This day have I begotten you

[Jerry Shugart]

IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT "AND" IN ACTS 13:32 IS A CONTINUANCE OF WHAT WAS SAID BEFORE BECAUSE THE PARTICLE "DE" DOES NOT COME UNTIL ACTS 13:34 WHERE THE SUBJECT CHANGES TO THE RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD.

Sure it matters:

"But God raised him from the dead: 31 and he was seen for many days of them that came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses unto the people. 32 And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers, 33 that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" (Acts 13:30-33; ASV).​

Since verse 32 is a "continuance of what was said before" then the subject under discussion is the Lord's resurrection. In verses 30-31 the subject is the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Therefore, we can understand that the subject spoken of in the following passage is about the resurrection of the Lord Jesus:

"And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers, that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus" (Acts 13:32-33; ASV).​

IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT "AND" IN ACTS 13:32 IS A CONTINUANCE OF WHAT WAS SAID BEFORE BECAUSE THE PARTICLE "DE" DOES NOT COME UNTIL ACTS 13:34 WHERE THE SUBJECT CHANGES TO THE RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD.

I have already addressed this but I will repeat what I said earlier:

At the beginning of verse 34 the Greek word de is translated "and." One of the meanings of the Greek word is: "it is joined to terms which are repeated with a certain emphasis, and with certain additions as tend to explain and establish them more exactly" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon).

That meaning fits perfectly with the idea that the "raising up" in both verses mean the same thing, the Lord's resurrection from the dead. In the KJV the word de is translated as "moreover" thirteen times so with that in mind let us look at these verses again:

"And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers, that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Moreover as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he hath spoken on this wise, I will give you the holy and sure [blessings] of David" (Acts 13:32-34).​

The word "moreover"means "in addition to what has been said" (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary).

Therefore,it is evident that the subject of Paul's discourse beginning at verse 30 through verse 37 is about nothing other than the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. But you would have us throw our reason to the wind and imagine that in the very middle of these verses Paul introduced a new subject that had nothing at all to do with the Lord's resurrection!

That, my friend, makes no sense at all!

 

[daqq]

Sure it matters:

"But God raised him from the dead: 31 and he was seen for many days of them that came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses unto the people. 32 And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers, 33 that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" (Acts 13:30-33; ASV).​

Since verse 32 is a "continuance of what was said before" then the subject under discussion is the Lord's resurrection. In verses 30-31 the subject is the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Therefore, we can understand that the subject spoken of in the following passage is about the resurrection of the Lord Jesus:

"And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers, that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus" (Acts 13:32-33; ASV).​

I have already addressed this but I will repeat what I said earlier:

At the beginning of verse 34 the Greek word de is translated "and." One of the meanings of the Greek word is: "it is joined to terms which are repeated with a certain emphasis, and with certain additions as tend to explain and establish them more exactly" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon).

That meaning fits perfectly with the idea that the "raising up" in both verses mean the same thing, the Lord's resurrection from the dead. In the KJV the word de is translated as "moreover" thirteen times so with that in mind let us look at these verses again:

"And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers, that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Moreover as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he hath spoken on this wise, I will give you the holy and sure [blessings] of David" (Acts 13:32-34).​

The word "moreover"means "in addition to what has been said" (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary).

Therefore,it is evident that the subject of Paul's discourse beginning at verse 30 through verse 37 is about nothing other than the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. But you would have us throw our reason to the wind and imagine that in the very middle of these verses Paul introduced a new subject that had nothing at all to do with the Lord's resurrection!

That, my friend, makes no sense at all!

You ignore the context as already explained and shown to you five or six times now. In addition to that you ignore all of the other evidence already presented throughout this entire thread. You are buried under a mountain of evidence all because you choose to keep your eyes closed and believe that the Father spoke the full Psalm 2:7 decree to Yeshua somewhere outside of time with no human witnesses. You are denying the Faithful Witness, the Amen the Faithful and True, the Master Teacher Yeshua himself, and you are denying the testimony of Yohanan the Immerser, the testimony of Paul, and the witness of the author of the epistle to the Hebrews; all so that you may continue to believe the oxymoronic "Eternal Son" doctrine. The very fact that one is called a son by default means that the same was begotten of a father. You are stumbling around like a blind man surrounded in gross darkness and that is what you get for putting your own paradigm mindset above the Testimony of the Father and the Testimony of Yeshua and his apostles and disciples. Even what you say about "moreover" is ridiculous in this case and has already been addressed when it was posted and shown that the particle "de" is rendered over three hundred times more as "but" than it is rendered "and", and yet, now you say, Woohoo! it was rendered thirteen times as "moreover"! :rotfl:

