Son of God

[Aaron]

That makes sense. Regardless, you must accept that God created the sperm to fertilize the egg from nothing so why not the whole body of Jesus? Growing inside Mary like every other child ever born?

A human egg has all the genetic information to form a human body without contribution from a male. At conception, the egg sheds half of its genetic information to receive the male.

Nothing had to be spontaneously generated, it's just that "switch" to start dividing had to be flipped. That doesn't happen in nature without the male.

 

[Aaron]

Job 38:1-7, ". . . Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, . . . Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. . . . all the sons of God shouted for joy? . . ."

Meaning that Christ's Sonship is of a nature very much different. Adam, being a son of God, was made. The sons of God, if that's referring to angels, were also made.

The Son is not made. He is begotten of the Father.

 

[Aaron]

No, what is evident is that Adam was in God's image. God broke His own Noahic Law. God did not take Cain's life for killing Abel. In fact Cain was still in God's image, body, soul, and spirit. He looked the same as all the sons of God. No one would have ever known he was a murderer, even though he was cursed from doing what Adam was cursed to do.

Adam disobeyed and physically died. Then he had to till the ground. Cain did not physically die, but he could not even till the ground. Cain was given a mark so all would know he had sinned and also could not be punished. God already punished Cain.

Of course after the Flood capital punishment was required. There were no more sons of God left living on earth. Only Adam's dead flesh now living under capital punishment. Which most reject today. People get away with murder and rehabilitated. Or people just kill each other and killed in the process, called war.

Strange you all quote verses or just make opinionated statements. Then when a verse is given it is not even addressed:

"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:"

Certainly Adam was physically dead in a corruptible body. He was separated spiritually from God. So Seth only got a soul from Adam that was eternal and since the soul is not genetic, all Seth got was a dead corruptible body. Seth would have to be born again into God's family via the Holy Spirit. Seth was just like you and me. Certainly your dead body is not God's permanent incorruptible physical body. You are a son by adoption not genetics. Until you receive God's permanent incorruptible physical body, you are not a son of God in a literal sense. Adam had God's permanent incorruptible physical body, then he disobeyed God, and physically died. Now like Satan telling Eve: "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:" you can claim Adam did not physically die. I accept God's Word, Adam did die, that instant. Just as fast as becoming a son of God will happen at the Second Coming.

Where do you get this baloney? Did you think this up yourself, or do you attend some weirdo Bapticostal snake-handling cult?

 

[Aaron]

Then you agree that Jesus was physically there and physically spoke the words, let there be light, in Genesis 1. Jesus was never created. Just formed from Adam, who was never created, just formed from dust. It was the dust created by Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit working together as one, called Lord.

What is wrong with the Lord, creating 3 persons of the Trinity at the same time as heaven and earth?

Wheeeeeee! We're kinda off the rails here, aren't we?

 

[Aaron]

Did I say Jesus always existed or Logos always existed? Logos! Please stop misrepresenting my views.
When did the Father choose Logos to be His Lamb of God? Before the foundation of the world, which I think means before creation. Does scripture mean Logos was always the Lamb of God? Nope, as scripture says He was chosen for that task. Luke 9:35, Luke 23:35.

Now this is off topic, but your quote from a translation of Revelation 13:8 is a mistranslation, Here is an accurate translation based on the grammar and Revelation 17:8 which ties the writing or not writing of names to since creation, and not before.

Rev 13:8
and all those who live on the earth will worship the beast, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was killed.

And Van isn't far behind!

 

[37818]

The Son is not made.

Yes, He is the maker, John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17.

He is begotten of the Father.

Not to be the Son. But to be the resurrected incarnate Son, Acts of the Apostles 13:33, ". . . 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 Romans 1:4, ". . . declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: . . . "

 

[percho]

He is the Son of David only by His human nature, by which we know Him no more. 2 Corinthians 5:16

Scripture with thoughts, comments, and questions.

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: Luke 1:31,32

Who gave what to whom? Was it given to the Logos made flesh?

2 Tim 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:-- And the Logos flesh became Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο

Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

1 Cor 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. --
Afterward what? Being to date that baby, born to the virgin Mary is the only begotten so brought forth by woman to experience, being raise from the dead to die no more, resurrection, comment on; Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο

2 Cor 5:16 of which I agree with.

'Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God, one Jehovah; Deut 6:4
And God saith unto Moses, 'I AM THAT WHICH I AM;' (I will be who I will be) He saith also, 'Thus dost thou say to the sons of Israel, I AM (I will be) hath sent me unto you.' Ex 3:14 ----- Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν

Why? Why, the Son of God?

? Heb 2:9 ? and him who was and him who was made some little less than messengers we see -- Jesus -- because of the suffering of the death, we see -- Jesus -- because of the suffering of the death,

Why was Adam, "made some little less than messengers"?

Why? Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural;

 

[percho]

Job 38:1-7, ". . . Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, . . . Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. . . . all the sons of God shouted for joy? . . ."

Is and will Jesus always be the, μονογενῆ --- [unique, only, one, kindred, Son] born of woman of the God?

 

[Aaron]

Yes, He is the maker, John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17.

Not to be the Son. But to be the resurrected incarnate Son, Acts of the Apostles 13:33, ". . . 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 Romans 1:4, ". . . declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: . . . "

He was never not the Son. God sent His Son into the world. He did not become the Son by being sent, or by being born, or by the Resurrection. He ever was, ever is, and ever will be, the Son of the Father.

