Is Jesus God?

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lon,

"Your" deduction. I didn't say that. I find those who draw conclusions of this nature, do so with scriptures as well. What being the offspring of God does, indeed ensure, is that He inherits deity. Is this the part where we trample one-another's education and where-with-all? So be it. God does cover our mistakes, but it is problematic if they are arrogant and willful. We have to own our own. I'll leave you to your's.

I would like to apologise for my comments on education. I missed my opportunity many times. My understanding of Luke 1:34-35 is that God the Father was the father of Jesus, as God by means of His Power and the Holy Spirit fulfilled the role of father to produce a human, not a deity. That is how I understand the term “the only begotten of the Father”. The child Jesus was indeed exceptional, but grew as a child, and learnt wisdom Luke 2:40,52.

You've no intention of EVER changing, even should the Lord Jesus Christ come and rebuke you Himself …In sorrow -Lon

I am convinced that I will never accept the Trinity.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again betsy123,

truly SPIRITUAL son - what on earth do you even mean by that?

I suggest that you read Genesis chapters 12:1 to 24:67 and Romans 4:16-25 to determine if there is an essential difference between Ishmael and Isaac.

Explain what you mean by this so-called, "conception process!"
UNLESS you're saying God had sex with Mary and actually fathered Jesus -
wouldn't this so-called, "SPIRITUAL SON," fit Jesus more than Isaac?
After all, Isaac was actually fathered by Abraham with Sara! Theirs involved physical union!
Lol. If Abraham was able to physically father Ishmael - we know that he was still physically capable of it, don't we?
Contradictions again, Trevor.

Refer to Luke 1:34-35 and Matthew 1:20-21 and my last reply to Lon. I will not be responding to your other two Posts, partly time constraints 11:00PM already and some repetition.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Lon]

Greetings again Lon,I would like to apologise for my comments on education. I missed my opportunity many times. My understanding of Luke 1:34-35 is that God the Father was the father of Jesus, as God by means of His Power and the Holy Spirit fulfilled the role of father to produce a human, not a deity. That is how I understand the term “the only begotten of the Father”. The child Jesus was indeed exceptional, but grew as a child, and learnt wisdom Luke 2:40,52.
I am convinced that I will never accept the Trinity.

So what is the point again? Why come to a triune board at all on this subject? Why don't you care about the Theology of your Church pastors? What 1) gives you a right to go against them and 2) a reason? It couldn't have been scriptures. I've shown you, clearly, why the triune (trinitarian) position is the mediating position between heresies. Think for a second: Modalists aren't stupid. There is a reason they believe Jesus is God. Unit/Arians literally destroy the continuity and teachings of scripture. Why? When does God get to teach and people get to stop and listen instead of leaning on their own understanding? Proverbs 3:5,6 When does He get to say something and you get to sit there and listen?

Kind regards
Trevor

Yes, kinder this time. I'd like to see 'studied' regards, or 'listening regards' a couple of times in thread. Praying for wisdom (Proverbs 3:5,6) -Lon

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lon,

So what is the point again? Why come to a triune board at all on this subject?

I came to this board to discuss various aspects of the Scriptures. I have discussed many different topics. This board, at the moment anyway, seems to allow this thread “Is Jesus God” and it appears that not all members on this forum will answer “Yes” to this question.

Why don't you care about the Theology of your Church pastors? What 1) gives you a right to go against them and 2) a reason?

I belong to a Lay fellowship, and our various speakers do not believe the Trinity. I mentioned one of these who taught me the Yahweh Name when I was 19. Our statement of faith has “That the only true God …(is)… the supreme self-existent Deity, the ONE FATHER, dwelling in light unapproachable.” And “That Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, begotten of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit”. And under Doctrines to be rejected: “That God is three persons”.

It couldn't have been scriptures. I've shown you, clearly, why the triune (trinitarian) position is the mediating position between heresies. Think for a second: Modalists aren't stupid. There is a reason they believe Jesus is God. Unit/Arians literally destroy the continuity and teachings of scripture. Why? When does God get to teach and people get to stop and listen instead of leaning on their own understanding? Proverbs 3:5,6 When does He get to say something and you get to sit there and listen?

