God's only Son??!?

Rooster,

Jesus had no beginning and does not have an end. This FACT is spoken of in the book of Hebrews.

Once again you're wrong in saying that Jesus was only the Son in the mind of God. He was the Son along side the Father as stated in John 1:1.

mg, you continue to use "The Son" and Jesus interchangeably as INEXHAUSTIVE PERSONAL NAMES FOR "JESUS".

Jesus refers to the personal name of "The Son" and of God. It refers to both God in Spirit (only) and God in man (Jesus)

The Son is a title describing an office and particular work of Jesus that was time related.

I agree that Jesus was w/out beginning or end. However, when He left heaven and became a man, he was begotten in flesh and the sonship began.

So you are saying that before that happened he was "The Word"?

Rooster,

The "sonship" of Jesus BEGAN way before the incarnation. Read Psalm 2:7

This title of "Son" is like that of "High Priest" in the Order of Melchizedek and Lamb of God. They reflect the work of Christ as well as His relationship to the Father.

Jesus isn't the personal name of the Father. Jesus is the personal name of the Son who is ONE with the Father (BUT not the Father) who was sent into the world by the Father to redeem man for the Father and afterwards RETURN to the Father and sit at the right hand of the Father (or is in the presence of the Father acting as a mediator.

Again I encourage you to read the ENTIRE book of Hebrews where this is explain (it is also "explained" in other books of the Bible as well).

MG: The "sonship" of Jesus BEGAN way before the incarnation. Read Psalm 2:7

Me: Ok, here's where the bible is going to bust you. If the Sonship began before time, way before the incarnation (and not in the mind of God as part of his plan re: "lamb slain from the foundation of the earth), THEN ARE YOU PROPOSING THAT THE SON WAS BEGOTTEN SOMETIME IN ETERNITY PAST? In order to be "Son" to the "Father" He had to have been begotten. Are you saying Jesus was begotten prior to the incarnation?!!?!!?!?!!?!?

MG: This title of "Son" is like that of "High Priest" in the Order of Melchizedek and Lamb of God. They reflect the work of Christ as well as His relationship to the Father.

Me: Exactly and like "High Priest", and "Lamb of God" they do not each mean A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT BEING but rather reveal an aspect of Messiah. Typically either an aspect of His revealed humanity or His revealed deity.

MG: Jesus isn't the personal name of the Father. Jesus is the personal name of the Son who is ONE with the Father (BUT not the Father) who was sent into the world by the Father to redeem man for the Father and afterwards RETURN to the Father and sit at the right hand of the Father (or is in the presence of the Father acting as a mediator.

Me: riiight. That's why you DO believe in multiple beings. But here is where the bible is going to bust you again. Then, pray tell me, WHAT IS THE PERSONAL NAME OF THE FATHER?!?!?

MG:
Again I encourage you to read the ENTIRE book of Hebrews where this is explain (it is also "explained" in other books of the Bible as well).

Me: I have done so, thanks. I find in Hebrews as well as the rest of the bible the unveiling or revealing of our "Great God in Christ". Not another.

Rooster,

Am I saying the Son was begotten in eternity past?

YEP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh let me say this again for the record Jesus is NOT another being. Jesus and the Father as well as the Holy Spirit are ONE being. That is, each are of the same essence or substance. Jesus, the Father, the Holy Spirit are just distinct persons or personality, Distinct in that the Father is not the Son the Son is not the Father and neither the Father or the Son are the Holy Spirit. Each are distinct from one another like the three dimensions of space (height, depth, length) but each are unified as ONE like the three dimensions of space form ONE enity called space.

Also what I stated about the Father sending the Son into the world to redeem man from his sins and return to the Father and sit at the right hand of the Father is FROM the BIBLE. Do you want me to post all the scripture reference that EXPLICTEDLY stated this? I certainly can do that if you like. In the gospel of John alone there are at least 10 or so reference made by Christ Himself that the Father SENT Him to redeem man and Christ RETURN to the Father and SITs at His right hand. Hebrew 10:12 says clearly that after Christ offered sacrifice for sins He SAT down at the Right hand of God. I am surprised you DENY what the Bible itself so explictedly states! So no the bible hasn't "busted" me. I don't think you have read the enitre book of hebrews I would encourage you to read it again.

