Please forgive if this comes off as a foolish question.

[Lebesgue]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. The Bible calls the harlot church a harlot, and even worse, "The Mother of All Harlots." As for "barking up the wrong tree" you may want to check which tree you're in.

Rev 17:4
And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: 5 And upon her forehead [was] a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

The point is I believe this passage of scripture is speaking of the paganism and idolatry of the RCC that has infected all of Christianity. I'm entitled to my beliefs as an Adventist on an Adventist forum. If you don't like it, you are free to leave. If I expressed this POV on a Catholic forum here they would be free to ask me to leave and they would be free to report me.

No one goes into another man's house and tells him how to make dinner. If you don't like what's 'cooking' here find another place to eat.

All I am saying is I disagree. You are also entitled to your opinion.

I thought this was a "debate and discussion" section.

I am debating and discussing.

I would agree with you that the Catholic Church has a lot of practices that are NOT right.

Shalom,

Lebesgue

 

[RND]

All I am saying is I disagree. You are also entitled to your opinion.

I thought this was a "debate and discussion" section.

I am debating and discussing.

I would agree with you that the Catholic Church has a lot of practices that are NOT right.

Shalom,

Lebesgue

Likewise.

 

[Pythons]

No. To believe the opposite would be to believe Jesus was "born" in Heaven. Jesus was not "born" in Heaven, He always existed with the Father.

As I mentioned, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus was "born" of God or a created being. Adventists believe that Jesus was born on earth but always existed with the Father.

1st, I’m glad you are back. I’ll endeavor to reason with you without leaving the impression that I’m in agenda or attack mode. It’s difficult for anyone to deny another’s position w/out offending the person behind it.

The opposite is the only way to believe and remain orthodox. You said “Jesus was not begotten until He was born on earth” is synonymous with saying that at some point the Word didn’t exist because he was “caused” (begat) when born on earth. If you accept that ‘in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God then how could the Son “ever” be begotten if not eternally (prior to the incarnation). ?

This isn’t a miniscule point I’m taking you to task over and it certainly isn’t that I’m getting some kind of pleasure of revisiting the same thing over and over. A correct understanding of God is critical prior to moving on to other things as 1 degree off the mark at the start leads you far off course when you ‘think’ you’ve reached your destination.

I want to be crystal clear when I say I agree that Jesus always existed with the Father but maintain He was never “begat” (caused to exist) at anytime by anything, He was always God the Son, as God the Father was always God as the God the Holy Spirit was always God. Three Persons of the Godhead that are, always have been and always will be equally God made of the same substance and fully united in the same purpose, the only difference being relationships. Understanding the Trinity and in particular the 2nd Person of the Godhead is critical in formulating belief from Covenant study and if I’m to be prepared to given an answer for my belief I have to understand exactly where you stand so forgive me for doing the best I can in understanding where you stand.

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus is the only “begotten” Son of God because they reject Catholicism’s / Adventism’s term (s) of eternal generation and God the eternal Son prior to incarnation respectively. Because Jesus was not understood by them in unequivocal orthodox terms they deduced that Christ pre-existed as Michael the Archangel before the eons of eternity. They use terms like “Jesus the human” and this understanding is what dictated their understanding of typology applied to their understanding of Jehovah as well as Covenant (s).

Yes, Mormonism also teaches God the Father “begat’ Jesus and as the JW’s they do not mean from eternal generation. The whole purpose of my reasoning here is to show you how I see that what you repeatedly said (perhaps not meant) was straight out of the playbook of two groups you agree do not represent “true believers”. That’s all I’m trying to do my friend, establish a starting point for our debate so that I know your yea is yea and you know my nay is nay.

The majesty of heaven stepped down from His royal throne, gave up His authority as Commander in the heavenly courts, laid aside His kingly robe and crown, and clothed His divinity with humanity, that He might take on Himself the weakness of human nature. This He did that He might give men an example of true humility. {17MR 29.6}

The Son never gave up His Divinity for a second, nor gave up His Authority. Jesus was the God-Man, 100% God and 100% Man.

“When Jesus saw that people came running together he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, I charge thee come out of him and enter him no more”. Mark 9,25

This was previous to “ALL AUTHORITY” being given to Jesus and if Incarnate God could rebuke evil spirits and “even” St. Michael the Archangel, one of the Chief princes lacked the authority to rebuke Satan over the body of Moses then God Incarnate was 100% fully God and His Divinity (Godhood) was 100% intact. 100% God and 100% man united into Jesus the Christ. Both the Divine and human natures performing all their respective tasks in total perfection. Lastly,

“The Virgin will be with Child and will give birth to a Son, and they will call him Immanuel which means, “God with us”

 

[RND]

The opposite is the only way to believe and remain orthodox. You said “Jesus was not begotten until He was born on earth” is synonymous with saying that at some point the Word didn’t exist because he was “caused” (begat) when born on earth. If you accept that ‘in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God then how could the Son “ever” be begotten if not eternally (prior to the incarnation). ?

Because the Bible never says Jesus was "begotten" in Heaven and to imply as much makes Jesus out to be a "created" being instead of what even Jesus says even about Himself. Mormons and JW's believe Jesus was "created" and deny He always existed as God.

John 8:58
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Jesus has always existed with the Father. "In the beginning was the word...." But the "word" did not exist as flesh until it was Jesus was begotten on earth. For if Jesus was "begotten" in Heaven would imply He was "born" in Heaven and only "flesh" is born and hence "created" by God.

Yes, Mormonism also teaches God the Father “begat’ Jesus and as the JW’s they do not mean from eternal generation. The whole purpose of my reasoning here is to show you how I see that what you repeatedly said (perhaps not meant) was straight out of the playbook of two groups you agree do not represent “true believers”. That’s all I’m trying to do my friend, establish a starting point for our debate so that I know your yea is yea and you know my nay is nay.

I believe it is you and not I that has stated that Jesus was not "begat" at anytime.

I agree that Jesus always existed with the Father but maintain He was never “begat” (caused to exist) at anytime by anything.....

How then do you explain the rather clear teaching of the Bible? Clearly, God came to earth in the form of a human being. That human was born (begotten) in the flesh. God made flesh. That doesn't mean God didn't exist beforehand, it simply says God did not exist as "flesh" beforehand.

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

1 Cor 15:50
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

1 Pe 3:18
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

1 Jo 4:2
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

The Son never gave up His Divinity for a second, nor gave up His Authority. Jesus was the God-Man, 100% God and 100% Man.

Right. But before He was 100% God/man He was 100% God. When He was "begotten" on earth he became 100% God/man. Jesus was not 100% man in heaven.

This was previous to “ALL AUTHORITY” being given to Jesus and if Incarnate God could rebuke evil spirits and “even” St. Michael the Archangel, one of the Chief princes lacked the authority to rebuke Satan over the body of Moses then God Incarnate was 100% fully God and His Divinity (Godhood) was 100% intact. 100% God and 100% man united into Jesus the Christ. Both the Divine and human natures performing all their respective tasks in total perfection. Lastly,

That's debateable.

“The Virgin will be with Child and will give birth to a Son, and they will call him Immanuel which means, “God with us”

Right, I understand. Did Jesus exist as God before He existed as a man?

 

[Pythons]

Because the Bible never says Jesus was "begotten" in Heaven and to imply as much makes Jesus out to be a "created" being instead of what even Jesus says even about Himself. Mormons and JW's believe Jesus was "created" and deny He always existed as God.

Ok RND, let’s try it your way for a little bit. Read your following post quotes then answer the question after.

That's exactly what I said. Jesus became the begotten Son when He was born on earth. Before that, He had always existed with the Father. He was not born in Heaven but on earth.

Jesus wasn't born in heaven, He was always with the Father. The great "I AM."