I am interested in your assessment and claims, but our environment is very much based on the Scriptures.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Greetings again Lon, I came to this board to discuss various aspects of the Scriptures. I have discussed many different topics. This board, at the moment anyway, seems to allow this thread “Is Jesus God” and it appears that not all members on this forum will answer “Yes” to this question.
I belong to a Lay fellowship, and our various speakers do not believe the Trinity. I mentioned one of these who taught me the Yahweh Name when I was 19. Our statement of faith has “That the only true God …(is)… the supreme self-existent Deity, the ONE FATHER, dwelling in light unapproachable.” And “That Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, begotten of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit”. And under Doctrines to be rejected: “That God is three persons”.
I am interested in your assessment and claims, but our environment is very much based on the Scriptures.

Kind regards
Trevor

Lon and no trinitarian can explain why the Holy spirit fathered Jesus in Mary, and not the Father the only true God.

Unless they be closet modalists.

The three persons of the trinintarian doctrine are three masks according to trin reasonings.

The fact is that Jesus is Gods son and is still a man, and not a prexistent God.

LA

 

[betsy123]

Greetings again betsy123, I suggest that you read Genesis chapters 12:1 to 24:67 and Romans 4:16-25 to determine if there is an essential difference between Ishmael and Isaac.
Refer to Luke 1:34-35 and Matthew 1:20-21 and my last reply to Lon. I will not be responding to your other two Posts, partly time constraints 11:00PM already and some repetition.

Kind regards
Trevor

Seems like you're trying to deflect.....


I don't want to assume what you mean by "true Spiritual son" - so, why don't you explain what you mean?

I know the difference between Isaac and ishmael - I'm asking what you mean by
"SPIRITUAL son."


I asked you too, that Jesus would fit "SPIRITUAL Son," better than Isaac (Jesus was not conceived like any other humans) - unless you're saying that He was (by God having had sex with Mary).

Lol - I hope you don't think of God as...........Zeus-like?

So, why do you refer to Isaac as a "true spiritual son" and not to Jesus?
What do you mean by "spiritual son?"


Also, what do you mean exactly by this "conception process?"

Be clear. Describe this so-called "conception process."

You're the one bringing up these terms - surely you can explain?

 

[betsy123]

Lon and no trinitarian can explain why the Holy spirit fathered Jesus in Mary, and not the Father the only true God.

The Holy Spirit (God) made Himself conceived in Mary, and they named Him, Jesus.

Father-Son relationship is something we can relate with as man.
God as the human Jesus (Son), was showing mankind - thru Jesus - the example of true obedience to the Father.

Matthew 26
39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed,
“My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”



OBEDIENCE is required from us! It comes with Faith!

Matthew 7
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Thus there is the symbolism of obedience to our parents, and obedience to authorities, kings and leaders and masters.....

....also, have you noticed that throughout the Bible, an Act of God is usually precipitated by
an act of obedience?
Abraham is a good example - did he quibble with God when God told him to sacrifice Isaac? Abraham's unwavering obedience to God demonstrated his faith!

Unless they be closet modalists.

The three persons of the trinintarian doctrine are three masks according to trin reasonings.

Well, that is an assumption! And it is a faulty one, too!
Lol - what "masks" are we talking about here?

No one can actually fully explain the exact description of the Triune God - but the concept of it is first given in Genesis 1 - during the Creation event when all Three were present.

Would God be talking to them if they were masks?

Assuming a three-headed being is more plausible than masks!
Therefore - the "mask" assumption is definitely out!


GOD IS UNIQUE! There is no analogy for Him!

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again betsy123,

Seems like you're trying to deflect.....