Oh I think you want me to say Yahweh or Jehovah in reagrds to the name of the Father, right?



MG: Rooster,
Am I saying the Son was begotten in eternity past?

YEP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Me: Busted! Jesus is then a CREATED BEING. game over.

MG: Oh let me say this again for the record Jesus is NOT another being. Jesus and the Father as well as the Holy Spirit are ONE being. That is, each are of the same essence or substance.

Me: Biblical. What I believe...but wait, you can't let it sit at that...there's more...here comes the philosophy...

MG: Jesus, the Father, the Holy Spirit are just distinct persons or personality,

Me: um...you just said they were the same, but now they are distinct "persons" or "personalities" which is defined in the dictionary as "individualities" or "beings"...here comes the "mystery".

Mg...Distinct in that the Father is not the Son the Son is not the Father and neither the Father or the Son are the Holy Spirit. Each are distinct from one another like the three dimensions of space (height, depth, length) but each are unified as ONE like the three dimensions of space form ONE enity called space.

me: ...or like a person, and another person, and still another. One substance (human) yet distinct. I see.

MG: Also what I stated about the Father sending the Son into the world to redeem man from his sins and return to the Father and sit at the right hand of the Father is FROM the BIBLE. Do you want me to post all the scripture reference that EXPLICTEDLY stated this? I certainly can do that if you like. In the gospel of John alone there are at least 10 or so reference made by Christ Himself that the Father SENT Him to redeem man and Christ RETURN to the Father and SITs at His right hand. Hebrew 10:12 says clearly that after Christ offered sacrifice for sins He SAT down at the Right hand of God. I am surprised you DENY what the Bible itself so explictedly states!

Me: that is because I do not read verses in isolation. If you believed in the harmonization of THE ENTIRE BIBLE (which you said you don't read the bible that way) you would learn that GOD IS NOT SENT AS HE IS EVERYWHERE. So unless you believe Jesus is not omniscient, you need other verses and context to understand what is meant. Specifically, during a temporal time period, Jesus was literally led by the Spirit w/in (and everywhere) from location to location. Sent to the Jews, sent to the apostles, sent to the hurting etc. "Sent" is in reference to his literal physical appearance.

We have already covered "right hand of God" which is clearly figurative and I posted the other verses that prove it is not a physical position but anthromorphoric language.

mg: So no the bible hasn't "busted" me. I don't think you have read the enitre book of hebrews I would encourage you to read it again.

me: you think wrong. I have. many times. I would encourage you to reread corithinians. Specifically where paul defines God. In doing so, we now know that God is the Father and Jesus is God (and man). Thus He is Father and Son (as stated by Isaiah).

Rooster,

Sorry my friend, if Jesus had no beginning and does not have an end then He CANNOT have been create. Therefore He is NOT a created being.

Jesus is eternal. His beginning reaches far back into eternity past and His end continues forward in eternity furture. If your smart you'll understand what I just said. In other words, Jesus Christ the same yesterday today and forever, no beginning or end!

Read John 1:1

MG: Sorry my friend, if Jesus had no beginning and does not have an end then He CANNOT have been create. Therefore He is NOT a created being.

Me: Sorry MG, you said, "Rooster, Am I saying the Son was begotten in eternity past? YEP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "
You stated he was begotten sometime prior to Bethleham, sometime prior to Moses and Abraham. So which is it? It is His Spirit that was eternal. Not His flesh.

The bible clearly states that the Son was MADE of a woman and that He WAS begotten.

You know MG, I really feel sorry for you. I'm not sure what type of theological game you are playing but your contortions and twistings are sad.

2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Mat 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

2Pe 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.