That's exactly what I said. Jesus became the begotten Son when He was born on earth. Before that, He had always existed with the Father. He was not born in Heaven but on earth.

Who begat the great “I AM”?

John 8:58
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Jesus has always existed with the Father. "In the beginning was the word...." But the "word" did not exist as flesh until it was Jesus was begotten on earth. For if Jesus was "begotten" in Heaven would imply He was "born" in Heaven and only "flesh" is born and hence "created" by God.

Who said anything about The Word existing as flesh in heaven prior to the Incarnation?????? Where in the world are you going now?
So Jesus “always existed with the Father”, but prior to the Incarnation the Father wasn’t the Father, He was Just plain old God?
Here is how your analogy would be worded if it took the place of John 1.
In the beginning was God and God was with God and God was God

Right now, as a Catholic, I would be ecstatic if you would accept Fundamental Beliefs 2, 3, 4 of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (I can seriously say I never thought I would be wishing for this). I was under the assumption (pun intended) you had to agree to the Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church prior to full fellowship and that definitely would include belief in God “the eternal Father” and God “the Eternal Son”.
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, EVEN AS HE CHOSE US IN HIM BEFORE THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE WORLD”. Eph 1,3
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God”.

I believe it is you and not I that has stated that Jesus was not "begat" at anytime.

That’s right, “WAS NOT” begat at anytime is what I’ve been saying all along because “Eternal Son” means without beginning or end as in “eternal Generation” or “eternal Son”

How then do you explain the rather clear teaching of the Bible? Clearly, God came to earth in the form of a human being.

God was “Incarnated” in Mary and I’m pretty sure you will not find a Catholic who says otherwise.

That human was born (begotten) in the flesh. God made flesh.

Bingo! There it is.
That Person who was 100% God and 100% Man was “INCARNATED” in the “Virgin Mary”.
Abraham begat (bred Sarah) and had a son named Isaac who begat (bred Rebekah) and had a son named Jacob who begat (bred) his wife and so on and so on all through the genealogy listed in Matthew 1 until we get to Joseph who most certainly DID NOT BREED Mary. How could you read all the way through Matthew 1, 1-16 and reach the conclusion that Joseph in ANYWAY contributed to the flesh of Jesus when the Bible is adamant Joseph never even touched her that way.

That doesn't mean God didn't exist beforehand, it simply says God did not exist as "flesh" beforehand.

As if I ever implied God ever existed as flesh beforehand. Start showing me where I even implied this.

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

Yes, made of “the seed of David”.” According to the flesh” means born from a woman and if Joseph didn’t “breed” Mary then obviously she is in the seed of David so God Incarnated into the Virgin Mary who was of the seed of David.
The following is my quote,

The Son never gave up his Divinity for a second, nor gave up His Authority. Jesus was the God-Man, 100% God and 100% Man.

Here is your answer to it,

Right. But before He was 100% God/man He was 100% God. When He was "begotten" on earth he became 100% God/man. Jesus was not 100% man in heaven.

When did I ever suggest that Jesus was ever flesh in heaven prior to the Incarnation? RND!

The following is my quote,

This was previous to “ALL AUTHORITY” being given to Jesus and if Incarnate God could rebuke evil spirits and “even” St. Michael the Archangel, one of the Chief princes lacked the authority to rebuke Satan over the body of Moses then God Incarnate was 100% fully God and His Divinity (Godhood) was 100% intact. 100% God and 100% man united into Jesus the Christ. Both the Divine and human natures performing all their respective tasks in total perfection.

And here is your answer to it,

That's debateable.

What’s debatable? You were just AFFIRMATIVE that the Son never gave up his Divinity or His Authority for a second. Now you are saying it’s debatable. You are really starting to worry me now. Did you mean to say that Jesus, prior to Matthew 28,18 did not have 100% of the Authority He had prior to the Incarnation?

Right, I understand. Did Jesus exist as God before He existed as a man?

There you go again, it’s like you can’t help it. Jesus IS God; He NEVER existed “as a man”. You are either purposely substituting Jesus’ human Nature as if it’s the Person to hide something about your belief that you don’t want the others here to see (because you wouldn’t care what a harlot of Babylon peon thinks) or you are confused. We went through this at the first part of the Trinity definition so something is up, isn’t it?

 

[RND]

Wow Pythons, you are really making the simple complicated.

Who begat the great “I AM”?

God the Father through Mary the virgin.

In the beginning was God and God was with God and God was God.

Yep. That's clear as crystal.

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, EVEN AS HE CHOSE US IN HIM BEFORE THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE WORLD”. Eph 1,3

I wonder what Paul would have said about those that reject being chosen "holy and without blame?" What Paul is saying isn't that we were chosen by God to be robots on earth and blindly follow God. To suggest so would be to suggest that God chose Paul to lead murder and persecution of the early Christian church. That Paul was chosen for works of evil before works of good.

God doesn't operate that way.

Everyone who willingly and freely accepts Jesus as Lord and savior is chosen "in Him" from the foundation of the world. What did God the Father "choose" for us in Jesus? To be Holy and Blameless. He didn't chose anything else for us to be "in Christ" other than "holy and blamless."

Eph 1:4
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God”.

Yep. Jesus was always with the Father.

That’s right, “WAS NOT” begat at anytime is what I’ve been saying all along because “Eternal Son” means without beginning or end as in “eternal Generation” or “eternal Son”

So now you're saying Jesus wasn't "begat" by God the Father through Mary?

God was “Incarnated” in Mary and I’m pretty sure you will not find a Catholic who says otherwise.

Through Mary.

Bingo! There it is. That Person who was 100% God and 100% Man was “INCARNATED” in the “Virgin Mary”.

Through Mary.

Abraham begat (bred Sarah) and had a son named Isaac who begat (bred Rebekah) and had a son named Jacob who begat (bred) his wife and so on and so on all through the genealogy listed in Matthew 1 until we get to Joseph who most certainly DID NOT BREED Mary. How could you read all the way through Matthew 1, 1-16 and reach the conclusion that Joseph in ANYWAY contributed to the flesh of Jesus when the Bible is adamant Joseph never even touched her that way.

Pythons, I believe you have mixed up the meaning of the word "begat." Whenever we look at the genelogies in the Bible we see that men "begat" children. We never see that men "begat" their wifes or concubines. The word doesn't mean "breed."

I included an example:

Gen 5:3
And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

Here is Strong definition of the word begat for both Hebrew and Greek.

yalad - a primitive root; to bear young; causatively, to beget; medically, to act as midwife; specifically, to show lineage:--bear, beget, birth((-day)), born, (make to) bring forth (children, young), bring up, calve, child, come, be delivered (of a child), time of delivery, gender, hatch, labour, (do the office of a) midwife, declare pedigrees, be the son of, (woman in, woman that) travail(-eth, -ing woman).

gennaw - from a variation of genoV - genos 1085; to procreate (properly, of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively, to regenerate:--bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring.

Now, as for your question, if you can show me where I suggested that Joseph impregnated Mary I'll give you $100.00.

As if I ever implied God ever existed as flesh beforehand. Start showing me where I even implied this.

I believe I used this line for clarity of my statement. Follow along...

Yes, made of “the seed of David”.” According to the flesh” means born from a woman and if Joseph didn’t “breed” Mary then obviously she is in the seed of David so God Incarnated into the Virgin Mary who was of the seed of David.

In the Bible the genelogy of the tribe always follows the man. Joseph lineage was of King David (Matthew 1:20). This fulfilled the prophecy that the Kingdom would always be ruled be a seed of David. Jesus is commonly referred to as the "Son of David."

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

Mary is never referred to as possesing the lineage of the King of David. However, if you pay close attention to Mary's lineage, you'll find that Mary was of the tribe of Levi.

When did I ever suggest that Jesus was ever flesh in heaven prior to the Incarnation? RND!