Possibly, but in my Post that you have quoted I asked you to “Refer to Luke 1:34-35 and Matthew 1:20-21”. Perhaps you have some difficulty in reading and understanding these verses. I was extremely reticent to respond to what you stated in your last Post, and I even regretted quoting you. Now you repeat the same language or ideas. This evening for the first time I have encountered how the Trinitarians (or possibly some Trinitarians who agree with the many concepts that have been discussed and “resolved”) explain the word “begotten” with respect to Jesus. I need a rest, at least, from this thread at this time and I also think that I have more or less concluded discussing with Lon.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Lon]

And under Doctrines to be rejected: “That God is three persons”.

They've gone against the main denomination then and can no longer be considered.

I am interested in your assessment and claims, but our environment is very much based on the Scriptures.

Kind regards
Trevor

Your denomination, however, is not. You've been brainwashed and It'd require you to stop selling yourself off to ad hoc theologians. There is a reason the entire population but for an incredibly small group of Unit-arians, believe SCRIPTURALLY that the Lord Jesus Christ is God: Because it IS scripture, Trevor! Wake up! I've proven it in thread. This will help: Realize even in these threads where there is so much disagreement, that most of us agree with quite a bit of what you believe from the scriptures. We RATHER believe the Lord Jesus Christ wasn't just 'with' but 'was' from John 1:1 and many many other scriptures. I've shown you clearly why your church's "Word" doctrine is not up to par for language nor biblical truth. It is that clear. You SHOULD begin to question just how poor their English skills are or have fallen. Unit-arians on the whole, are not well-educated and really cannot/do not grasp the importance. They 'make it up' as they go based off of hasty and simple mistakes and problematic reading ability. I'm not being mean: It is true, Trevor. -Lon

 

[Lon]

Lon and no trinitarian can explain why the Holy spirit fathered Jesus in Mary, and not the Father the only true God.

Incorrect:

Unless they be closet modalists.

Most of us would be more 'modal' than polytheistic like Unit-arians. I have one God. You are 'a god' among many. The Trinitarian (Triune) position is indeed an embrace of John 1:1 by expression. It is also mostly true that Unit-Arians reject any kind of modal scriptures. AT LEAST the modalist sees and understands all scriptures and realizes where he/she is on shaky ground. The Unit-Arian position is neurotic and can't admit they whitewash lest their whole house fall down. It took awhile of looking at scriptures, but Keypurr has finally stopped being a Unit-arian. He isn't a Trinitarian, but he is no longer a Unitarian. He admits that the Lord Jesus Christ is the exact representation of the Father.

The three persons of the trinintarian doctrine are three masks according to trin reasonings.

Um, if you are trying to 'teach' Trevor. You should express truth instead of misrepresentation. "Three masks" is just a soundbyte of meaningless drivel from a Unit-arian. Try to be above board and above reproach: Just the scriptures, just the facts (unless you don't believe you can persuade by just the scriptures) :think:

The fact is that Jesus is Gods son and is still a man, and not a prexistent God.

LA

"Pre-existent"
:doh: John 17:5 Colossians 1:17 Your 'fact' isn't apparently true, is it? How 'could' it possibly be if you read these scriptures and 'keep' them in your Bible? :think:

 

[Lon]

Greetings again Lon, I came to this board to discuss various aspects of the Scriptures. I have discussed many different topics. This board, at the moment anyway, seems to allow this thread “Is Jesus God” and it appears that not all members on this forum will answer “Yes” to this question.

Trevor

I'm not against you being here. Rather, I was asking what the point of your participation in this thread was. At the outset, "you don't care to change" or however you'd pose it.

It makes 'discussion' rather an attempted indoctrination.

I'm convinced of this: "IF" you were ever open to a traverse through the scriptures, I would absolutely convince you, scripturally, through God's power and conveyance, that the Triune (Trinitarian) position is the only viable one.

In a nutshell, every Trinitarian takes two steps back from Modal and Arian deductions and says "whatever the scriptures say, whether I get it all or not."

It is the same metaphorical position with Algebraic expressions: Some are only simplified, not solved.