 

[Aaron]

Is and will Jesus always be the, μονογενῆ --- [unique, only, one, kindred, Son] born of woman of the God?

The Incarnation has nothing to do whatsoever with His Sonship.

 

[37818]

Is and will Jesus always be the, μονογενῆ --- [unique, only, one, kindred, Son] born of woman of the God?

There are three issues. 1) He was always the Son, Proverbs 30:4. 2) He was given to be incarnate, Isaiah 9:6. 3) He was already Son, when God said He would be begotten in His bodily resurrection, Acts of the Apostles 13:33.

 

[percho]

Is the resurrected Jesus in any way, at this very moment, the seed, Son of David?

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
Luke:24

And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
Acts

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1 Tim

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God [who] was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
1 Tim 3

 

[Aaron]

Is the resurrected Jesus in any way, at this very moment, the seed, Son of David?

Metaphorically only. The House of David is the elect, the church. And He is on the Throne, and the Twelve Apostles are on Twelve Thrones ruling the church with Him, through their writings.

Physically, no. Neither is He the son of Mary.

 

[Van]

It's not a mistranslation, but we can say "only Son" if you wish. It doesn't change the meaning at all. We know that the Sonship of Christ is distinct from the sonship of Adam, and of the angels, if indeed the term 'sons of God' refers to angels in some places.

He is the only Son of the Father.

And He said elsewhere, "I proceeded forth and came from God," John 8:42 , meaning begotten, not sent. His being sent is described in the next phrase.

Anyway your limiting His Sonship to only the sense of an emissary, is ... how did you say it? ... Ah, yes. Pure falsehood from A to Z.

1) Translating monogrenes as begotten is a well documented mistranslation.
2) We should say "unique" or "one of a kind."
3) I say uniquely divine because that is what is unique about God incarnate. But that is my interpretation.
4) Both Adam, and Christ are referred to as the Son of God.
5) The son or children of God is also used for every born anew believer.
6) Jesus is the uniquely divine Son of the Father. Thus not begotten.

 

[Aaron]

1) Translating monogrenes as begotten is a well documented mistranslation.
2) We should say "unique" or "one of a kind."
3) I say uniquely divine because that is what is unique about God incarnate. But that is my interpretation.
4) Both Adam, and Christ are referred to as the Son of God.
5) The son or children of God is also used for every born anew believer.
6) Jesus is the uniquely divine Son of the Father. Thus not begotten.

 

[Silverhair]

Then you agree that Jesus was physically there and physically spoke the words, let there be light, in Genesis 1. Jesus was never created. Just formed from Adam, who was never created, just formed from dust. It was the dust created by Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit working together as one, called Lord.

What is wrong with the Lord, creating 3 persons of the Trinity at the same time as heaven and earth?

Are you for real? Do you actually believe the stuff that you are posting or are you just trying to get a reaction from some of us on here?

 

[percho]

4:4 ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ γενόμενον (Whatever that means, just another metaphor, I guess) ἐκ γυναικός (Genitive whatever that means. I know, no Greek) γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον

ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς - Again I know, no Greek, that said

Out from puts, the God
Set off out, the God

Matt 1:18 She was found in belly having out of Spirit, of Holy
Luke 1:35 KJV And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost 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.

 

[Aaron]

Yes, He is begotten. John 8:42 .

1) Translating monogrenes as begotten is a well documented mistranslation.

Disagree, but ok.

2) We should say "unique" or "one of a kind."

We should say what it is, begotten. You want a Trinity you can wrap your head around.

3) I say uniquely divine because that is what is unique about God incarnate. But that is my interpretation.

The Incarnation has nothing to do with Christ's Sonship.

4) Both Adam, and Christ are referred to as the Son of God.

But not equally sons. Adam was the son of God in the sense that God is his Maker, and has no father or mother. In that sense, because we descend from Adam, we are all children of the Most High. Psalms 82:6

5) The son or children of God is also used for every born anew believer.

And we are sons in a real sense, because are are born of God. We are begotten of God, and are partakers of His divine nature, incorruptible, immortal, and eternal, meaning no beginning of days either.

When we see Christ, we shall see Him as He is, because we will be like Him...begotten of the Father.

Adam was made, not begotten.

 

[37818]

Yes, He is begotten. John 8:42 .

". . . Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love Me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of Myself, but He sent Me. . . ."

He is incarnate, John 13:16, ". . . Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither He that is sent greater than He that sent Him. . . ."

 

[timtofly]

The Incarnation has nothing to do whatsoever with His Sonship.

Exactly, because God Himself was walking around in the body of Jesus, and never left until the moment, Jesus said, "It it is finished". Then God was in heaven in Paradise. The physical body was in the grave. The Spirit went to Abraham's bosom, and was out instantaneously, because the bodies were walking out of their graves at that same moment. So when exactly was Jesus not God?

The physical birth was the begotten part. After the Cross, how was the physical not always part of creation, because God is outside of creation? Is the Trinity stuck in this creation as part of creation itself, or outside of creation? Does the Word no longer exist? Did the physical always exist, even if begotten at a single moment in time? The Word became flesh is the begotten moment. At the resurrection did the flesh cease to exist or become the Word again? Is again even possible to God, or always was, being more appropriate?

Most push a pre-incarnate impossibility. As the carnate only applies to a few years on earth, except all the times God appeared as carnate on the earth. God could have just been an apparition of the crucified Lamb, or the post incarnate, post Cross Lamb. Why would one form be more impossible to God than the other?

The only difference is your senses as a carnal human have been offended.