Here:

"...how could the Son “ever” be begotten if not eternally (prior to the incarnation)?"

You suggested here that Jesus was begotten "eternally."

What’s debatable?

The Catholic definition of Michael the arch Angel.

There you go again, it’s like you can’t help it. Jesus IS God; He NEVER existed “as a man”.

He didn't? What happened to that baby Mary had? Wasn't Jesus 100% human? Have a beard? Stand about 6' 4"? Wasn't he circumsized of the eighth day?

Did Paul refer to Him as a man?

Roman 5:15
But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

You are either purposely substituting Jesus’ human Nature as if it’s the Person to hide something about your belief that you don’t want the others here to see (because you wouldn’t care what a harlot of Babylon peon thinks) or you are confused.

Hardly. I just don't have any of the baggage associated with trying to make Mary out to be something she wasn't.

We went through this at the first part of the Trinity definition so something is up, isn’t it?

I don't know is "something" up?

 

[Pythons]

Who “caused to exist” the Great I am?

God the Father through Mary the virgin.

We need to cover the basics again RND so be patient and grab a pen, paper and your Bible.

“In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth”. Gen 1, 1



“And God said, let Us make man in OUR image”. Gen 1,26


As risky as this may sound I’m taking for granted that you agree, that in God there are three distinct Persons. When Genesis 1 says that God created the heaven and the earth then later says that God has a discussion (Gen 1,26) THE RELATIONSHIPS ALREADY EXIST AT THAT POINT THE DISCUSSION WAS MADE.

“Blessed be God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

According as He has chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blame before him in love”. Eph 1,3

Man cannot please God or live in accordance with His precepts enough to merit Salvation by doing certain things or by not doing certain things in and of himself. This is aptly proven throughout the entire Old Covenant and once that was sufficiently demonstrated through God’s chosen people God Himself came to us Incarnated in the Person of Jesus Christ who was one of the two “US” mentioned in Genesis 1,26. As in God the Father says it and the Word and the Holy Spirit are listening.

“This is how God showed His love among us; HE SENT HIS ONE AND ONLY SON INTO THE WORLD that we might live through Him”. 1 John 4,9

RND, if you are in the Army and the General SENDS YOU to Iraq you are “already” a soldier before you get to Iraq! If we use your logic applied to this illustration you wouldn’t be a soldier until you arrived in Iraq and the General wouldn’t be a General either until you got there. Ludicrous.


You’re desperate theatrics aside RND, you’re in the affirmative that Jesus became the begotten Son, “only” WHEN he was born on earth. I’m in the negative that as True God, Jesus was not ever begat and that He was always the Son from eternity (eternally Generated from the Father). In Ephesians 1 God the Father had chosen us in Christ before the foundations of the world and logic dictates that if “The Word” was “The Son” (because we were chosen “in Him&#8221 before the foundations of the world, it’s absurd to argue the Son wasn’t the Son until He was born on earth because the Father “SENT” him and the act of sending is action in motion that PROCEEDS the Son getting to where He is going.

What boggles my mind more then anything is why no other Adventists have jumped in on this particular subject when this very issue is 101 stuff and is a required FUNDAMENTAL belief prior to being Baptized SDA? I’m starting to wonder if RND has been ‘taught this belief’ instead of coming up with it on his own.

So now you're saying Jesus wasn't "begat" by God the Father through Mary?

Yes RND, that is what I’m saying and that is what your own Church is saying when it’s Fundamental Belief says “Eternal Son”.

Understand you’re affirmative RND and I’m negative on this question. Jesus Christ has always been “the Son from all eternity” and as such, Jesus the Christ was ‘begotten eternally’ from the Father in the same way in the Incarnation as he was begotten previous to the Incarnation in Gen 1 and from eternity previous to that. You are saying God “became the begotten Son after He was born on earth.

To say this is a colossal misunderstanding or heresy would be the understatement of the last two thousand years because God the Father wouldn’t be the Father until one of the other two Persons of the Godhead made it to where they were sent. Worse yet, claiming that the Word wasn’t the only begotten Son prior to being born is proof positive in some way yet to be identified that you believe God caused Christ. If the Son wasn’t the Son Eternally and only became the Son after God begat Him what did God do to decide who was going to be on first base?!

It’s bizarre and I’m literally having headaches trying to figure out what I can do so that at least you could understand why I believe you are wrong. And you have the audacity to suggest Catholicism (the great harlot as you put it) has me believing similar to the Jehovah’s Witnesses? ROFLOL!

Pythons, I believe you have mixed up the meaning of the word "begat." Whenever we look at the genelogies in the Bible we see that men "begat" children. We never see that men "begat" their wifes or concubines. The word doesn't mean "breed."

The meaning is “caused to effect” A man breeds (caused) his wife and his sperm joins with her egg to produce (effect) a child. That is why whenever we look at the genealogies in the Bible we see that men “begat” children (caused to effect).

In your analogy, “the child” or more specifically “the Son”, did NOT EXIST without the action of the cause, which produced the result. You saying that the Son didn’t exist “as the Son” previous to the Virgin Birth unequivocally states that God caused God to exist

Strong’s #1080 = Procreate, primary meaning.

A woman does not “begat” because she is the one being bred. When is the last time you’ve heard of a woman procreating? You’ve been saying all along that God begat Jesus and after that, Jesus then became the “Son”. I couldn’t explain to you how offensive this sounds to me yet I point out I have not attacked you for saying this over and over and over again because I’m convinced you actually believe it even after saying Jesus is the Great I AM and that I’m still trying to figure out. Is this belief you have tied to what Ellen said about Christ laying down his Divinity? Think

Now, as for your question, if you can show me where I suggested that Joseph impregnated Mary I'll give you $100.00.

Ok,

In the Bible the genelogy of the tribe always follows the man. Joseph lineage was of King David (Matthew 1:20). This fulfilled the prophecy that the Kingdom would always be ruled be a seed of David. Jesus is commonly referred to as the "Son of David."

“And Eliud the Father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Mathan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, whom Jesus was born, who is called the Christ”. Matt 1,15

Joseph’s genealogy is traced back to David indeed. So how much “seed” did Joseph put into Mary?

Luke 3, read it. Mary’s genealogy is traced back to David.

Send the Check to a Catholic charity of your choice.

Mary is never referred to as possesing the lineage of the King of David. However, if you pay close attention to Mary's lineage, you'll find that Mary was of the tribe of Levi.

Luke 3 says otherwise.

The Catholic definition of Michael the arch Angel.

Michael can wait until we sort out your issues with the Eternal Son, the second Person of the Trinity also known as Jesus the Christ.

He didn't? What happened to that baby Mary had? Wasn't Jesus 100% human? Have a beard? Stand about 6' 4"? Wasn't he circumsized of the eighth day?

“And Thomas answered and said unto Him, my Lord and my God”. John 20,28

I have no problem with this text RND. My issue is what happened to the 100% Divine (GOD) Nature that united with the 100% human or ‘man’ nature that was Jesus? You’ve already told me that Divinity was laid aside or put down and combined with your “wasn’t the Eternal Son from all eternity until God was procreated by God before He became the begotten Son theology I actually have no idea where you plan on taking me next.

You are either purposely substituting Jesus’ human Nature as if it’s the Person to hide something about your belief that you don’t want the others here to see (because you wouldn’t care what a harlot of Babylon peon thinks) or you are confused.

Hardly. I just don't have any of the baggage associated with trying to make Mary out to be something she wasn't.

United Airlines has nothing on your baggage associated with trying to Make Jesus out for less than He was and using Mary as an excuse for doing it.

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']So what’s up?[/font]

 

[RND]

Who “caused to exist” the Great I am?

No one. The great "I AM" has always existed.