This is very true of the Triune position. We simply the scriptures and what they say and believe, against the Modalist and Unit-Arian, that a 'solve' is possible AND that the attempt is quite wrong and NECESSARILY deduced away 'from' the scriptures themselves. I insist, through scriptures, that the Triune position is 'simplified, not solved (or solvable).'

There are well-meaning Trinitarians who will argue Tritheism. That too, is deduced rather than implicit in the scriptures. It is VERY clear that John 1:1 says 'with' and 'was.' Every (every) Unit-Arian, trying to explain 'Word' misses that regardless (thus negating their simple assertion) still says 'with' AND 'was' nullifying their conjecture. It just isn't biblical.

In Algebra, which is the 'greater' mistake?
To simplify without solving OR to solve incorrectly?

This is genuinely the difference between your and my position. The WORST would be that Trinitarian is simplified but unsolved scriptures. The WORST of your position is literally wrong, hence heresy against God. Think about it. This IS the actual difference. Doesn't it thus make you audacious, especially in light of scriptures that absolutely speak against the Unit-Arian position?

▲THIS▲ is my contention with anyone coming to TOL: a desire to debate without a genuine desire to be made molded, and thinking, like the scriptures. It isn't an infraction, but perhaps it one day may be (such should ban themselves for the duplicity of it).

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lon,

To conclude my discussion with you I have quoted you to acknowledge that I have read your two Posts, and that I accept the sincerity of what you say, but at the same time I would appeal to you to reconsider Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 and compare this with the Trinitarian position on “begotten”. I would like to conclude by mentioning two things that I have experienced.

In Algebra, which is the 'greater' mistake? To simplify without solving OR to solve incorrectly?

I stated in response to your position of education that I was a technical person, working in an industry. I eventually did some extra study in the Electrical disciplines, and your mention of algebra reminded me of this. I attended the lectures on Ordinary Differential Equations, and there were two lecturers with their two classes. Our lecturer seemed obscure and we had trouble in understanding. Another older student suggested that we go to the bookstore and buy a teach yourself book on the subject. As a result, both of us passed with good grade in the final exam, but the rest of the class failed. All of the other class passed as well. I use this example to state that if something is obscure or seems contradictory, then my mind would like to resolve the problem, rather than saying we have simplified it. I do not believe that Trinitarians have solved the term “begotten” and in their confusion have ignored the simple explanation and made this obscure.

This is genuinely the difference between your and my position. The WORST would be that Trinitarian is simplified but unsolved scriptures. The WORST of your position is literally wrong, hence heresy against God. Think about it. This IS the actual difference. Doesn't it thus make you audacious, especially in light of scriptures that absolutely speak against the Unit-Arian position?

I mentioned my contact with the Plymouth Brother at work. He was a Greek scholar and his interest was also to work out the best Manuscripts. But the only example that he ever mentioned to me of what he thought should be excluded was John 8:2-11. At the time I doubted that he was right, as this passage had all the stamp of the discernment that was revealed in Jesus. Years later I had a closer look and I am convinced that the passage is true and also in exactly the right place. My respect for his scholarship has faded.

Relevant to this subject of “begotten”, he gave me his pamphlet he had written “What think ye of Christ” by David Oliver Murray. I have tried to find, but have misplaced or lost it, but would appreciate reading it again. We had an apprentice in the Drawing Office and he invited me to attend the lunchtime meetings of his religious affiliations. When the senior members heard of this invite, they were reticent because I did not believe the Trinity. I was sent for an interview with a senior member, and his first question was “What think ye of Christ?” Being familiar with the passage where this phrase came from and Jesus actually asked "whose son is he", so I answered “He is the Son of God”. The senior member seemed a bit taken aback and shaken, and asked what I meant by this term “the Son of God”, and I stated that Jesus is the Son of God because God the Father was the father of Jesus as stated in Luke 1:35. He dismissed me and I was not allowed to attend the class. Some years later I had contact with the apprentice shortly before he left to become a Baptist Minister. Part of his motivation was his two motorbike accidents, and he felt that God was giving him a message or warning.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Lon]

