human agency, but God because He would experience every aspect of human life chose to use a human vehicle to make His entrance.
Quote: Does this make sense?
Nov 22 06 9:59 AM
Quote: 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 plural form of the sentence raises the question, With whom took he counsel on this occasion? Was it with himself, and does he here simply use the plural of majesty? Such was not the usual style of monarchs in the ancient East. Pharaoh says, I have dreamed a dream Gen_41:15. Nebuchadnezzar, I have dreamed Dan_2:3. Darius the Mede, I make a decree Dan_6:26. Cyrus, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth Ezr_1:2. Darius, I make a decree Ezr_5:8. We have no ground, therefore, for transferring it to the style of the heavenly King. Was it with certain other intelligent beings in existence before man that he took counsel? This supposition cannot be admitted; because the expression let us make is an invitation to create, which is an incommunicable attribute of the Eternal One, and because the phrases, our image, our likeness, when transferred into the third person of narrative, become his image, the image of God, and thus limit the pronouns to God himself. Does the plurality, then, point to a plurality of attributes in the divine nature? This cannot be, because a plurality of qualities exists in everything, without at all leading to the application of the plural number to the individual, and because such a plurality does not warrant the expression, let us make. Only a plurality of persons can justify the phrase. Hence, we are forced to conclude that the plural pronoun indicates a plurality of persons or hypostases in the Divine Being.
Posts: 1861
Nov 22 06 2:27 PM
Quote:It never occurred to me that Jesus was not always the Son of God, as the Second Person of the Godhead....but then I got to thinking (that is usually trouble!) that His flesh has not always been, and I wondered if that is where the rub comes in...
Quote:Yes, I believe Jesus is eternal, but His flesh had a beginning, and it began with Mary. Did it not? His flesh was created, was it not? After He ascended into heaven, He states He is not flesh and blood, but flesh and bone....as flesh and blood cannot inherit heaven. So what are your thoughts regarding these two passages.
Quote:Yeah, but that is Roman Catholic, is it not? And they would like Him to be eternally begotten, because then Mary wouuld have had to have been around eternally too. I do not find eternally begotten in the Scriptures. I don't believe the Second Person of the Trinity, God's Son was made...but I am just not seeing that His flesh was not made. Wow...this is difficult.
Quote:Okay...I believe that too, totally. What I was getting at about the Mormon understanding, is they believe that God, while also being a Spirit, also has a human body in heaven. That He is a man, with arms and legs, beard and such. It is almost like they took our conversation further...or not.... do you see what I mean?
Nov 22 06 2:47 PM
Quote:The Father you are referring to is God, not a human father. Not a father in the sense that he had a son as you now have projected. Because to believe your logic then Jesus Christ the Son had a beginning and we all know thats not true. We also know that to even imply this makes Jesus Christ a lesser part of the God Head.
Quote:So we do not see the " Son of God " in any of this, but that the plural pronoun indicates a plurality of persons or hypostases in the Divine Being
Quote:We do not see " Eternal Lamb-ship," " Christ-ship," or " Kingship or Servent-ship."
Quote:Did you know that even Adam was the son of God without being eternally the son of God. ( Luke 3:3 or being eternally begotten. Abraham also had an only begotten son that was neither eternally begotten ( Heb. 11:17) nor eternally his son.
Nov 22 06 5:09 PM
Quote: twist it, and go off on another rabbit trail.
Quote:Baloney. Jesus is eternal and God. We are temporal and human. Of course I was not implying that the "Father"'s fatherhood in relation to the Son is not the same as his fatherhood in relation to us. My point was simply that the Father could not be the "Father" in eternity past unless there was also a "Son", by definition. Don't read into my statements what is not there.
Quote: We can talk about other titles after we finish talking about Sonship. You are setting up the same strawman, getting in to the same "Semantic Bamboozle", that Evans did in the article I am trying to discuss with you.
Quote: You started of forcefully and vocally defending it, and now you are using the same arguments against it as Evans.
Nov 22 06 5:22 PM
Quote:And until I read all three articals that Ruckman wrote, I can't see why you are making such a big deal out of this.
Nov 22 06 6:40 PM
Quote: Shain, YOU brought this all up by calling Ross a liar for saying some KJV-only supporters deny the eternal Sonship.
Nov 22 06 7:50 PM
Quote:This was the very first thing I pointed out but in all of this mess, this has been lost in it all.
Posts: 758
Nov 22 06 10:04 PM
Lover of the Word
Quote:Yes, that is perhaps the point of confusion in this issue. You are right that his human flesh did not always exist. For some reason, some people see his flesh as the defining point of his being "Son", but that is not orthodox thinking. Rather, the Son was sent and made flesh.