Here it is AGAIN:

Strong's Greek Definition for #1161
1161 // de // de // deh //
a primary particle (adversative or continuative); conj
AV - but 1237, and 934, now 166, then 132, also 18, yet 16, yea 13,
so 13, moreover 13, nevertheless 11, for 4, even 3, misc 10,
not tr 300; 2870
1) but, moreover, and, etc.
http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/strongs/ref/?stgh=greek&stnm=1161

THANKS BUT NO THANKS FOR THE BUFFOONERY . . . :chuckle:

:Nineveh::nuke: :Nineveh:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You ignore the context as already explained and shown to you five or six times now.

I did not ignore the context in regard to what is said at Acts 13:33. From verse 30 through verse 37 the subject is the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

But you stand reason on its head by insisting that right in the middle of Paul's discourse on the Lord's resurrection he speaks about something totally unrelated to His resurrection.

I have never seen anyone jerk a verse out of its context as severely as you have done.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

First and foremost... I want to acknowledge my immense respect for [MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1746]freelight[/MENTION]. They are my friends and siblings in Christ!

Now to it...
[MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1746]freelight[/MENTION] can we do this and still maintain mutual respect?

I value friendship and Love far over theological dispute.

 

[daqq]

First and foremost... I want to acknowledge my immense respect for @daqq and @freelight. They are my friends and siblings in Christ!

Now to it...
@daqq and @freelight can we do this and still maintain mutual respect?

I value friendship and Love far over theological dispute.

If you are speaking of the Alpha and Omega passages which we were just speaking about elsewhere in another thread then why not just start a whole new thread for that topic on its own? I will join you in that discussion.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

If you are speaking of the Alpha and Omega passages which we were just speaking about elsewhere in another thread then why not just start a whole new thread for that topic on its own? I will join you in that discussion.

Do I have your assurance that we enter this pride free? I will start with the grand daddy of implications. I value your friendship far above my theological stances.

 

[daqq]

Do I have your assurance that we enter this pride free? I will start with the grand daddy of implications. I value your friendship far above my theological stances.

Is there pride in asserting the truth of what the scripture actually says and holding peoples feet to the fire of that truth? If you consider that pride then I suppose you should not bother because that is what will be happening.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Is there pride in asserting the truth of what the scripture actually says and holding peoples feet to the fire of that truth? If you consider that pride then I suppose you should not bother because that is what will be happening.

[MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION]... read my closing OP statement on the Slaying thread...

I will always debate vehemently, but I will not undermine a person's salvation or their genuine self. I jest...

But you know I am bound to Christ's law as much as you.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

If we're going to throw down... I would rather throw down on your ground. That way you are the OP Auther and the discussion and numbers go towards you.

 

[daqq]

If we're going to throw down... I would rather throw down on your ground. That way you are the OP Auther and the discussion and numbers go towards you.

Where in this thread did I "throw down" anything about the Alpha and Omega statements for my arguments herein? You are the one who just said in the other thread you wanted to bring it here. That is not the topic of this thread.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Where in this thread did I "throw down" anything about the Alpha and Omega statements for my arguments herein? You are the one who just said in the other thread you wanted to bring it here. That is not the topic of this thread.

Daqq...

I anchor to many points and move forward exhaustively... I maintain theological nimbleness to assure understanding and strongest debate stance.

No matter what we would say back and forth... I know the outcome. We are theologically entrenched on this matter and your friendship is worth more than debate to me.

I sense this is not a good topic for us to debate.

I maintain that you are my friend and that is more important than trying to prove my point as you try to prove yours.

 

[freelight]

Understanding both the eternal, AND what is begotten in time.........

Understanding both the eternal, AND what is begotten in time.........

