Please forgive if this comes off as a foolish question.

[JohnT]

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.

The part in blue is surely Arianism, and it is what JWs believe. But the part that says that Jesus eternally existed is agreeing with his own words. See John 8:58 below.

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

Are you perhaps on the wrong thread? Perhaps are you confused as to their theology? I am not accusing but asking.

 

[JohnT]

RND


What exactly is the FLB that you quote in the message to Python?
Here are some of your statements that caused me to think that you believe the things that JWs believe:

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

Yet, these are orthodox statements:
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.

[FONT=&quot]Therefore, I am confused as to where you stand, theologically.[/FONT]

 

[RND]

[FONT=&quot]Therefore, I am confused as to where you stand, theologically.[/FONT]

Was Jesus born in Heaven or on Earth? Answer that and you have my theology.

 

[JohnT]

Was Jesus born in Heaven or on Earth? Answer that and you have my theology.

Sorry, but the question is not an exact determiner of one's theology.

Here is the orthodox statements about Jesus. Do you agree with these?

1) Jesus is eternally existant as the only begotten Son of God. (Before Abraham was, I am)

2) He if fully God, and fully man; one Person having two natures with mixture or confusion of either.

3) When he came on Earth as "put aside" some of his godly attributes, only to assume them at the Resurrection. (See Philippians 2 for both 2 & 3)

If you disagree, tell me where you think the statements are wrong, providing Scriptural proofs, please.

 

[RND]

Sorry, but the question is not an exact determiner of one's theology.

So now you're attempting to presume to know what determine's my personal theolgy regarding the question at hand?

Here is the orthodox statements about Jesus. Do you agree with these?

1) Jesus is eternally existant as the only begotten Son of God. (Before Abraham was, I am)

2) He if fully God, and fully man; one Person having two natures with mixture or confusion of either.

3) When he came on Earth as "put aside" some of his godly attributes, only to assume them at the Resurrection. (See Philippians 2 for both 2 & 3)

If you disagree, tell me where you think the statements are wrong, providing Scriptural proofs, please.

Answer my question first and I'll answer yours, this way you can't get out of answering my question John and besides, it's only fair that to expect me to answer your questions, you should answer mine:

Was Jesus born in Heaven or on Earth?

 

[JohnT]

RND

The answer to your question is contained in the statements of orthodoxy I wrote.

Here is the expanded answer:

Because Jesus is 100% God, He is eternally existent.
Because Jesus is 100% man, he had a birth as do all mankind
Therefore, Jesus is the God-Man having the full natures of both deity and humanity without mixture or confusion.

Your turn!

 

[RND]

RND

The answer to your question is contained in the statements of orthodoxy I wrote.

Here is the expanded answer:

Because Jesus is 100% God, He is eternally existent.
Because Jesus is 100% man, he had a birth as do all mankind
Therefore, Jesus is the God-Man having the full natures of both deity and humanity without mixture or confusion.

Your turn!

Nope. Sorry. Nice try though.

Was Jesus born in Heaven or on Earth? Simple answer. Heaven or earth.

What's your answer John?

 

[JohnT]

Nope. Sorry. Nice try though.

Was Jesus born in Heaven or on Earth?
Simple answer. Heaven or earth.

What's your answer John?

RND

The answer to your question is contained in the statements of orthodoxy I wrote.

Here is the expanded answer:

Because Jesus is 100% God, He is eternally existent.
Because Jesus is 100% man, he had a birth, as do all mankind
Therefore, Jesus is the God-Man having the full natures of both deity and humanity without mixture or confusion.

Your turn!

​

LET'S NOT PLAY INSIPID GAMES!

I gave you a straight forward answer in plain English. Can you imagine another , different place other than earth where mankind is born?

What is your point and problem?

 

[RND]

RND

The answer to your question is contained in the statements of orthodoxy I wrote.

Here is the expanded answer:

Because Jesus is 100% God, He is eternally existent.
Because Jesus is 100% man, he had a birth, as do all mankind
Therefore, Jesus is the God-Man having the full natures of both deity and humanity without mixture or confusion.