Greetings again Lon,

To conclude my discussion with you I have quoted you to acknowledge that I have read your two Posts, and that I accept the sincerity of what you say, but at the same time I would appeal to you to reconsider Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 and compare this with the Trinitarian position on “begotten”. I would like to conclude by mentioning two things that I have experienced.I stated in response to your position of education that I was a technical person, working in an industry. I eventually did some extra study in the Electrical disciplines, and your mention of algebra reminded me of this. I attended the lectures on Ordinary Differential Equations, and there were two lecturers with their two classes. Our lecturer seemed obscure and we had trouble in understanding. Another older student suggested that we go to the bookstore and buy a teach yourself book on the subject. As a result, both of us passed with good grade in the final exam, but the rest of the class failed. All of the other class passed as well. I use this example to state that if something is obscure or seems contradictory, then my mind would like to resolve the problem, rather than saying we have simplified it. I do not believe that Trinitarians have solved the term “begotten” and in their confusion have ignored the simple explanation and made this obscure.
I mentioned my contact with the Plymouth Brother at work. He was a Greek scholar and his interest was also to work out the best Manuscripts. But the only example that he ever mentioned to me of what he thought should be excluded was John 8:2-11. At the time I doubted that he was right, as this passage had all the stamp of the discernment that was revealed in Jesus. Years later I had a closer look and I am convinced that the passage is true and also in exactly the right place. My respect for his scholarship has faded.

I happen to share your view over this matter. It has to do with the family of texts differences. I disagree with these, but don't discount their scholarship. I think they have a good reason (can be discussed in another thread).

Relevant to this subject of “begotten”, he gave me his pamphlet he had written “What think ye of Christ” by David Oliver Murray. I have tried to find, but have misplaced or lost it, but would appreciate reading it again. We had an apprentice in the Drawing Office and he invited me to attend the lunchtime meetings of his religious affiliations. When the senior members heard of this invite, they were reticent because I did not believe the Trinity. I was sent for an interview with a senior member, and his first question was “What think ye of Christ?” Being familiar with the passage where this phrase came from and Jesus actually asked "whose son is he", so I answered “He is the Son of God”. The senior member seemed a bit taken aback and shaken, and asked what I meant by this term “the Son of God”, and I stated that Jesus is the Son of God because God the Father was the father of Jesus as stated in Luke 1:35. He dismissed me and I was not allowed to attend the class. Some years later I had contact with the apprentice shortly before he left to become a Baptist Minister. Part of his motivation was his two motorbike accidents, and he felt that God was giving him a message or warning.

Kind regards
Trevor

A bit over the top to me. We have had atheists attend with their believing wives, for example. My only restriction is that they cannot become members if they cannot sign the doctrinal sheet, nor can they teach.

I do not believe that Trinitarians have solved the term “begotten” and in their confusion have ignored the simple explanation and made this obscure.

Try to remember this, it may help: "Arian" is part of "Trinitarian." It means that we believe a lot of what you believe, but where you went ahead and tried to solve, I and other Trinitarians that know theology, have rejected that because it is too simplistic to work for all of scripture. Think of this: "I and the Father are One." Can you say that? Why or why not? Why could the Lord Jesus Christ? (this is still in the book of John btw, I've tried to stay in that book for our conversation because context is extremely important for doctrine and proper Bible study).

You may never entertain the Trinitarian position, but I do believe you will be better for the look. I've learned a few things about my 'arian' ism as part of my Trinitarian position, from a few arian discussions. It may help if you realize that some of what you believe, though some trinitarians get caught up in arguing, we actually agree with. :e4e: -Lon

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lon,

I happen to share your view over this matter. It has to do with the family of texts differences. I disagree with these, but don't discount their scholarship. I think they have a good reason (can be discussed in another thread).