We need to cover the basics again RND so be patient and grab a pen, paper and your Bible.

“In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth”. Gen 1, 1

“And God said, let Us make man in OUR image”. Gen 1,26

As risky as this may sound I’m taking for granted that you agree, that in God there are three distinct Persons. When Genesis 1 says that God created the heaven and the earth then later says that God has a discussion (Gen 1,26) THE RELATIONSHIPS ALREADY EXIST AT THAT POINT THE DISCUSSION WAS MADE.

"Let Us...." God was with God.

“Blessed be God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

According as He has chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blame before him in love”. Eph 1,3

Man cannot please God or live in accordance with His precepts enough to merit Salvation by doing certain things or by not doing certain things in and of himself. This is aptly proven throughout the entire Old Covenant and once that was sufficiently demonstrated through God’s chosen people God Himself came to us Incarnated in the Person of Jesus Christ who was one of the two “US” mentioned in Genesis 1,26. As in God the Father says it and the Word and the Holy Spirit are listening.

This is why Jesus was chosen before the foundation of the world and this is why, in Him, we are chosen to be holy and blameless.

“This is how God showed His love among us; HE SENT HIS ONE AND ONLY SON INTO THE WORLD that we might live through Him”. 1 John 4,9

RND, if you are in the Army and the General SENDS YOU to Iraq you are “already” a soldier before you get to Iraq! If we use your logic applied to this illustration you wouldn’t be a soldier until you arrived in Iraq and the General wouldn’t be a General either until you got there. Ludicrous.

Ah, but what happens when a wholely and perfect God who knows no boundaries or limitations based on what appears in the physical world sends His Son into the world?

Your analogy while tempting, is none-the-less inaccurate because Jesus didn't leave one country for another. Jesus left one demension of time and space for another; just as Jesus did when Jesus appeared to to Moses as a flame of fire in a bush or as a pilar of fire at night and a cloud by day.

The difference in this case is that Jesus took on the form and substance of man, and not the form and substance of fire. In neither case, either as a fire in a bush or as a man on earth has the message changed or wavered.

You’re desperate theatrics aside RND, you’re in the affirmative that Jesus became the begotten Son, “only” WHEN he was born on earth. I’m in the negative that as True God, Jesus was not ever begat and that He was always the Son from eternity (eternally Generated from the Father). In Ephesians 1 God the Father had chosen us in Christ before the foundations of the world and logic dictates that if “The Word” was “The Son” (because we were chosen “in Him”) before the foundations of the world, it’s absurd to argue the Son wasn’t the Son until He was born on earth because the Father “SENT” him and the act of sending is action in motion that PROCEEDS the Son getting to where He is going.

Then what one has to conclude is you believe that Jesus, at some point, was somehow "born" in Heaven and at some time "created" by God the Father.

What boggles my mind more then anything is why no other Adventists have jumped in on this particular subject when this very issue is 101 stuff and is a required FUNDAMENTAL belief prior to being Baptized SDA? I’m starting to wonder if RND has been ‘taught this belief’ instead of coming up with it on his own.

Hoping for another Adventist to join the fray and say I'm wrong? Hey, other Adventist's are free to tell me I'm wrong, but I'll have you know you are supporting an Arian view of this, even though you may not be aware of it.

Jesus set aside all notion of His heavenly divinity while on earth and relied on the other parts of the Godhead, one called the Father the other called the Holy Spirit while on earth, for His strength, guidance and instruction while on earth. Jesus told Phillip if you have seen me you have seen the Father. This was not a description of the "physical" characteristics of God but the nature of God's character.

You see the difference? Jesus was not the "Son" in Heaven as much as He simply always existed with God the Father. As God the Father has always been so has been Jesus also.

God always with God. John 1.

Yes RND, that is what I’m saying and that is what your own Church is saying when it’s Fundamental Belief says “Eternal Son”.

Well, when Jesus was on earth He most certainly was the "eternal son." But when He was in heaven before coming to earth He was the great "I AM" having always existed and been with the Father. Jesus in heaven was the "eternal God."

Understand you’re affirmative RND and I’m negative on this question. Jesus Christ has always been “the Son from all eternity” and as such, Jesus the Christ was ‘begotten eternally’ from the Father in the same way in the Incarnation as he was begotten previous to the Incarnation in Gen 1 and from eternity previous to that. You are saying God “became the begotten Son after He was born on earth.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. If, as you say, that "Jesus the Christ was ‘begotten eternally’ from the Father in the same way in the Incarnation..." then we have to conclude you believe Jesus was "born" in heaven the same way He was "incarnated" (born) on earth. That's a round about way of saying you believe Mary incarnated Jesus in heaven, which is what the Catholic church teaches by saying:

Because she is the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, therefore Mary is the Mother of God. ("Catechism" 963, 971, 2677).

To say this is a colossal misunderstanding or heresy would be the understatement of the last two thousand years because God the Father wouldn’t be the Father until one of the other two Persons of the Godhead made it to where they were sent.

O(r to suggest the opposite would be to conclude that Jesus was "born" (begotten) in heaven.

Worse yet, claiming that the Word wasn’t the only begotten Son prior to being born is proof positive in some way yet to be identified that you believe God caused Christ.

Caused Him what?

If the Son wasn’t the Son Eternally and only became the Son after God begat Him what did God do to decide who was going to be on first base?!

Speak with God?

It’s bizarre and I’m literally having headaches trying to figure out what I can do so that at least you could understand why I believe you are wrong.

But I'm not wrong. If you quit trying to convince yourself of that your headaches would go away.

And you have the audacity to suggest Catholicism (the great harlot as you put it) has me believing similar to the Jehovah’s Witnesses? ROFLOL!

If you think Jesus was "born" in Heaven then yes, you believe just like JW's.

Here's a question: Who was Jesus' mother if Jesus was "born" in heaven? Mary perhaps?

The meaning is “caused to effect” A man breeds (caused) his wife and his sperm joins with her egg to produce (effect) a child. That is why whenever we look at the genealogies in the Bible we see that men “begat” children (caused to effect).

I provided the definition for you "caused to effect" is no where in the definition of begat.

Here they are again:

yalad - a primitive root; to bear young; causatively, to beget; medically, to act as midwife; specifically, to show lineage:--bear, beget, birth((-day)), born, (make to) bring forth (children, young), bring up, calve, child, come, be delivered (of a child), time of delivery, gender, hatch, labour, (do the office of a) midwife, declare pedigrees, be the son of, (woman in, woman that) travail(-eth, -ing woman).

gennaw - from a variation of genoV - genos 1085; to procreate (properly, of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively, to regenerate:--bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring.

In your analogy, “the child” or more specifically “the Son”, did NOT EXIST without the action of the cause, which produced the result. You saying that the Son didn’t exist “as the Son” previous to the Virgin Birth unequivocally states that God caused God to exist

As a "man." In human form. Not God "caused" God to exist. The two always existed and were always in existence.

Strong’s #1080 = Procreate, primary meaning.

Right. Make babies. Did you miss the meaning though? "properly, of the father..."

 

[RND]

A woman does not “begat” because she is the one being bred. When is the last time you’ve heard of a woman procreating? You’ve been saying all along that God begat Jesus and after that, Jesus then became the “Son”. I couldn’t explain to you how offensive this sounds to me yet I point out I have not attacked you for saying this over and over and over again because I’m convinced you actually believe it even after saying Jesus is the Great I AM and that I’m still trying to figure out. Is this belief you have tied to what Ellen said about Christ laying down his Divinity? Think

Oh, I have thought about it. In order to be without original sin, Jesus could not have any human DNA in His blood. Jesus never sinned so that means even as a child He always told the truth.

Yet the Bible says, "All have sinned..." which would include Mary. Mary's genelogy can not in Jesus because if so, Jesus would have her DNA and be subject to original sin.