Meta-tation:

Let us remember, that as long as the heavenly decree of Sonship is bestowed upon the Messiah,...the 'Messiah' is always a SON. The Son is always BEGOTTEN. If the Son is begotten, there was a time when the Son was not begotten, to be intellectually honest with our terms, unless one proposes or presumes a spiritual mystery that goes before or outside of the terms of prophecy. And this is not necessarily an Arian assumption as they might define terms, but an obvious statement of fact according to definition of language and the fact that a son is an offspring of a father.

The whole Trinitarian assumption of the Son being "eternally begotten" is but a metaphysical license to support their position of Jesus being a part of a eternal Godhead, who being eternal with God, could have never been 'begotten' in time. This is was the crux of the huge Arian Controversy in the 4th century. Some Trinitarians will just say that the 'human' part of Jesus was 'begotten' during the incarnation, baptism and resurrection, as far as He being defined or declared(decreed) to the Son of God. So this allows for a 'begetting' of sorts in time, on earth (note how the Trinitarian position does allow for a versatility of juxtapositioning Jesus natures, per whatever context is being related).

Whatever our view,...if we consider what is eternal, AND what is born or revealed in time,....we can resolve or synergize both aspects concerning the person of Jesus. This DOES allow for a full spectrum of Unitarian and Trinitarian views, with subtle or nuanced variables inbetween, concerning Jesus humanity and any assumed divinity. Perhaps the 'devil' is in the details (depending on how we treat them) - while what is MOST important is to recognize Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the Living God, the Agent of God. We say 'Yea' to Jesus being the Word of the LORD, and 'Nay' to anything that hinders or obscures the free and open revelation of Jesus revealing the reality and true character of the Father. Therefore, Jesus is the Yea and Amen, the Beginning and End of God's renewed Creation, the prototypal Son, the Adam Kadmon, the Head of a renewed order of sonship (mystical body of Christ, being the Firstborn Son thereof), which we all share as we are engrafted in and transformed by the living word. - and this is what it amounts to, the soul of man being spiritually nourished by every word which proceeds out of the mouth of Elohim. - engaging in religious life and spiritual living requires both the logos and the Spirit.

 

[Notaclue]

Meta-tation:

Let us remember, that as long as the heavenly decree of Sonship is bestowed upon the Messiah,...the 'Messiah' is always a SON. The Son is always BEGOTTEN. If the Son is begotten, there was a time when the Son was not begotten, to be intellectually honest with our terms, unless one proposes or presumes a spiritual mystery that goes before or outside of the terms of prophecy. And this is not necessarily an Arian assumption as they might define terms, but an obvious statement of fact according to definition of language and the fact that a son is an offspring of a father.

The whole Trinitarian assumption of the Son being "eternally begotten" is but a metaphysical license to support their position of Jesus being a part of a eternal Godhead, who being eternal with God, could have never been 'begotten' in time. This is was the crux of the huge Arian Controversy in the 4th century. Some Trinitarians will just say that the 'human' part of Jesus was 'begotten' during the incarnation, baptism and resurrection, as far as He being defined or declared(decreed) to the Son of God. So this allows for a 'begetting' of sorts in time, on earth (note how the Trinitarian position does allow for a versatility of juxtapositioning Jesus natures, per whatever context is being related).

Whatever our view,...if we consider what is eternal, AND what is born or revealed in time,....we can resolve or synergize both aspects concerning the person of Jesus. This DOES allow for a full spectrum of Unitarian and Trinitarian views, with subtle or nuanced variables inbetween, concerning Jesus humanity and any assumed divinity. Perhaps the 'devil' is in the details (depending on how we treat them) - while what is MOST important is to recognize Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the Living God, the Agent of God. We say 'Yea' to Jesus being the Word of the LORD, and 'Nay' to anything that hinders or obscures the free and open revelation of Jesus revealing the reality and true character of the Father. Therefore, Jesus is the Yea and Amen, the Beginning and End of God's renewed Creation, the prototypal Son, the Adam Kadmon, the Head of a renewed order of sonship (mystical body of Christ, being the Firstborn Son thereof), which we all share as we are engrafted in and transformed by the living word. - and this is what it amounts to, the soul of man being spiritually nourished by every word which proceeds out of the mouth of Elohim. - engaging in religious life and spiritual living requires both the logos and the Spirit.