Quote:His body now is still of flesh, but of a glorified, resurrected flesh - not of the corruptible flesh we have in our pre-resurrected state.
Quote:But "eternally begotten" has nothing to do with Mary. Notice the Creed says "eternally begotten from the father". This is not about his human body, but about the relationship as Father and Son between the first two persons of the Trinity. In other words, he was "eternally begotten" as the Son of the Father, even before he had human flesh. Everyone (even Catholics) realize his flesh and Mary had a beginning.
Quote:Yes, I see what you mean. Certainly, it is difficult for our minds to understand the eternal God. But the orthodox position is there was no human body involved until the incarnation. We are made in his image, so maybe there's an aspect of physicalness to Father that is hard to define and understand (the OT talks of his face, etc.), but if so, that physicalness was/is not "human".
Nov 22 06 10:22 PM
Quote:So you are denying the Virgin Birth of our Lord? If so you have just thrown out half the prophecies concerning the Virgin Birth of our Lord.
Nov 23 06 1:11 AM
Nov 23 06 7:52 AM
Nov 23 06 11:08 AM
Quote:Ruckman : We are not talking about only a challenge to the English Bible, but we are also talking about a challenge to the Greek TR and majority texts, which have the begotten Son and not Ross and Augustus Strongs begotten God. There is absolutely no other passage, where such terminology is used in any Bible. To oppose Bob Ross perversion is not to oppose some aspect of the Son of Gods deity or His beings eternal preexistence as God as Ross charges King James Onlys. The mere availability of some higher or nobler word or concept in some obscure text does not demand its automatic insertion in our English Bible nor its authenticity nor correctness.
Nov 23 06 12:12 PM
Quote:Ruckman: " Bob Ross and Andrew the Apostate had been doing their best to get certain Bible Belivers ( KJV Onlys) to deny the deity and eternality of Jesus Christ. Make no mistake about it; this issue is not about the deity of the Son of God. This is about King James Onlys, whom Ross would like to destroy along with their KJB. In a letter to Dallas Bunch ( 5/11/96), Ross quotes Herb Evans as once saying in the BBB:
Quote:He ( Evans) assereted that 'only begotten Son' referred to the same essesnce as His Father, even God'( BBB, an 1992,p10)
Quote:Ruckman: " The truth of the matter is that the article to which Ross refers was an article about Bob Ross ' perversion of John 1:18 ( in Bob Sumner's paper). Ross changed the " only begotten Son' to the " only begotten God' wothout any justification .
Nov 23 06 12:25 PM
Quote:This is tough to find the language, and maybe it is because it is beyond our understanding, but the Biblical verse says this:1Jo 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.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...
Quote:The problem I have with making this a doctrine, is that it is a creed that was designed by men, not inspired by God, not part of sacred Scripture, who state Jesus is "eternally" begotten, when the Scriptures do not say, nor imply this, as far as I have seen. I see that God manifested Himself in the flesh, begotten of God, made Himself as a servant, born of a woman, in a man's body, to die for us. I understand from Scripture that this is the Word of God, the Second Person of the Godhead.
Nov 23 06 12:46 PM
Nov 25 06 1:03 PM
Nov 25 06 2:52 PM
Nov 25 06 3:13 PM
Quote: This is NOT about his deity, his eternalness, his being in the Trinity, his being "the same essence of the Father", etc., etc., etc. Neither I nor Bob Ross have said Ruckman or others have denied these things, despite Evan's article trying to make it appear that this is the case. This is SIMPLY and ONLY about whether or not he was rightfully called the "Son" of God before the incarnation or not. PERIOD. Orthodox Christianity says "yes". I say "yes". Ross says "yes". Even you said "yes". Ruckman, Riplinger and Evans say "No!" - and that's how this all came about.
Quote: ..." for they ( Ruckman, Herb Evans, & Riplinger) believe in the preexistent Word was deity or God and that the God/man, the Son of God is also deity or God. This straw-man issue is merely a semantics exploitation of the Title rather than the Being or Person of our Lord. The contention is over whether HIS Title as the " Son of God " ( rather than His Being) originated and functioned in eternity or time. We are simply saying that The Word was not the Son before He was MADE flesh and dwelt among us not that God the Son was made flesh ( Jn. 1:1,14)
Quote:One must make a difference between the Lord's Eternal Being and the God/man's earthly titles, Christ, Lamb, Servent, Son, King, and so forth. One must make the difference between the preexistent Word and the God/Man's birth as the Son of God, MADE of a women and MADE of the Seed of 4:4. (Arthur Pink)
Quote:Luke 1:32 " he ....SHAL be called the Son of the Highest"
Quote: Romans 1:3" Jesus Crist our Lord....was MADE FLESH of the seed OF DAVID according to the FLESH" ..
Quote:Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Share This