God impregnated Mary with God but Mary in this case acted as an "incubator" for the birthing of the Son of God." Just as you said above, "A woman does not “begat” because she is the one being bred" God in this case did not "breed" Mary. None of Mary's human DNA made it into Jesus.

“And Eliud the Father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Mathan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, whom Jesus was born, who is called the Christ”. Matt 1,15

Joseph’s genealogy is traced back to David indeed. So how much “seed” did Joseph put into Mary?

Luke 3, read it. Mary’s genealogy is traced back to David.

Send the Check to a Catholic charity of your choice.

This doesn't prove I said Joseph impregnated Mary for goodness sake. It just proves you believe as so, so many misinformed Christians do that the different geneolgies show both Mary and Joseph are from the House of David.

Question: How could Jesus be a priest of the order of Melchisedec, which is an order before the Levites, and yet offer forgiveness of sins and perform all the function of a Levite priest unless He was born a Levite?

Same way Jesus was a "son of David" through Joseph, by adoption.

See Luke 1. Mary was a blood relative of Elizabeth (luke 1:36) who was married to Zacharias who was a Levitical priest after the order of Abia (Luke 1:5). See 1 Ch 24 when David established the priesthood in his kingdom.

1 Ch 24:1 ¶
Now [these are] the divisions of the sons of Aaron. The sons of Aaron; Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.

1 Ch 24:5
Thus were they divided by lot, one sort with another; for the governors of the sanctuary, and governors [of the house] of God, were of the sons of Eleazar, and of the sons of Ithamar.

1 Ch 24:10
The seventh to Hakkoz, the eighth to Abijah,

abia - of Hebrew origin ('Abiyah 29); Abijah, the name of two Israelites:--Abia.

Clearly we can see there is no conflict in scripture. Jesus was a preist and he was acknolwledged as one. A "preist" was only from the House of Aaron, a Levite. Jesus was not only adopted into the kingly line of the House of David, He was also adopted into the preistly line (Levite) by way of Mary.

Luke 3 says otherwise.

Nope, just gives a different perspective of the same lineage that produced Jesus.

Michael can wait until we sort out your issues with the Eternal Son, the second Person of the Trinity also known as Jesus the Christ.

I bet.

“And Thomas answered and said unto Him, my Lord and my God”. John 20,28

Yep. Jesus was God.

I have no problem with this text RND. My issue is what happened to the 100% Divine (GOD) Nature that united with the 100% human or ‘man’ nature that was Jesus? You’ve already told me that Divinity was laid aside or put down and combined with your “wasn’t the Eternal Son from all eternity until God was procreated by God before He became the begotten Son theology I actually have no idea where you plan on taking me next.

Who did Jesus rely on while God on earth, himself or the Father? If He relied on himself, and was doing His will and His gig then He didn't need to rely on the Father, His own divinity would have been sufficient.

But Jesus relied on the Father, just as we do. We rely on the Father through the Son, the Man Jesus Christ, who has shown us the way to the Father.

Jesus never relied on His own divinty on earth, not once. He always was about "His Father's business" showing us God the Father, His nature and His character, through the Son.

United Airlines has nothing on your baggage associated with trying to Make Jesus out for less than He was and using Mary as an excuse for doing it.

I'm not trying to make Jesus out to anything less than being God Himself. I've stated that over and over and over again; Jesus Christ is God. Jesus Christ is God and was God in Heaven with God (God with God) since before there was any thought.

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']So what’s up?[/font]

Oh, not too much. Just trying to figure out if the Raiders (RND = RaiderNationDave) are going to draft for need or impact. If they draft for need they'll pick either Glenn Dorsey or Sedrick Ellis but if they go for impact they'll take Darren McFadden, provided his still around and the Jets don't take him. Who knows? But since they just locked up Tommy Kelly for five years I'd imagine they'll go for impact and maybe trade Justin Fargus or Michael Bush.

So what's up?

You're from the Seattle area? Remember 1984 when the Seahawks lost to the Raiders in the AFC championship game in LA? 30 to 14. I was there! 20 yard line about 5 rows up. 95,000 fans in a packed house. Ah, LA fans are so fickle. They love a winner.

Speaking of which, how many championships have the Seahawks won? You don't even need hands to count 'em all do ya?

 

[Pythons]

Quote:
We need to cover the basics again RND so be patient and grab a pen, paper and your Bible.

“In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth”. Gen 1, 1

“And God said, let Us make man in OUR image”. Gen 1,26

As risky as this may sound I’m taking for granted that you agree, that in God there are three distinct Persons. When Genesis 1 says that God created the heaven and the earth then later says that God has a discussion (Gen 1,26) THE RELATIONSHIPS ALREADY EXIST AT THAT POINT THE DISCUSSION WAS MADE.

"Let Us...." God was with God.

God is ONE Entity and "within" God are Three distinct Persons thus; A relational difference existed from Eternity.

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word WAS GOD".

Vs.

God was with God?
(1) + (1)

God was with God = 2 God's. We are back to what we covered previously.

"In the beginning was the God and the God was with God and the God was God."

Simple reasoning tells you the above defiled version of John 1,1 adds up to two God's because ;

in the beginning WAS "THE" GOD // and "The" God was with God // and "the" God was God.

There is no spinning out of this one.


What is it exactly that you are protecting here? I've got the feeling there is a reason you are going the way you are and there has not been one Adventist that has corrected or agreed with you.

I'll wait for you to answer this then I will be back this weekend to jump back into this thread. Most of my free time is at night as I work 11 or so hours per day.

Yep, I'm a hawks fan but am not overly proud of em at the moment..




If we need to go back and start over again I would. This is starting to sound more and more like the Jehovah's Witnesses's "Big God, little god doctrine".

 

[RND]

Quote:
We need to cover the basics again RND so be patient and grab a pen, paper and your Bible.

“In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth”. Gen 1, 1

“And God said, let Us make man in OUR image”. Gen 1,26

As risky as this may sound I’m taking for granted that you agree, that in God there are three distinct Persons. When Genesis 1 says that God created the heaven and the earth then later says that God has a discussion (Gen 1,26) THE RELATIONSHIPS ALREADY EXIST AT THAT POINT THE DISCUSSION WAS MADE.

2. Trinity:
There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.)

God is ONE Entity and "within" God are Three distinct Persons thus; A relational difference existed from Eternity.

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word WAS GOD".

Vs.

God was with God?
(1) + (1)

God was with God = 2 God's. We are back to what we covered previously.

I'm sorry, I didn't know I needed to bring up the fact that the Holy Spirit was with them when they were in the "creating" mood.

Gen 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

I thought it was a given that while we were speaking of God the Father and Jesus Christ that it was assumed that the Holy Spirit was with them. My bad. I'll spell it out better for you can understand the math.

God the Father = 1
God the Son = 1
God the Holy Spirit = 1
Total = 1

Hopefully, that will clear things up.

"In the beginning was the God and the God was with God and the God was God."

Simple reasoning tells you the above defiled version of John 1,1 adds up to two God's because ;

Because John is talking specifically about Jesus Christ the man and not the Spirit of God?

in the beginning WAS "THE" GOD // and "The" God was with God // and "the" God was God.

There is no spinning out of this one.

There no spinning what I said in less you completely reject the context of the book of John. John chapter one is talking specifically about Jesus Christ, not about the triune nature of the Godhead.

What is it exactly that you are protecting here? I've got the feeling there is a reason you are going the way you are and there has not been one Adventist that has corrected or agreed with you.

Buddy, I've been posting long enough on this board to know that if any Adventist here thought I needed to be talked to they would talk to me. Their silence means to me that there is either nothing that needs to be added or corrected or they don't care about our conversation.

I'll wait for you to answer this then I will be back this weekend to jump back into this thread. Most of my free time is at night as I work 11 or so hours per day.