Excellent post.

Peace to you.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Let us remember, that as long as the heavenly decree of Sonship is bestowed upon the Messiah,...the 'Messiah' is always a SON. The Son is always BEGOTTEN. If the Son is begotten, there was a time when the Son was not begotten, to be intellectually honest with our terms, unless one proposes or presumes a spiritual mystery that goes before or outside of the terms of prophecy.

The following passage shows us exactly when the Lord Jesus was begotten. Notice that from the fist verse to the last the subject under discussion is the resurrection of the Lord Jesus:

"But God raised him from the dead: and he was seen for many days of them that came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses unto the people. And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers, that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is 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 hath spoken on this wise, I will give you the holy and sure [blessings] of David. Because he saith also in another [psalm], Thou wilt not give Thy Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had in his own generation served the counsel of God, fell asleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: but he whom God raised up saw no corruption" (Acts 13:30-37).​

The Lord Jesus was begotten when He was resurrected from the dead.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Let us look at this verse again which is speaking of the Lord Jesus' resurrection from the dead:

"And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers, that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" (Acts 13:33).​

Let us look at the relevant passage from the second Psalm:

"Yet I have set my king Upon my holy hill of Zion. I will tell of the decree: Jehovah said unto me, Thou art my son; This day have I begotten thee" (Ps.2:6-7).​

Here we can see that the Lord Jesus' being "begotten" is tied to His rule on the earth as king. And that is exactly the same connenction which the Apostle Peter makes here:

" Brethren, I may say unto you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us unto this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set [one] upon his throne; he foreseeing [this] spake of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he left unto Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus did God raise up, whereof we all are witnesses" (Acts 2:29-30).​

We can see that Peter tied the Lord's resurrection to the fact that he will sit upon the throne of David in the future and that is exactly the same connection which we see at Psalm 2. So this is the second instance where we see that the Lord Jesus being begotten is in regard to His resurrection from the dead.

 

[daqq]

to be honest, your posts are too deep for me but I understand your overall idea and context of your faith.

May be JS does not understand you either.

God bless you for your faithfulness.

Hi Meshak, sorry it has taken this long to respond. You may ignore the Greek in black at the top of this post and simply read the English renderings which follow below, beneath the horizontal line, beginning with Luke 3:22 and all the text which is in royal blue. If you read the passages in order you will hopefully understand what this thread is about and what is being argued. The full decree from Psalm 2:7 has now been deleted from modern Bible translations even though the reading still appears in Codex Bezae (D) which is one of the four most important codices to all of Christianity, (and this reading also appears in quite a few Latin manuscripts showing that the Catholic Church knew it well and deleted it). The reason that the phrase "this day have I begotten you" has been excised from the modern versions of Luke 3:22 is because it refutes the "eternal son doctrine" and places the Psalm 2:7 decree in its rightful place at the immersion of Yeshua. This is the reason why Trinitarians and Oneness adherents would fight so hard against this reading of the original Luke 3:22 statement from the Father; for the "eternal son doctrine" with its entire paradigm burns to the ground if the Father spoke these words to Yeshua at his immersion. The author of Acts clearly believed that this was where the statement was spoken from the Father because he is the same author of the Gospel of Luke, and therefore Acts 13:32-35 may only truly be understood when Luke 3:22 is corrected to include the whole decree from Psalm 2:7 as it originally contained. Anyway, you can just skip over what is in black here at the top, (above the horizontal line), and begin reading at the blue highlighted section; and simply read it all in order for what it says, and may Elohim bless your Bread of Life and Living Water even moreso than He already has.

Romans 1:1-4 — παυλος δουλος Ι̅H Χ̅Ρ κλητος αποστολος αφωρισμενος εις ευαγγελιον θεου ο προεπηγγειλατο δια των προφητων αυτου εν γραφαις αγιαις περι του υιου αυτου του γενομενου εκ σπερματος δαυιδ κατα σαρκα του ορισθεντος υιου θεου εν δυναμει κατα πνευμα αγιωσυνης εξ αναστασεως νεκρων Ι̅H Χ̅Ρ του κυριου ημων

Romans 1:1-4 — Paul, a servant of Meshiah Ι̅H, a called-out apostle set apart for the good news message of Elohim; the promise of old by way of His prophets, in the holy writings, concerning His Son having come from the seed of David: According to flesh having been declared Son of Elohim with miraculous Power: According to the Set-Apart Holiness Spirit, by the resurrection of the dead, Meshiah Ι̅H our Master.