Rooster,

Two things:

#1 It is interesting you are trying to use that scripture on me when I give a similar scripture as to why you can't understand and do not accept the doctrine of the trinity (like the MAJORITY of Christians regardless of demoninational affliation). Remember 1 Corinthians 2:1-16.

#2 The doctrine of the Trinity is BELIEVED by the majority of Christians. My views concerning it are not far removed from mainstream Christian orthodoxy. If my views are "contorted and twisted" what does that say about Christiandom as a whole? I guess Protestants, Cathloics and Orthodox Christians how and contorted and twisted view of God? Furthermore I guess only a small group of Christians like yourself have "true" knowledge of God, right?

MG: #1 It is interesting you are trying to use that scripture on me when I give a similar scripture as to why you can understand and do not accept the doctrine of the trinity (like the MAJORITY of Christians regardless of demoninational affliation). Remember 1 Corinthians 2:1-16.

me: fallacy of majority...see my 7 or 8 questions on the evolution of the doctrine, the violence affiliated with it's leaders, it's non biblical uninspired terms etc.


MG: #2 The doctinre of the Trinity is BELIEVED by the majority of Christians. My views concern it are not far removed from Christian orthodoxy. If my views are "contorted and twisted" what does that say about Christiandom as a whole?


me: The view of the majority of Christians runs the gamut from confused, to essentially oneness to tritheism. Also, as this doctrine has evolved over centuries...which views are "orthodox"? The ones established by early Catholic Father? Later additions by Protestants?

Certainly your remark of Jesus being begotten sometime in eternal past is NOT ORTHODOX. Your fundamental inability to understand the dual nature of Christ is not "orthodox".

Finally, you and I have exchanged probably close to 1000 posts. My comments are not directed at "Christendom" but at you directly. However, I'd be happy to clarify my views towards that end if you want to be specific.

MG: Rooster, Am I saying the Son was begotten in eternity past?
YEP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

me: Dude, that's JW doctrine...

Rooster,

You are clearly in denial concerning the commonality of the doctrine of the Trinity in Christianity.

I can show you all the "official" statements of the major Christian denomination and show you that is hardly any difference as to how belief in the Trinity and the doctrine of the Trinity is worded.

This is a fact. All mainstream Christian denominations believe in and hold the Doctrine of the Trinity to be true.

Furthermore since you insist that I am wrong BECAUSE I believe the Doctrine of the Trinity is True and Biblical and claim I am confused as well as one who "twist" the true ALL BECAUSE I believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity, THEN all those who believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity besides me (which seem to be the majority of Christians) are also wrong. And all those besides me (which again seem to be the majority) are also guilty of being "confused" as well as "twisting" the true when they DEFEND this doctrine.
You don't want to own up to that fact that when you "condemn" ME for defending and believing in the Doctrine of the Trinity you are at the same time condemning a whole slew of others in Christiandom. This number is so large you want to minimize it and direct it instead at me. In other words you don't want to admit you are condemning most of christiandom for believing in the doctrine of the Trinity you rather deal with condemning just me. This is the main reason why I also bring up the "commonality" of this Doctrine in Christianity.


Also this debate isn't not personal for me this way my comment are not directed toward you personally. I have stated before and I will state again this debate is the Doctrine of the Trinity vs. the Oneness Doctrine as to which is true, biblical and has a place in Christianity.

Oh, one last thing. I CLARIFIED my response concerning the Son being "eternally begotten". I stated, for those who are reading impaired, since the Son is eternal, that is, having no beginning or end, He CAN'T have been "create".

Thus there goes, out the window, your idea I'm a JW!

Also if you want to see how many people besides myself who vigorously defend the Doctrine of the Trinity against Oneness theology go to www.carm.org.

This site has a forum especially devoted to this debate. There you'll see I'm not alone.

Just as an aside to this debate. Here's some startlin research:

"The research indicated that everyone has a worldview, but relatively few people have a biblical worldview - even among devoutly religious people. The survey discovered that only 9% of born again Christians have such a perspective on life. The numbers were even lower among other religious classifications: Protestants (7%), adults who attend mainline Protestant churches (2%) and Catholics (less than one-half of 1%). The denominations that produced the highest proportions of adults with a biblical worldview were non-denominational Protestant churches (13%), Pentecostal churches (10%) and Baptist churches (8%).