I can't wait!.

Yep, I'm a hawks fan but am not overly proud of em at the moment..

Why would you be?

If we need to go back and start over again I would. This is starting to sound more and more like the Jehovah's Witnesses's "Big God, little god doctrine".

Hey, if you want to start over, go back to post one on this thread and re-read it. I have never said that Jesus wasn't God, or was a little God, or wasn't devine, or that He never existed with the Father, etc.

Jesus is God, God the Father is God, God the Holy Spirit is God. All are part of the being of one true God; i.e. the Godhead.

It really isn't all that difficult to understand.

But again, there is one person in this equation I don't have to account for and that Mary. I don't have to make her out to be something was not, and most likely would be appalled to find out how she has been venerate when that is something she would never have wanted.

 

[sentipente]

RND, do you really think the condescending tone helps the discussion?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Buddy, I've been posting long enough on this board to know that if any Adventist here thought I needed to be talked to they would talk to me. Their silence means to me that there is either nothing that needs to be added or corrected or they don't care about our conversation.

If you think that is the only two options it is quite certain that you don't "know". All silence means is silence. What you believe about that silence is far from knowing.

 

[StormyOne]

If you think that is the only two options it is quite certain that you don't "know". All silence means is silence. What you believe about that silence is far from knowing.

agreed, likewise it is possible that sometimes silence means its not worth responding to the foolishness some people post....

 

[Pythons]

Sentipente, I’m ok with RND’s condescending tone, it’s just his way of attempting to keep his own creation away from the rendering plant.

Who begat the Great I AM

God the Father through Mary the Virgin.

I referred you to Gen 1,1 where God created the heavens and earth and to Gen 1,26 where God has a discussion and says, “let us make man in our own image” I used this to demonstrate God is talking to Himself (the Three Person of the Godhead) = one is talking and two are listening.
Being that you continually insist (with great velocity) that the Second Person of the Godhead wasn’t “The Son” until He was born on earth and also illogically and continually insist that Jesus was “always” with the Father. Examples;

Yep. Jesus was always with the Father.

That's exactly what I said. Jesus became the begotten Son when He was born on earth. Before that, He had always existed with the Father. He was not born in Heaven but on earth.

Well, when Jesus was on earth He most certainly was the "eternal son." But when He was in heaven before coming to earth He was the great "I AM" having always existed and been with the Father. Jesus in heaven was the "eternal God."

I applied your application of reasoning (if one could call it that) to a modern day example where you are in the Army;

RND, if you are in the Army and the General SENDS YOU to Iraq you are “already” a soldier before you get to Iraq! If we use your logic applied to this illustration you wouldn’t be a soldier until you arrived in Iraq and the General wouldn’t be a General either until you got there. Ludicrous.

I next applied the Army illustration with your application of logic that Jesus always existed with the Father. Hmmm, Jesus always existed with the Father but wasn’t the Son until He was born on earth!
In other words RND, how is it you assert that Jesus always lived with the Father until He was born on earth when the Father would not be the Father until the Son was born on earth? Preposterous, illogical and against both the Scriptures and SDA church Fundamental belief. Oh, it’s also against the Great harlot of Babylon’s teachings as well.
In post 87 I told you that the way you’ve structured the Godhead reminds me of Abbott & Costello’s Who’s on First comedy routine, only that you are playing both Abbott and Costello.
1 John 4, 9,
“This is how God showed His love among us; He sent His ONE and ONLY Son into the World”.
Think about it for a minute, the act of God “sending” His one and only Son predates the Son’s entry into the world SO, the Son was already the Son because His Father was who SENT Him. And you suggest if I only believed like you do my headaches would go away. LOL!

I’ll give you a clue on this. If Jesus always existed with the Father then God the Father always was the Father which would necessitate the Son was always the Son. In desperation of the imminent butchering of your ‘pet’ doctrine, as an apology, you offer this;

Ah, but what happens when a wholely and perfect God who knows no boundaries or limitations based on what appears in the physical world sends His Son into the world?

I have no idea RND, what happens? Rest assured, if your upcoming production reflects that of your current understanding I will be there to help you figure it out.

Your analogy while tempting, is none-the-less inaccurate because Jesus didn't leave one country for another. Jesus left one demension of time and space for another; just as Jesus did when Jesus appeared to Moses as a flame of fire in a bush or as a pilar of fire at night and a cloud by day.

The difference in this case is that Jesus took on the form and substance of man, and not the form and substance of fire. In neither case, either as a fire in a bush or as a man on earth has the message changed or wavered.

Is this your way of saying that your Catholic (and official Seventh-day Adventist Fundamental Belief) attack vehicle has run out of gas and it’s time to pass the torch on to someone else? You said something along these lines previously to someone else. Seemed fitting to use that here.
God is the same yesterday (from eternity), today and tomorrow which is why Jesus was always the Eternal Son, Eternally begotten from the Father. You maintain The Son wasn’t the Son until He was born on earth when “God begat the Great I AM”. You did say Jesus was God so how about not making statements to the contrary.
The message or requirements He has for different People at different times has changed a bunch.

It’s as I said previously, your misunderstanding of God has led you to conclude a very different message as evidenced in your gleeful feeding at the trough of Revelation Seminars.
At this point you should be very close to knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that if, as you say, Jesus always existed with the Father but wasn’t the Son until God begat him also FORCES you to admit that GOD DID IN FACT CHANGE because God the Father had to EFFECT that Jesus (or in your understanding, God prior to Incarnation) become the Son and had to “begat” Him to pull it off. Hate to break it to you but the “Great I AM” is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and that precludes anything about Him Changing, including His relationship to the other members of the Godhead.

Instead of staying on point, again you say what you want Catholicism to say instead of what it clearly does.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. If, as you say, that "Jesus the Christ was ‘begotten eternally’ from the Father in the same way in the Incarnation..." then we have to conclude you believe Jesus was "born" in heaven the same way He was "incarnated" (born) on earth. That's a round about way of saying you believe Mary incarnated Jesus in heaven, which is what the Catholic church teaches by saying:

Because she is the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, therefore Mary is the Mother of God. ("Catechism" 963, 971, 2677).

My answer is the same as it was several pages back,

“And since the holy Virgin brought forth corporally God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh.” Cryil to Nestorious /written in A.D. 431 within the documents of the Council of Ephesus

Jesus the Christ (The Eternal Son) was already The Son for all eternity prior to the Incarnation because, as you put it, “He always existed with the Father”. Remember Jesus is God and God does not Change. When God the Father said; “This is my only begotten Son” He meant every world of it because Jesus was eternally His Son as God the eternal Father was eternally Jesus’ Father.
Insisting that Jesus wasn’t the Son until the Incarnation when God begat him is the most abominable teaching I’ve ever heard. It obliterates the whole concept of the depth of the sacrifice and love God had for us and reduces the believer of it to avow that the assignment of the Son was a Johnny-come-lately idea (contrasted with eternity) and that God the Father had to bestow a title or gift of some sort to one of the other two members of the Godhead (effecting change) because at that point there was no relationships between them.


At least the Jehovah’s Witnesses come right out and say it with their whole Jesus used to be St. Michael the Archangel shake-N-bake approach. You are more or less doing the same thing here with saying God begat Jesus and Jesus became the Son only at the point He was born on earth because that forces God to promote one of the two “lesser person’s” (You claim God the Father always existed as the Father) to this special responsibility, which proves that one of them has something about them that was then different then what they always were.

 

[Pythons]

Hoping for another Adventist to join the fray and say I'm wrong? Hey, other Adventist's are free to tell me I'm wrong, but I'll have you know you are supporting an Arian view of this, even though you may not be aware of it.