According to flesh: DECLARED Son of Elohim with miraculous Power, (Luke 3:22 Bezae).
Codex Bezae (D) is one of the four great uncials and most important codices to Christianity:

Luke 3:22 Bezae (D)
ΚΑΙ ΚΑΤΑΒΗΝΑΙ ΤΟ ΠΝΕΥΜΑ ΤΟ ΑΓΙΟΝ ϹΟΜΑΤΙΚΩ ΕΙΔΕΙ ΩϹ ΠΕΡΙϹΤΕΡΑΝ ΕΙϹ ΑΥΤΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΦΩΝΗΝ ΕΚ ΤΟΥ ΟΥΡΑΝΟΥ ΓΕΝΕϹΘΑΙ ΥΙΟϹ ΜΟΥ ΕΙ ϹΥ ΕΓΩ ϹΗΜΕΡΟΝ ΓΕΓΕΝΝΗΚΑ ϹΕ
University of Cambridge - Codex Bezae

Luke 3:22 Bezae (D)
22 καὶ καταβῆναι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον σωματικῷ εἴδει ὡς περιστερὰν εἰς αὐτόν καὶ φωνὴν ἐκ τοῡ οὐρανοῦ γενέσθαι υἱός μου εἶ σὺ ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε

---

Luke 3:22 Bezae (D)
22 And the Spirit of the Holy One descended in corporeal-bodily form as a dove to-into him, and a voice came out of the heaven, "You are My Son, this day have I begotten you." [Psa 2:7]

Acts 3:22-26
22 For Moses truly said to the fathers, "A Prophet shall YHWH your Elohim ανιστημι-raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall you hear in all things whatsoever he shall say to you.
23 And it shall come to pass that every soul which will not hear that Prophet shall be destroyed from among the people." [Deut 18:15-19]
24 Yea, and all the Prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
25 You are the children of the Prophets, and of the covenant which Elohim made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, "And in your seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed."
26 Unto you first, Elohim, having ανιστημι-raised up his Son Yeshua, sent him to bless you, [Deut 18:15-19] in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Acts 13:21-35
21 But then they asked for a king, and Elohim gave them Shaul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Binyamin, for forty years.
22 And having removed him, He εγειρω-raised up for them David as king, to whom also He gave witness and said, "I have found David the son of Yishai, a man after My own heart, who shall do all My desires."
23 From the seed of this one, according to the promise, Elohim εγειρω-raised up for Yisrael a Saviour, Yeshua:
24 after Yohanan had first proclaimed the immersion of repentance to all the people of Yisrael before his face.
25 And as Yohanan was completing his mission, he said, "Who do you suppose I am? I am not him, but behold, there comes one after me, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to loose."
26 Men, brothers, sons of the race of Abraham and those among you fearing Elohim, to you the word of this deliverance has been sent:
27 for those dwelling in Yerushalem and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor even the voices of the Prophets which are read every Sabbath, have filled them in having judged him.
28 And having found not one cause for death, they asked Pilate that he should be put to death.
29 And when they had accomplished all that was written concerning him, taking him down from the tree, they laid him in a tomb.
30 But Elohim εγειρω-raised him from the dead:
31 and he was seen for many days by those who came up with him from the Galilees to Yerushalem, who are his witnesses to the people.
32 And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers:
33 how that Elohim has fulfilled the same [promise] unto our children in that He ανιστημι-raised up Yeshua, as also it is written in the second Psalm, "You are My Son, this day have I begotten you." [Psa 2:7]
34 But as concerning that He ανιστημι-raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, He has spoken in this manner, "I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David." [Isa 55:3]
35 Because he [David] says also in another Psalm, "You will not give Your Holy One to see corruption." [Psa 16:10]

Hebrews 1:5
5 For unto which of the messengers [prophets] said He at any time, "You are My Son, this day have I begotten you"? [Psa 2:7] And again, "I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son"? [2Sam 7:14]