Actually the portion is John 7:53-8:11 and 7:53 is very significant to confirm the context and correct location. Also the RV 8:1 addition of “But” is very interesting. I have never studied the manuscripts, but I use the RV and NASB often together with the KJV, and refer occasionally to the NIV. My Interlinear KJV/RV leaves a gap before and after and places the RV 7:53-8:11 in square brackets with a footnote. My NASB Study Bible is similar, with square brackets and a footnote. My NIV Study Bible has a note above 7:53-8:11, but has the text without brackets.

A bit over the top to me. We have had atheists attend with their believing wives, for example. My only restriction is that they cannot become members if they cannot sign the doctrinal sheet, nor can they teach.

Later I moved departments and actually worked for one of the principals in the group, and we got on well as far as work was concerned and only had a few discussions.

Try to remember this, it may help: "Arian" is part of "Trinitarian." It means that we believe a lot of what you believe, but where you went ahead and tried to solve, I and other Trinitarians that know theology, have rejected that because it is too simplistic to work for all of scripture. Think of this: "I and the Father are One." Can you say that? Why or why not? Why could the Lord Jesus Christ? (this is still in the book of John btw, I've tried to stay in that book for our conversation because context is extremely important for doctrine and proper Bible study).

I have discussed John 10:30-36 which concludes with Jesus claiming to be “The Son of God”. I agree with this. As an amateur, belonging to a cult, I also like to discuss “Elohim” as it is applied to the Judges, based upon these verses.

You may never entertain the Trinitarian position, but I do believe you will be better for the look. I've learned a few things about my 'arian' ism as part of my Trinitarian position, from a few arian discussions. It may help if you realize that some of what you believe, though some trinitarians get caught up in arguing, we actually agree with. :e4e: -Lon

I do not accept the normal Arian position. I believe that Jesus during his ministry was only a human, the Son of God by birth, and did not pre-exist.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Lon]

Greetings again Lon,
I do not accept the normal Arian position. I believe that Jesus during his ministry was only a human, the Son of God by birth, and did not pre-exist.

Kind regards
Trevor

Hello, Trevor. I realized this from your previous posts. :e4e:

 

[betsy123]

Greetings again betsy123, Possibly, but in my Post that you have quoted I asked you to “Refer to Luke 1:34-35 and Matthew 1:20-21”. Perhaps you have some difficulty in reading and understanding these verses. I was extremely reticent to respond to what you stated in your last Post, and I even regretted quoting you. Now you repeat the same language or ideas. This evening for the first time I have encountered how the Trinitarians (or possibly some Trinitarians who agree with the many concepts that have been discussed and “resolved”) explain the word “begotten” with respect to Jesus. I need a rest, at least, from this thread at this time and I also think that I have more or less concluded discussing with Lon.

Kind regards
Trevor

I stated it simply: Reading those doesn't answer anything.
You're the one who brought up "conception process" and "Spiritual son."
I don't want to assume what you mean by them.

The onus is on you to explain.

But your refusal to give any explanations force me to assume that.....you can't! You were just puling straws from thin air!



I need a break, too. I'm busy these days.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again betsy123,

… in my Post that you have quoted I asked you to “Refer to Luke 1:34-35 and Matthew 1:20-21”. Perhaps you have some difficulty in reading and understanding these verses.

I stated it simply: Reading those doesn't answer anything. You're the one who brought up "conception process" and "Spiritual son."
I don't want to assume what you mean by them. The onus is on you to explain. But your refusal to give any explanations force me to assume that.....you can't! You were just puling straws from thin air!

I should be more patient but I thought you were being difficult, but perhaps you are so confused with the Trinitarian concept of begotten that you find these simple and clear verses difficult. I will address the concept of conception and begotten. The word “conceived” is a word that appears in the following and the marginal rendition is “Gr.begotten”:
Matthew 1:20–21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived (mg: Gr. begotten) in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

The following also describes the same process, but does not use the same words:
Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Both passages teach that Joseph is not the father of Jesus, but God the Father is the father of Jesus by means of his Power, the Holy Spirit. Jesus is thus a descendant of God, his father and also Adam, Abraham, David and Mary his mother.