Trust me, your position is the only” Arian like” one here. I was and still am hoping that an Adventist will join the fray and say you are wrong because you are very wrong. Please remember that I believe Jesus was Eternally the Son and as such He is the Son of God by Eternal Generation so Mary has nothing to do with that just as Cyril explicitly told you.

Jesus set aside all notion of His heavenly divinity while on earth and relied on the other parts of the Godhead, one called the Father the other called the Holy Spirit while on earth, for His strength, guidance and instruction while on earth. Jesus told Phillip if you have seen me you have seen the Father. This was not a description of the "physical" characteristics of God but the nature of God's character

You see the difference? Jesus was not the "Son" in Heaven as much as He simply always existed with God the Father. As God the Father has always been so has been Jesus also.

Wrong, 100% God and 100% man with the Divine Nature operating at 100% capacity right along next to the Human nature operating at 100% both united in purpose so that all tasks of Divinity were completed perfectly as with all tasks of His human Nature, the Divine didn’t overpower the Human nature to say it differently or vice-versa.
“No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have the power to lay it down and “I” have the power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father”. John 10,18
And no, not “the nature of God’s Character” but actually the Divine Nature of God.

God always with God. John 1.

We’ve went through this before RND.
“In the beginning was “THE WORD”, and “THE WORD” was with God and “THE WORD” was God”.
Vs.
“In the beginning was The God and The God was with God and The God was God.
Which Person is the Great I AM in your rendition RND? Where are the relationship differences because one of the two has to be the Father, right? Or do you say its something else? This is the question you should have got when I asked this. “The Word” in John 1 is a “Person of the Godhead” that is CONTRASTED with God, and if God is “ONE” then The Word has something DIFFERENT in Relationship to the remaining Persons which is exactly what this and an avalanche of other Scriptures plainly states.
RND, you’ve got a Strong’s. Look up #3205 again and read the primary meaning, next look to the right of ( causat.), it’s beget. Now look up the synonyms for that and you see Sire, Breed, Father and the like. When using Strong’s make sure you see how the word is applied in Scripture. Next look up “Begotten” and combine that with “Only” then connect the dots. If Jesus didn’t always exist as the Son then it’s safe to say he wasn’t God, he’s a god. Would someone turn off the JW alarm!

Oh, I have thought about it. In order to be without original sin, Jesus could not have any human DNA in His blood. Jesus never sinned so that means even as a child He always told the truth.

Yet the Bible says, "All have sinned..." which would include Mary. Mary's genelogy can not in Jesus because if so, Jesus would have her DNA and be subject to original sin.

God impregnated Mary with God but Mary in this case acted as an "incubator" for the birthing of the Son of God." Just as you said above, "A woman does not “begat” because she is the one being bred" God in this case did not "breed" Mary. None of Mary's human DNA made it into Jesus.

I think not. This one isn’t even worth responding to.

This doesn't prove I said Joseph impregnated Mary for goodness sake. It just proves you believe as so, so many misinformed Christians do that the different geneolgies show both Mary and Joseph are from the House of David.

I can help you with this as well RND.
“Thus says the Lord: Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not succeed in his days; for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David, and ruling again in Judah”. Jer 22,30
Joseph was certainly “of the house of David” but Jer 22:30 prevents him or a descendant of his be it blood or through adoption from being “king”.

You know ‘adoption’ in Jewish Law qualifies an outsider as ‘offspring’ for inheriting physical possessions like property and does not work for a ‘Kohen’, right? If you want me to go through the listed genealogy with you I certainly can prove the genealogy of Luke is that of Mary’s.

Question: How could Jesus be a priest of the order of Melchisedec, which is an order before the Levites, and yet offer forgiveness of sins and perform all the function of a Levite priest unless He was born a Levite?

You answered your own question RND, Jesus was of the order of Melchisedec. And as Scripture plainly tells you, Melchizedek & Christ performed all the functions associated with Salvation without all the theatrics the priests that issued from Aaron had to do. Again, another gross misunderstanding.
I would suggest we go into this directly after religious authority as is taught in the Bible is discussed then we can talk about Mary, the Sabbath, IJ or whatever you want to discuss. Right now it’s pointless to discuss these other issues when you reject the Eternal Son status of Christ. The Trinity first, then the other things.

Who did Jesus rely on while God on earth, himself or the Father? If He relied on himself, and was doing His will and His gig then He didn't need to rely on the Father, His own divinity would have been sufficient.

But Jesus relied on the Father, just as we do. We rely on the Father through the Son, the Man Jesus Christ, who has shown us the way to the Father.

Jesus never relied on His own divinty on earth, not once. He always was about "His Father's business" showing us God the Father, His nature and His character, through the Son.

This is exactly why Jesus was forever the Eternal Son previous to coming to earth. Of course Jesus human nature relied on the Father. He could hardly be considered as God’s Only Begotten Son if He wasn’t reliant which also proves He was always the Son.
The Divine Nature (God) Incarnated into Mary who gave birth to Jesus Christ, according to the flesh so that the 100% Divine and 100 % Human Natures were united into the ONE Person of Jesus. Both natures operating at 100% capacity so that each fulfilled all the tasks specific to the respective natures. Any variation of what I explained = God is NOT with us or ‘God decaffeinated’ with us. No Room for anything else.

Oh, not too much. Just trying to figure out if the Raiders (RND = RaiderNationDave) are going to draft for need or impact. If they draft for need they'll pick either Glenn Dorsey or Sedrick Ellis but if they go for impact they'll take Darren McFadden, provided his still around and the Jets don't take him. Who knows? But since they just locked up Tommy Kelly for five years I'd imagine they'll go for impact and maybe trade Justin Fargus or Michael Bush.

So what's up?
You're from the Seattle area? Remember 1984 when the Seahawks lost to the Raiders in the AFC championship game in LA? 30 to 14. I was there! 20 yard line about 5 rows up. 95,000 fans in a packed house. Ah, LA fans are so fickle. They love a winner.
Speaking of which, how many championships have the Seahawks won? You don't even need hands to count 'em all do ya?

Yes, I’m from and in Seattle. The Oakland Raiders were my all time favorite team until they moved. I couldn’t begin to tell you how disgusted I was when Seattle lost the Super bowl. I had a big party at my place with plenty of food and beer and invited only the Seattle zealots I knew and by the half point of the third quarter of that game I was throwing away brats and trying to give the beer away to people leaving in total disgust. I was not acting in keeping with how I know I should act and the mood remained for days.
The Hawks deserve any and all negative comments you can throw at them and don’t worry. I’m sure in this case I’ll be agreeing with you.

 

[NightEternal]

agreed, likewise it is possible that sometimes silence means its not worth responding to the foolishness some people post....

Yes, or silence could simply mean that since there are so many intolerant, hyper-sensitive, thin-skinned, itchy finger, report-happy posters waiting to pounce on anything you type, some of us have all but stopped posting in here or in the main area and have decided that it is just not worth getting involved in any of the discussions anymore.

C-ya. Going back to the Prog area where I at least stand half a chance.

 

[Pythons]

Yes, or silence could simply mean that since there are so many intolerant, hyper-sensitive, thin-skinned, itchy finger, report-happy posters waiting to pounce on anything you type, some of us have all but stopped posting in here or in the main area and have decided that it is just not worth getting involved in any of the discussions anymore.

C-ya. Going back to the Prog area where I at least stand half a chance.

I would welcome some other SDA input on this, or for that matter, any Christian's input from any background.

 

[RND]

I’ll give you a clue on this. If Jesus always existed with the Father then God the Father always was the Father which would necessitate the Son was always the Son. In desperation of the imminent butchering of your ‘pet’ doctrine, as an apology, you offer this;

God the father wasn't God the Father UNTIL the birth of the Son. When was the birth of the Son? When, at anytime in scripture, is the Father called the Father? Before or after the incarnation?