Hebrews 5:4-8
4 And no man takes this honor unto himself, but he that is called of Elohim, as was Ahron:
5 So also Meshiah glorified not himself to be made Chief Kohen; but He that spoke to him, "You are my Son, this day have I begotten you." [Psa 2:7, Luk 3:22, Acts 13:33, Heb 1:5]
6 As He says also in another place, "You are a Kohen for ever after the order of Melki-Tzedek." [Psa 110:4]
7 Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears, unto Him that was able to save him from death, [Luk 22:41-44] also was heard because of his reverent fear:
8 Though he were a Son, [Psa 2:7, Luk 3:22, Acts 13:33, Heb 1:5, Heb 5:5, Psa 110:4, Heb 5:6] yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.

Romans 1:1-4 — Paul, a servant of Meshiah Ι̅H, a called-out apostle set apart for the good news message of Elohim; the promise of old by way of His prophets, in the holy writings, concerning His Son having come from the seed of David: According to flesh having been declared Son of Elohim with miraculous Power: According to the Set-Apart Holiness Spirit, by the resurrection of the dead, Meshiah Ι̅H our Master.

According to flesh: DECLARED Son of Elohim with miraculous Power, (Luke 3:22 Bezae).

 

[freelight]

Son of Man & Son of God

Son of Man & Son of God

~*~*~

Blessings in the Messiah-Son

I think we've probed the essentials on the 'Sonship' issue, although some still choose to hold to the 'eternal generation' concept of the Son, as being one among a 3 person Godhead. Indeed Jesus is the Son of Man and Son of God,...but we note in the synoptics he usually refers to himself as the 'Son of Man', except in the gospel of John if my memory serves me. Some have assumed the term 'Son of Man' refers more to a title denoting his humanity, as other great prophets have donned the title, or as one of the titles of the Messiah, while some hold it refers more to a divine personage or office. I recall you have a peculiar view on this - differentiating the 'logos' from the man Jesus, they having 'joined' in some way at his baptism ( I know variations on this theme exist).

Then we have the title of 'Son of God', emphasized more in John's writings (as a whole) - it seems a sense of divinity is highlighted within a somewhat subtle gnostic inflection, even though parts of John's writings have an anti-gnostic polemic, perhaps with some modifications that took place in some redactions that occurred (another subject). In any case, could you reflect on the these two titles in the light of our subject here, especially within the Adoptionist school.

 

[daqq]

~*~*~

Blessings in the Messiah-Son

I think we've probed the essentials on the 'Sonship' issue, although some still choose to hold to the 'eternal generation' concept of the Son, as being one among a 3 person Godhead. Indeed Jesus is the Son of Man and Son of God,...but we note in the synoptics he usually refers to himself as the 'Son of Man', except in the gospel of John if my memory serves me. Some have assumed the term 'Son of Man' refers more to a title denoting his humanity, as other great prophets have donned the title, or as one of the titles of the Messiah, while some hold it refers more to a divine personage or office. I recall you have a peculiar view on this - differentiating the 'logos' from the man Jesus, they having 'joined' in some way at his baptism ( I know variations on this theme exist).

Then we have the title of 'Son of God', emphasized more in John's writings (as a whole) - it seems a sense of divinity is highlighted within a somewhat subtle gnostic inflection, even though parts of John's writings have an anti-gnostic polemic, perhaps with some modifications that took place in some redactions that occurred (another subject). In any case, could you reflect on the these two titles in the light of our subject here, especially within the Adoptionist school.

Again, TESTIMONY IS SPIRIT, and he who was Anointed to speak the Word in the Gospel accounts is not himself that TESTIMONY. He clearly tells you so himself. This is the same thing again and again which the likes of Jerry Shugart, Evil.Eye, (and all the others from the thread which is now closed, The Logos-Word), refuse to acknowledge or accept because it utterly annihilates their false doctrine. The Testimony IS the Son of Man because it is both spoken and written by MAN from Genesis to the Revelation of Messiah. The Son of Elohim descended from the heavens in the bodily form of a dove: He is the Spirit of the Father, Ruach Elohim, who is Ruach Meshiah, because He is the Word of the Father, because TESTIMONY IS SPIRIT, because the Testimony of the Anointed One is SPIRIT and LIFE. Again, this is precisely why the Anointed One never calls himself the Son of Man but ALWAYS speaks of the Son of Man in the third person. There is only one place where he appears to do so and it is contested because it has clearly been altered in the Textus Receptus, (because no doubt someone saw the problem with the Anointed One NEVER once calling himself the Son of Man).

