WORD OF GOD

[Magenta]

So common the Jews wanted to stone Jesus after He said it.

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him…”

notso has been very much so banned. Just an FYI...

 

[GWH]

”For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.”

Being eternal is part of the fullness of the Godhead.

Yes, eternal life is part of what fullness may mean, but it is more specifically associated with complete love
or sinlessness, as in Col. 2:1-12 & Eph. 3:16-19, 4:13.

 

[cv5]

Yes, eternal life is part of what fullness may mean, but it is more specifically associated with complete love
or sinlessness, as in Col. 2:1-12 & Eph. 3:16-19, 4:13.

Furthermore, eternal life this that which Jesus-God defines as life.
And when Jesus speaks about death, He is usually speaking about eternal death.

Eternal life is eternal fellowship with God.
Eternal death is eternal separation from God.

 

[GWH]

Furthermore, eternal life this that which Jesus-God defines as life.
And when Jesus speaks about death, He is usually speaking about eternal death.

Eternal life is eternal fellowship with God.
Eternal death is eternal separation from God.

Yes, The Spirit of God is good: love, peace and joy (Gal. 5:22-23). Therefore, whoever rejects the Lord is spiritually separated from Him (Isa. 59:2) and thereby chooses the evil or satanic spirit of hatred, strife and misery and reaps the just consequence called “hell” in the afterlife (Gal. 6:7-9, Heb. 9:27-28).

MFW only exists when there is the possibility of choosing between two qualitatively opposite moral options that we call good and evil. These options are opposites because of essentially different consequences for choosing them. Choosing good results in blessing, life and heaven; and choosing evil results in cursing, death and hell. This is why hell as well as heaven exists. It is the just consequence for choosing evil rather than God. These options were presented by Moses to the Israelites (Deut. 30:19), and Jesus referred to this fundamental choice in terms of a fish or egg versus a snake or scorpion (Luke 11:11-13). Life… or Curse? (Gen. 3:24, Rev. 22:1-2)

God created theoretical evil or the possibility of rejecting Him as an option that actualizes MFW/free human personality. As such it is necessary and even good (Gen. 1:31). Of course, it was wrong for Satan (1John 3:8) and humanity (Rom. 5:12) to make evil actual by choosing to Sin or reject Faith in God’s Lordship. Sin: ignoring God/God’s Word.

 

[NeutralZone]

Who are you quoting, DavidLamb? Please provide the weblink to your source. I need to know who is defining word begotten as "not made" when any common English dictionary says the exact opposite.

I am so sorry I neglected to give a ling to the website. Here it is: https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/why-does-it-matter-that-christ-was-begotten-not-made#:~:text=Then verse 14 uses sonship,between God and the Word.

I clicked your weblink and it took me to a website being run by an individual named John Piper.

Please explain how John Piper gets to redefine common English words so that they are given the exact opposite definition from what's stated by legitimate English dictionaries. For instance, John Piper refers to John 1:14 at his website. Below is the quotation of John 1:14 which I am quoting from the King James Bible.

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."


Notice what Piper says at his website under the subheading Eternal Generation, at paragraph 3, sentence #1. This is the same information you got from his website, which you then quoted at Post #63.

"The text itself pushes us to the conclusion that the peculiar kind of begetting that we’re talking about is an eternal begetting."


DavidLamb: Please find a legitimate dictionary that provides the definition for "eternal begetting." I've searched online and cannot find anything of the sort.

 

[DavidLamb]

I clicked your weblink and it took me to a website being run by an individual named John Piper.

Please explain how John Piper gets to redefine common English words so that they are given the exact opposite definition from what's stated by legitimate English dictionaries. For instance, John Piper refers to John 1:14 at his website. Below is the quotation of John 1:14 which I am quoting from the King James Bible.

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."


Notice what Piper says at his website under the subheading Eternal Generation, at paragraph 3, sentence #1. This is the same information you got from his website, which you then quoted at Post #63.

"The text itself pushes us to the conclusion that the peculiar kind of begetting that we’re talking about is an eternal begetting."


DavidLamb: Please find a legitimate dictionary that provides the definition for "eternal begetting." I've searched online and cannot find anything of the sort.

What I would say is that the bible does teach that Jesus Christ is eternal. For example, John 1:1-3 says:

“1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (Joh 1:1-3 NKJV)

He later explains that the Word became flesh, "and dwelt among us", showing that by "the Word" he meant Jesus Christ.

Yet at the same time, the bible often talks about Jesus Christ as the (only) begotten Son of God the Father. That is where "eternal begetting" comes from, as I see it.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

What does only begotten son mean? Begotten in the flesh? Begotten in the spirit? Begotten from the dead? All of the above?

He was certainly the only begotten son of God. born of Mary.