To suggest that Jesus was ALWAYS the Son in Heaven is to believe the exact same things the Mormons and JW's believe. To believe Jesus was the "begotten" Son at sometime agrees with the proposition that somehow Jesus was created.

I have no idea RND, what happens? Rest assured, if your upcoming production reflects that of your current understanding I will be there to help you figure it out.

Unfortunately, you haven't helped figure anything out. All you done is manage to muddy the waters in order to keep the Catholic belief that Mother was Jesus' mother in Heaven alive and well.

Seeing that is impossible to keep that dead horse alive you have to prop up your argument with arogance in non-sense. You can't argue the facts so you have to attack the man.

Is this your way of saying that your Catholic (and official Seventh-day Adventist Fundamental Belief) attack vehicle has run out of gas and it’s time to pass the torch on to someone else? You said something along these lines previously to someone else. Seemed fitting to use that here.

Hope, this was just my way of showing you how ridiculous it is to constantly try to defend the undefendable.

God is the same yesterday (from eternity), today and tomorrow which is why Jesus was always the Eternal Son, Eternally begotten from the Father. You maintain The Son wasn’t the Son until He was born on earth when “God begat the Great I AM”. You did say Jesus was God so how about not making statements to the contrary.

It's not a contrary statement just because you don't or can't understand it.

By insisting Jesus was the "Eternal Son" in Heaven is to suggest that God the Father "created" or "begat" a "Son" in Heaven. If that were true then Jesus COULD NOT have existed with the Father always.

You have to maintain this view because the Catholic teaching is that Mary was "created" before time to be Jesus' mother.

The message or requirements He has for different People at different times has changed a bunch.

In what way?

It’s as I said previously, your misunderstanding of God has led you to conclude a very different message as evidenced in your gleeful feeding at the trough of Revelation Seminars.

At this point you should be very close to knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that if, as you say, Jesus always existed with the Father but wasn’t the Son until God begat him also FORCES you to admit that GOD DID IN FACT CHANGE because God the Father had to EFFECT that Jesus (or in your understanding, God prior to Incarnation) become the Son and had to “begat” Him to pull it off. Hate to break it to you but the “Great I AM” is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and that precludes anything about Him Changing, including His relationship to the other members of the Godhead.

There is no scriptural evidence to show that God did not become a man first on earth. In order to become a man, one must be "born" a man on earth. A man cannot have children until those children are born.

To suggest that Jesus was the "Son" of God and not a co-equal God entity in Heaven is to suggest in someway that Jesus was "born" or "created" in heaven. That straight from Mormonism/JW's.

"Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore. The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father. He was the surpassing glory of heaven. He was the commander of the heavenly intelligences, and the adoring homage of the angels was received by Him as His right." {FLB 46.5}


"He was equal with God, infinite and omnipotent." {FLB 46.6}

"But He humbled Himself, and took mortality upon Him. As a member of the human family, He was mortal; but as a God, He was the fountain of life to the world. He could, in His divine person, ever have withstood the advances of death, and refused to come under its dominion; but He voluntarily laid down His life, that in so doing He might give life and bring immortality to light. He bore the sins of the world, and endured the penalty, which rolled like a mountain upon His divine soul. He yielded up His life a sacrifice, that man should not eternally die. He died, not through being compelled to die, but by His own free will." {FLB 46.7}

Insisting that Jesus wasn’t the Son until the Incarnation when God begat him is the most abominable teaching I’ve ever heard. It obliterates the whole concept of the depth of the sacrifice and love God had for us and reduces the believer of it to avow that the assignment of the Son was a Johnny-come-lately idea (contrasted with eternity) and that God the Father had to bestow a title or gift of some sort to one of the other two members of the Godhead (effecting change) because at that point there was no relationships between them.

Nope, sorry. All indignation aside it goes to show the depths at which God would work to preserve His creation and redeem those of a fallen nature brought about by a lying and murdering accuser.

At least the Jehovah’s Witnesses come right out and say it with their whole Jesus used to be St. Michael the Archangel shake-N-bake approach.

As we have established well in another thread this view that Michael the Archangel is Jesus the Christ is neither new or an invention of JW's.

You are more or less doing the same thing here with saying God begat Jesus and Jesus became the Son only at the point He was born on earth because that forces God to promote one of the two “lesser person’s” (You claim God the Father always existed as the Father) to this special responsibility, which proves that one of them has something about them that was then different then what they always were.

Nope. I haven't denied anything other than Jesus was not "born" nor "creatred" in heaven by the Father and Mary.

The proof of this is to understand the fact that Jesus did not come to earth in a "glorified" bodily form, but rather He returned to Heaven, to be with the Father, in "glorified bodily" form. The form and nature of the "eternal Son" has now changed.

 

[Pythons]

God the father wasn't God the Father UNTIL the birth of the Son. When was the birth of the Son? When, at anytime in scripture, is the Father called the Father? Before or after the incarnation?

To suggest that Jesus was ALWAYS the Son in Heaven is to believe the exact same things the Mormons and JW's believe. To believe Jesus was the "begotten" Son at sometime agrees with the proposition that somehow Jesus was created.

You said that Jesus prior to the Incarnation always lived with the Father, in all fact, you said it ad nauseum. I only asked how that could be given you're understanding on the issue. Your own repeated statements have convicted you.

Unfortunately, you haven't helped figure anything out. All you done is manage to muddy the waters in order to keep the Catholic belief that Mother was Jesus' mother in Heaven alive and well.

Seeing that is impossible to keep that dead horse alive you have to prop up your argument with arogance in non-sense. You can't argue the facts so you have to attack the man.

I meant "no attack" here? You said that the Catholic Church taught Jesus owed His existence to Mary and that Mary is believed by Catholics to have been Jesus' mother in heaven. I merely provided a very, very old quote that proved your assertion was not true.

Hope, this was just my way of showing you how ridiculous it is to constantly try to defend the undefendable.

I'm sorry that I didn't understand "your way". Please answer the question in the normal way so I can understand.

It's not a contrary statement just because you don't or can't understand it.

By insisting Jesus was the "Eternal Son" in Heaven is to suggest that God the Father "created" or "begat" a "Son" in Heaven. If that were true then Jesus COULD NOT have existed with the Father always.

You have to maintain this view because the Catholic teaching is that Mary was "created" before time to be Jesus' mother.

It is a contrary statement because we as humans do not know a fraction of a fraction of a microgram about God but with what we do know about Him we can say what He IS NOT. "Eternal" as in Eternal Son carries the same meaning as "Eternal" as in Eternal Father. If you can't grasp or build your theology on the understanding Jesus is the Eternal Son how can you base your theology on the Eternal Father? You kept saying Jesus was always with the Father so I asked a fair and honest question.

To suggest that Jesus was the "Son" of God and not a co-equal God entity in Heaven is to suggest in someway that Jesus was "born" or "created" in heaven. That straight from Mormonism/JW's.

Jesus is Co-equal to God because He is God, existed throughout eternity and is made up of the same exact substance as the other two members of the Godhead. They all three existed forever and the only differences is that of relationships.

If you continue to stick around I'm very sure you will see and understand that Catholicism does not advocate the theology represented by the two groups you mentioned and while your belief is very similar.

As for your first quote "essentially" means basically and you will not find anything in Catholicism that says Jesus is basically God.

Nope, sorry. All indignation aside it goes to show the depths at which God would work to preserve His creation and redeem those of a fallen nature brought about by a lying and murdering accuser.

By giving up a Person of the Godhead that wasn't his Son until He was born on the earth?

This isn't about work, it's about giving up something that is more dear then our minds can fathom. God gave up his "only" eternally begotten Son. In your way; Hay, if it doesn't work out then the Holy Ghost gets a crack at it next. Believe me RND, Jesus is the Eternal Son of God from all eternity.