For the purposes of the research, a biblical worldview was defined as believing that absolute moral truths exist; that such truth is defined by the Bible; and firm belief in six specific religious views. Those views were that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life; God is the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe and He stills rules it today; salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned; Satan is real; a Christian has a responsibility to share their faith in Christ with other people; and the Bible is accurate in all of its teachings."



Why is that relevant to this discussion? To me, it seems that using the masses of Christianity to substantiate a doctrine is weakened by the fact that the gross majority of "Christians" don't study their bible and know very little of it's contents. It's a sad but true fact that when asking trinitarians and oneness brothers alike to explain their beliefs, they can repeat what they've heard, but can't really biblically explain their position when asked to harmonize other scriptures.

I'm not denying that many of these "christians" who don't have a biblical worldview may indeed have a relationship w/Christ, but their understanding of the bible is not to be trusted.

So many today are simply "tossed back and forth by every wind of doctrine" and why is this? Cuz they don't know the word. This could be applied to both oneness and trinitarians.








MG: I can show you all the "official" statements of the major Christian denomination and show you that is hardly any difference as to how belief in the Trinity and the doctrine of the Trinity is worded.

Me: You mean belief in 3 persons of the godhead? I'm talking about your average orthodox christian on the street. By the way, I have no problem stating that the Trinity is false doctrine, no matter how many people believe it.

MG; Oh, one last thing. I CLARIFIED my response concerning the Son being "eternally begotten". I stated, for those who are reading impaired, since the Son is eternal, that is, having no beginning or end, He CAN'T have been "create".

Thus there goes, out the window, your idea I'm a JW!

Me: this is a prime example of your "twisting". You say Jesus was "begotten" in eternity past. You said it. Now "begotten" means at some point he became the offspring of God in order to become Son. I say it's in Bethlehem about 2,000 years ago. You say somewhere in eternity past. Yet you also say he's eternal. Whoa. How is it He was begotten in eternity past by your own admission and eternal?!!?!

MG: Rooster, Am I saying the Son was begotten in eternity past? YEP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also if you want to see how many people besides myself who vigorously defend the Doctrine of the Trinity against Oneness theology go to www.carm.org.

This site has a forum especially devoted to this debate. There you'll see I'm not alone.

Me: the continued fallacy of proof by majority. It doesn't matter if only Jeremiah believed the truth. It was still truth no matter what the rest of the Jews believed about God at that time.

Puzzled, excellent point!

MG, for you:

Rev 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

Rev 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my SON.

By the way, carm.org is a mess to read. Tell your buddies to come on over...

MG, for you:

Rev 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I (Jesus) am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

Rev 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I (Jesus) will be his God(theos in Greek, ELOHIM IN HEBREW), and he shall be my *SON*.

Rooster,

Several points.

The Son is eternal. Meaning He had no beginning and does not have an end. Thus Jesus could not have been "created" thus if the term "begotten" means "created or made" then it is wrong. If the term begotten means "to bring forth" then it agree with biblical statements concerning the Son. The Son was NOT made in eternity past BUT was brought forth from eternity past. Proverbs 8:22-36 speaks to thus particularly verse 22,23,24

The Son WAS NEVER made. He WAS however brought forth from eternity. This is clearly described in John 1:1 as well as Micah 5:2. Christ (Jesus, the Son) "goings forth have been of old, from everlasting" (note: this verse refers specifically to the Son as verse 4 make it clear).

Once again I refer you to John 1:15 as well as John 8:58 where it explicted states that the Son was BEFORE John the Baptist and EXISTED before Abraham.