If and when we resolve this aspect which I have labelled the “conception/birth process”, then I will try to explain what I meant by “Spiritual son” of Abraham. If you want to anticipate this, please consider Genesis 3:15, Cain and Abel, Isaac and Ishmael, Esau and Jacob, Adam and Jesus and numerous NT passages.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[betsy123]

Greetings again betsy123, I should be more patient but I thought you were being difficult, but perhaps you are so confused with the Trinitarian concept of begotten that you find these simple and clear verses difficult. I will address the concept of conception and begotten. The word “conceived” is a word that appears in the following and the marginal rendition is “Gr.begotten”:
Matthew 1:20–21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived (mg: Gr. begotten) in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

I am not confused. I know Joseph is not the father!
I know the word "conceived" is in the Bible - I'm asking you for a reason!

You are the one who's confused, and I'm going to show it!


You mentioned "conception process."
I want to know how you understand or what you mean by that process!

The following also describes the same process, but does not use the same words:
Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Both passages teach that Joseph is not the father of Jesus, but God the Father is the father of Jesus by means of his Power, the Holy Spirit. Jesus is thus a descendant of God, his father and also Adam, Abraham, David and Mary his mother.

The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee

BINGO!
Therefore, it's not a normal human conception - it's SPIRITUAL!
SUPERNATURAL!

Then, why on earth wouldn't you regard Jesus as a SPIRITUAL SON the way you think of Isaac, when Jesus was not conceived like any other humans?

That's what I want to know!

That's where your confusion is at!

If and when we resolve this aspect which I have labelled the “conception/birth process”, then I will try to explain what I meant by “Spiritual son” of Abraham. If you want to anticipate this, please consider Genesis 3:15, Cain and Abel, Isaac and Ishmael, Esau and Jacob, Adam and Jesus and numerous NT passages.

Kind regards
Trevor

You're so anal about the term "begotten"- and I gave you the explanation for it.

What does it mean that Jesus is God's only begotten son?

The first definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship." This is its meaning in Hebrews 11:17 when the writer refers to Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten son" (KJV). Abraham had more than one son, but Isaac was the only son he had by Sarah and the only son of the covenant.

https://www.gotquestions.org/only-begotten-son.html


"Only begotten son" was also used to describe Isaac even though Abraham had another son (Ishmael)!

Think again:
Jesus was conceived through the Holy Spirit.
Isaac was conceived normally by human parents!

You describe Isaac as a Spiritual son.
Lol, given the "process" by which both were conceived - Jesus Christ is more fitting to be called the Spiritual Son - and yet, you won't admit that!
That's why I say you're confused.....

....or, grasping straws from thin air.

Explain it now! Obviously it has to do with conception -since you've brought it up!
I asked you a question about it!

 

[betsy123]

The following also describes the same process, but does not use the same words:
Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Trevor

So.....you see what I said before?
"JESUS," was just the human name given to the "HOLY THING" -
"Son of God," was the other Title given to that "HOLY THING,"
which was actually THE WORD (which is God Himself), as explained in John 1:


1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.


14 And the Word was made 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.


Read this part again:


(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)


The witnesses beheld the glory of GOD, when He came as a human - as the only begotten of the Father.


It's so simple, Trevor.
The full explanation is all in John 1 (and of course, that's supported by numerous other verses throughout the Bible)!

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again betsy123,

I am not confused. I know Joseph is not the father!
I know the word "conceived" is in the Bible - I'm asking you for a reason!

I think by Lon’s comment, he understood what I have said, but he seems to disagree. I am not interested in pursuing this any further. I will repeat a portion of what I said in the previous Post, and then leave it at that. I have 11 studies on the death and resurrection of Jesus of about 45 minutes each in video format with slides by an English brother that I would like to consider for the next week at least. One series given in the USA, and one series in Australia.

The word “conceived” is a word that appears in the following and the marginal rendition is “Gr.begotten”:
Matthew 1:20–21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived (mg: Gr. begotten) in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Kind regards
Trevor