Your turn!

​

LET'S NOT PLAY INSIPID GAMES!

I gave you a straight forward answer in plain English. Can you imagine another , different place other than earth where mankind is born?

What is your point and problem?

It's really such a simple question John. Comes with a simple answer.

Was Jesus born in Heaven or on Earth?
Simple answer. Heaven or earth.

What's your answer John? What are you afraid of John?

 

[Lebesgue]

It's really such a simple question John. Comes with a simple answer.

Was Jesus born in Heaven or on Earth?
Simple answer. Heaven or earth.

What's your answer John? What are you afraid of John?

I think John already answered your question. Y'shua has ALWAYS existed.

Take a look at John 1: In the beginning there was the Word, and the Words was WITH G-d, the Word WAS G-d.

Y'shua IS G-d and IS ETERNAL. He has ALWAYS existed.

 

[RND]

I think John already answered your question. Y'shua has ALWAYS existed.

That's not in dispute. The question was where was He born.

Take a look at John 1: In the beginning there was the Word, and the Words was WITH G-d, the Word WAS G-d.

Y'shua IS G-d and IS ETERNAL. He has ALWAYS existed.

No doubt. But the question remains un answered.

 

[JohnT]

That's not in dispute. The question was where was He born.

No doubt. But the question remains unanswered.

FOR THE THIRD TIME

1) Jesus is eternally existent as the only begotten Son of God. (Before Abraham was, I am)

2) He is fully God, and fully man; one Person having two natures with mixture or confusion of either.

3) When he came on Earth as "put aside" some of his godly attributes, only to assume them at the Resurrection. (See Philippians 2 for both 2 & 3)

​

I am wondering if you are either taunting me, or merely acting in a way to "annoy"me off. Neither succeeds.

Looking at # 2 specifically:

1. .Jesus is eternal, that is an attribute of being God
2. Jesus is also mortal: He was born in Bethlehem, and died on Calvary
3. Both statements 1 and 2 above are correct, and non-contradictory

He is one, fully divine and fully human person. As I said now the third time, in different ways, the question is not either birth and death (mortality) or eternality; it is both.

What makes it impossible for you to accept that?

 

[RND]

FOR THE THIRD TIME

1) Jesus is eternally existent as the only begotten Son of God. (Before Abraham was, I am)

2) He is fully God, and fully man; one Person having two natures with mixture or confusion of either.

3) When he came on Earth as "put aside" some of his godly attributes, only to assume them at the Resurrection. (See Philippians 2 for both 2 & 3)

​

I am wondering if you are either taunting me, or merely acting in a way to "annoy"me off. Neither succeeds.

Looking at # 2 specifically:

1. .Jesus is eternal, that is an attribute of being God
2. Jesus is also mortal: He was born in Bethlehem, and died on Calvary
3. Both statements 1 and 2 above are correct, and non-contradictory

He is one, fully divine and fully human person. As I said now the third time, in different ways, the question is not either birth and death (mortality) or eternality; it is both.

What makes it impossible for you to accept that?

And the question still remains unanswered. Here it is again John:

Was Jesus born in Heaven or on Earth?

Your choices to answer are 1) Heaven or 2) Earth.

John, no one is taunting you it's a simply question that no matter how vassilate or obfuscate from has yet to be answered. All you have to do is answer it.

Was Jesus born in Heaven or on Earth?

 

[Eila]

Was Jesus born in Heaven or on Earth?

His Earthly body was born on Earth, but He pre-existed that body. He was not born in Heaven, but has always existed.

 

[Pythons]

His Earthly body was born on Earth, but He pre-existed that body. He was not born in Heaven, but has always existed.

Eila,

SDA's reject Christ was the "Eternal Son". Christ became the Eternal Son once He was born on earth by the Virgin Mary. Previous to the Virgin Birth, Christ existed as St. Michael the Archangel and through a promotion of assignment became the Son after being born of Mary. It is understood that God promoted St. Michael and subsequent to birth became Eternal at that point.