Also I like how you causally gloss over many other scriptures in the book of Revelation. For example Rev 1:17 states "I am He that lives and was dead, and behold I am alive evermore". Tell did God die? Was God ever dead? If Jesus and the Father are one and the same then the Father died? If the speaker is the Father then the Father died. But that can't be true since the bible say the SON died on the cuel cross of calvary. Furthermore this verse CLEARLY says Jesus LIVES EVERMORE. Does He live evermore as the Father or the Son? If the speaker is Jesus then the context is clear JESUS the SON lives evermore.

Also consider Rev 2:18 where the speaker identifies Himself as THE SON and Rev 2:29 where the speaker (Jesus) speakes of receiving the ruling rod of iron from HIS FATHER.

Oh don't forget Rev 3:6 where the speaker (again Jesus or the SON of God as clarified in verse 2:18) CLEARLY states He will confess the names of those who overcome before HIS FATHER. Oh while your at it don't forget to consider Rev 3:12 where this same speaker (again identified as the SON of God in Rev 2:18) promises to those that overcome He will make them a pillar in the temple of HIS GOD and will write the name of HIS GOD upon them. Finally this same speaker also states that to those who overcome HE will grant to them a sit with HIM on HIS throne just as HE is SET (present tense) with HIS FATHER in the FATHER's throne.

I could go on and on.

Also I don't debate on that other forum I was letting you know the issue is bigger than just me.

Rooster,

Also remember your little attack against me concerning the TRUTH that the Father SENT the SON into the world to die for the sins of mankind and after the Son finished HIS work HE returned to the FATHER and from the Father sent forth the Holy Spirit?

Well here is the biblical reference for your reading pleasure.

"Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that He (Jesus) CAME from the God, and WENT to God" John 13:3

"I CAME forth from the Father and COME into the world; again LEAVE the world and GO TO the Father" John 16:28

"...I proceeded forth and CAME from GOD; neither came I of myself but HE (the FATHER) SENT Me" John 8:42


Need I post more!

MG: The Son is eternal.

Me: No, Jesus (as to His deity) is eternal. The Son, again reveals the incarnation of God in man. The humanity is not eternal. Would you agree that that part of Christ which was authentically and fully man WAS NOT ETERNAL?

MG: Meaning He had no beginning and does not have an end. Thus Jesus could not have been "created" thus if the term "begotten" means "created or made" then it is wrong.

Me: So, this is what it comes to? The bible is wrong? The bible says "begotten" and it is the interpretation of the word "genomai" which means MADE OR CREATED. Look it up.

MG: If the term begotten means "to bring forth" then it agree with biblical statements concerning the Son. The Son was NOT made in eternity past BUT was brought forth from eternity past. Proverbs 8:22-36 speaks to thus particularly verse 22,23,24

Me: The term begotten means what it means man. It means "having an offspring" I actually have begotten a daughter. She's my offspring. Sheesh. And now you are disagreeing with your self? You said the Son was CREATED in eternity past. Now you are saying He was "brought forth" in eternity past? What does that mean..."brought forth"?!? If He always existed THEN HE WAS NOT BEGOTTEN UNTIL HE CAME TO JERUSALEM.

MG: The Son WAS NEVER made.

Me: Ok, you argue with scripture. Or better, harmonize it. It's so easy.

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Scripture defies you above. There are many more by the way.

MG: He WAS however brought forth from eternity. This is clearly described in John 1:1 as well as Micah 5:2. Christ (Jesus, the Son) "goings forth have been of old, from everlasting" (note: this verse refers specifically to the Son as verse 4 make it clear).

Me: so very easy to see if you understand His dual nature (which IS ORTHODOX). Romans teaches that part of Christ which is flesh is "made". Micah teaches that part of Christ which is God is from everlasting. Neither verse by the way says "Son". You have a tendency to misquote scripture...a dangerous practice.

MG: Once again I refer you to John 1:15 as well as John 8:58 where it explicted states that the Son was BEFORE John the Baptist and EXISTED before Abraham.

Me: You explictely misstate as I pasted BOTH scriptures and John 1:15 doesn't reference Son neither does John 8:58. The Son didn't pre exist any more then the Lamb or the High Priest did. Only the Deity of Christ pre existed. It was not begotten nor made. It was God. The only God.