Again, the plain simple flow of systematic logic straight from the Testimony:

The words of the Anointed One are Spirit:

John 6:62-63
62 What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending up to where he was before?
63 It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are Life.

The Father judges no one but has committed all judgment to the Son:

John 5:22
22. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment unto the Son:

The Anointed One does not testify of himself and therefore does not claim to be Elohim:

John 5:31
31 If I testify of myself, my testimony is not true.

The Anointed One emphatically states that he himself judges no one:

John 8:15
15. You judge after the flesh: I judge no one.

There is only one who judges and he is the Seeker and the Judge:

John 8:50
50. And I seek not mine own glory: one there is, the Seeker and Judge. [Rev 2:23]

The Logos-Word is the Seeker and the Judge:

John 12:47-48
47. And if anyone hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but that the world might be delivered.
48. He that rejects me, and receives not my words, has one that judges him: the LOGOS-WORD that I have spoken, THAT ONE shall judge him in the last day [Rev 19:11-16].

The Logos-Word the Anointed One speaks is not his own:

John 14:24
24. He that loves me not, keeps not my sayings: and the Logos-Word which you hear is not of me, but of the Father who sent me.

The Father judges no one, (John 5:22).
The Anointed One judges no one, (John 8:15, John 12:47-48).
The Father has committed all judgment unto the Son, (John 5:22).
The Anointed One does not testify concerning himself, (John 5:31).
The Anointed One testifies concerning the Father and the Son.
The Son is therefore the only Judge.

The Father is not the Judge.
The Anointed One is not the Judge.
The Logos-Word the Anointed One speaks is the Judge.
The Anointed One therefore cannot be the Logos-Word himself.
The Logos-Word is the only begotten Elohim-Son of Elohim, (John 1:18).
The Testimony of the Anointed One is never going to pass away, (Mt 24:35, Mk 13:31, Lk 21:33).
(Condensed from "The Logos-Word" Post#2 and previous posts also in this thread).

 

[daqq]

Daqq...

I anchor to many points and move forward exhaustively... I maintain theological nimbleness to assure understanding and strongest debate stance.

No matter what we would say back and forth... I know the outcome. We are theologically entrenched on this matter and your friendship is worth more than debate to me.

I sense this is not a good topic for us to debate.

I maintain that you are my friend and that is more important than trying to prove my point as you try to prove yours.

Actions speak louder than words and time reveals the heart:

Congratulations Daqq, This Thread is just for you. (Exposing your Deceit)​

Why did I attach my "signature" picture? Because ******* **** is correct...
That was indeed "evil".

Open Closure
Direct assault on Satan (Evil's.<(I)> Naughty List)
Anti-Christ Spirit of Spiritual Death Exposed
Christian Azazel Atonement Theory
Rebuttal to Daqq's Posted OP "Christian Azazel Atonement Theory"

Matthew 15:18-20 ASV
18 But the things which proceed out of the mouth come forth out of the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings:
20 these are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man.

1 John 3:10-15 ASV
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
11 For this is the message which ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another:
12 not as Cain was of the evil one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his works were evil, and his brother's righteous.
13 Marvel not, brethren, if the world hateth you.
14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not abideth in death.
15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

2 John 1:8-11 ASV
8 Look to yourselves, that ye lose not the things which we have wrought, but that ye receive a full reward.
9 Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house, and give him no greeting:
11 for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works.

 

[meshak]

Actions speak louder than words and time reveals the heart

There are many posters like him here. And many like them too.

But their motives are the same, trying to convert or silence people with their seemingly loving, gentle and kind manner. Remember how he approached you and GT and you took the bait for a while but GT saw his true color right away refused to take it.

Many posters here approaches me the same way too.

Freelight, and EE are the one of best example, and Lon just joined them it seems..

They are very much like politicians.

If you don't take their bait you become one of their arch enemy.

Just my observation and insight.