 

[RND]

His Earthly body was born on Earth, but He pre-existed that body. He was not born in Heaven, but has always existed.

Nope. He ascended in bodily form, but decended to earth as spirit. When Christ came to earth it forever changed the nature of of God's bodily form.

 

[Eila]

Nope. He ascended in bodily form, but decended to earth as spirit. When Christ came to earth it forever changed the nature of of God's bodily form.

Nope? You don't believe He always existed? The body in which He ascended was a glorified body. How do you determine Biblically what the limitations of a glorified body are? Does your understanding of your mortal earthly body influence what you believe a glorified body is? When you say He descended to Earth as a spirit what exactly are you referring to?

 

[djconklin]

SDA's reject Christ was the "Eternal Son".

Really?!? When did this happen? Where's the proof? Show me the evidence in SDA teaching.

 

[Pythons]

djconklin,

From my short time here you seem to be a big supporter of RND so I'm wondering if you are being serious or sarcastic.

I had quite the go-around with RND in this thread about this discussion. After several days of playing around with the search engine of the Ellen White Estate I was able to find what appears to be the tip of the iceberg. Please note SDA Fundamental belief 18, which states,

18. The Gift of Prophecy:
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)

I just pulled the following off the White Estate. I've been playing around with their search engine for a few days now and am getting the hang of it. Please read the following.

"Satan was once an honored angel in heaven, next to Christ. His countenance, like those of the other angels, was mild and expressive of happiness. His forehead was high and broad, showing great intelligence. His form was perfect; his bearing noble and majestic. But when God said to His Son, "Let us make man in our image," Satan was jealous of Jesus. He wished to be consulted concerning the formation of man, and because he was not, he was filled with envy, jealousy, and hatred. He desired to receive the highest honors in heaven next to God. {EW 145.1}

Did you catch the first sentence? "Satan was once an honored angel in heaven,"Next to Christ"? It was because Satan "was next to Christ" and was not consulted in the formation of man and what really tipped him over was that he didn't receive the highest honors in heaven (which was being next to God) that caused him to get hot under the collar. This equates to Christ being honored by promotion. I even suggested that somewhere in this thread. This is where it ended up when RND rejected that Mary was the Mother of God. I read well enough into the spirit of prophecy to make sure I wasn't taking anything out of Context.

The Trinity of Catholicism is specific that the Word (Jesus) has always been the Eternal Son of God though Eternal Generation of the Father and because Jesus shares the One Divine Substance of God it would be impossible for Him to be NEXT TO ANYTHING because He is and always has been God the Son. The SDA Church officially rejects RND's premise that the Son only became the Son at the Incarnation by it's fundamental belief. That no other Adventist (given the hits on this thread) lifted a finger to correct RND and Djconklin is very telling. This isn't a discussion and debate section of the Catholic Forum, its a Seventh-day Adventist debate and discussion forum.

From reading what I did at the Ellen White Estate I understand that all the angels were created and therefore "sons" of God and then Michael became The Son of God. I wish I would have known this previously instead of fighting my way through this thread and going to work with little sleep many nights. Satan being next to Christ either sinks Christ to Satan's rank and file or elevates Satan to the level of God. This is what I'm talking about Djconklin, so my answer to your question as to the time this started is whenever Ellen Wrote this and whenever the General Conference said her writings were authoritative and demonstrated her status as a prophet.

 

[sentipente]

Thi

Did you catch the first sentence? "Satan was once an honored angel in heaven,"Next to Christ"? It was because Satan "was next to Christ" and was not consulted in the formation of man and what really tipped him over was that he didn't receive the highest honors in heaven (which was being next to God) that caused him to get hot under the collar. This equates to Christ being honored by promotion.

That quote is even more troubling because it speaks of Satan's countenance and his high brow. How can a spirit have a countenance and a brow? Spirits don't have bodies.
​