He was certainly the only one who received the full measure of the holy spirit ("This is my son" at his water baptism)

And he was certainly the first born from the dead, which Paul links to Psalm 2:7

God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, [now] no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Acts 13:33-34​

​

 

[NeutralZone]

What I would say is that the bible does teach that Jesus Christ is eternal. For example, John 1:1-3 says:

“1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (Joh 1:1-3 NKJV)

He later explains that the Word became flesh, "and dwelt among us", showing that by "the Word" he meant Jesus Christ.

Yet at the same time, the bible often talks about Jesus Christ as the (only) begotten Son of God the Father. That is where "eternal begetting" comes from, as I see it.

That's what you believe, and that's your right. After all, the Bible shows that the Abrahamic God endowed all humans with the gift of free will. The first man, Adam, had free will. Look at what he did with it. There are consequences to misusing one's free will.

Yet at the same time, the bible often talks about Jesus Christ as the (only) begotten Son of God the Father. That is where "eternal begetting" comes from, as I see it.

Really? Then how is it you can't find a credible dictionary that provides the definition of eternal begetting?

 

[GWH]

What does only begotten son mean? Begotten in the flesh? Begotten in the spirit? Begotten from the dead? All of the above?

He was certainly the only begotten son of God. born of Mary.

He was certainly the only one who received the full measure of the holy spirit ("This is my son" at his water baptism)

And he was certainly the first born from the dead, which Paul links to Psalm 2:7

God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, [now] no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Acts 13:33-34​

​

Jesus was also born of Joseph.
(Let us not demean his father and over-adore Mary,)

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Jesus was also born of Joseph.
(Let us not demean his father and over-adore Mary,)

No he wasn't born of Joseph. Joseph had nothing to do with it

 

[GWH]

No he wasn't born of Joseph. Joseph had nothing to do with it

Matt. 1:18-25.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Neither did Mary.

So a woman that gives birth to a child has nothing to do with the pregnancy? Joseph was a step dad; Mary was the natural mom, so she had a lot to do with it for 9 months.

 

[GWH]

So a woman that gives birth to a child has nothing to do with the pregnancy? Joseph was a step dad; Mary was the natural mom, so she had a lot to do with it for 9 months.

Mary was NOT the natural mom IMHO, if a zygote was implanted.
Why do you demean the role of Joseph?
RC Mariolatry?

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Mary was NOT the natural mom IMHO, if a zygote was implanted.
Why do you demean the role of Joseph?
RC Mariolatry?

So you are of the opinion that a zygote was implanted in her rather than her egg being fertilized. OK. I really don't have an opinion on the matter because I really don't care, but I'm pretty sure the fetus was fed for 9 months by her body instead of Heavenly DoorDash.

I don't demean the role of Joseph. He was a stepdad who had nothing to do with the pregnancy other than supporting Mary through it.

 

[GWH]

So you are of the opinion that a zygote was implanted in her rather than her egg being fertilized. OK. I really don't have an opinion on the matter because I really don't care, but I'm pretty sure the fetus was fed for 9 months by her body instead of Heavenly DoorDash.

I don't demean the role of Joseph. He was a stepdad who had nothing to do with the pregnancy other than supporting Mary through it.

Yes, I think a genetically cleans/sinless zygote was implanted, because Mary was just as sinful as Joseph.

I am very glad you do not demean Joseph or his support, and neither to I demean Mary,
although I do discourage Mariolatry by RCs or others. Agreement is good!

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Yes, I think a genetically cleans/sinless zygote was implanted, because Mary was just as sinful as Joseph.

I am not of the opinion that sin dwells in the flesh. We have a sinful nature disposed to sin, but sin is an action, not a physical substance.

 

[GWH]

I am not of the opinion that sin dwells in the flesh. We have a sinful nature disposed to sin, but sin is an action, not a physical substance.

Yes, but some sinful behaviors affect genes or have physical effects, so that diseases or defects can be inherited.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Yes, but some sinful behaviors affect genes or have physical effects, so that diseases or defects can be inherited.

Since you don't believe sin dwells in the flesh, but just the negative effects of it do, are you open to the possibility that Mary's egg was fertilized by the seed of God that miraculously corrected any genetic defects or physical corruption? I don't have an opinion on the matter one way or the other; just spitballing.

 

[GWH]

Since you don't believe sin dwells in the flesh, but just the negative effects of it do, are you open to the possibility that Mary's egg was fertilized by the seed of God that miraculously corrected any genetic defects or physical corruption? I don't have an opinion on the matter one way or the other; just spitballing.

Yes, if that would prevent people from thinking Mary was sinless and worthy of more veneration than Joseph.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Yes, if that would prevent people from thinking Mary was sinless and worthy of more veneration than Joseph.

Neither is worthy of veneration imo. Admiration, yes, for both. Imagine the faith it took for Joseph to hang with it.