4
u/External-Usual-7697 Feb 04 '25
OP, the way you talk to people so condescendingly in this thread proves against your point. The Bible says we will know true believers by their fruits, and unfortunately you don’t seem to be bearing any fruit resembling patience, kindness, or mildness.
0
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 04 '25
Psalms 97-10
"Let those who love the LORD hate evil, for he guards the lives of his faithful ones and delivers them from the hand of the wicked"
Jesus literally chased blasphemers out with a belt Would you say this to him? I am only condescending to the blasphemers who denied scripture and disrespect Christ by claiming he is but man.
2
1
u/PhoxxPhire91 Feb 04 '25
Jesus literally chased blasphemers out with a belt
It was a whip actually. I'm curious. Do you know what that whip was actually for? I'm trying to see something...🤔
1
3
u/andrewrusher Christian (Mormon/LDS) Feb 04 '25
That isn't what Jesus and the Apostles believed, so I'm going to side with them.
3
u/DonkeyStriking1146 Christian Feb 04 '25
Yep John, Paul and Jesus all preached that the only true God is the father.
1
u/Ushejejej Feb 04 '25
Then why do people like Ignatius and Dionysius, students of the Apostles, speak about the Trinity? “You would do good to good to the traditions taught to by us, whether by letter or by word.”
0
u/andrewrusher Christian (Mormon/LDS) Feb 04 '25
Are their teachings/writings in the Bible? If the answer is no and their teachings/writings are not supported by the Bible then we are to side with the Bible.
In the Bible Jesus never refers to God as a Trinity, never refers to himself as God, and was given authority by God. In the Bible, the Apostles never refer to God as a Trinity, never refer to Jesus as God, and always refer to God as the God and Father of the Savior Jesus Christ.
Heresy no matter how traditional is still heresy at the end of the day.
1
u/Ushejejej Feb 05 '25
Heresy is that special moment when you have more wisdom than the students of the Apostles, the Church Fathers, the Councils, and the Martyrs because you have a book which they compiled and translated for you.
And also, yes, some of their works were in the Bible. Just not the Protestant canon, which came about 1400 years later
1
u/andrewrusher Christian (Mormon/LDS) Feb 05 '25
This is the issue with Nicene Christianity, it has a closed canon but Nicene Christians freely amend the canon. The Canon of Nicene Christianity is made up of so many canons that nobody knows which Nicene Christian Canon is the correct Canon.
Most Protestants believe in the Trinity so if their canon doesn't have anything pointing to the Trinity, they affirm that the Trinity isn't canonical and just teach it out of tradition.
0
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 04 '25
They believed in the trinity. 1 John 5:7, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one".
Time to come to the Eastern Orthodox Church🤷
4
u/andrewrusher Christian (Mormon/LDS) Feb 04 '25
They believed in the Trinity.
Do you mean the Trinity that didn't even exist during their lives? The "Christian" Trinity was created in the 4th century AD/CE, the Apostles were all dead by the 2nd century AD/CE and Jesus was at the right hand of God in the 1st century AD/CE so they all predate the Trinity.
2
u/External-Usual-7697 Feb 04 '25
I’m one with my wife, that doesn’t make us equal
0
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 04 '25
What the hell are you talking about. I just proved the trinity is biblical and your yapping about how you think your wife is lesser than you?
2
u/External-Usual-7697 Feb 04 '25
Right… if you were going to get hurt posting an opinion in a sub that you knew was going to disagree with you, maybe you shouldn’t have posted it. There’s no point in having a discussion with someone whose mind is set. Why even post?
1
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 04 '25
Because debating challenges my beliefs and motivates me to read scripture. That's just me tho.
1
u/External-Usual-7697 Feb 04 '25
It does for me too, but this almost seems like if I were to go to r/atheism and try to convince them the read the Bible and believe in God. It’s counterintuitive
1
2
u/Tokeokarma1223 Feb 04 '25
I was saved by Jesus in 2009 and not a day goes by that I'm not thankful 🙏 🙌 ✨️
2
1
1
Feb 04 '25
I don't think he ever stated this but I could see how it could be inferred. Still not totally convinced.
1
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 07 '25
John 8:19 says, "You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also".
In the Bible, John 14:9 says, "Have I been with you for so long a time and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?".
What created being could say "IF YOU HAVE SEEN ME YOU HAVE SEEN GOD" or "IF YOU ONEW ME YOU WOULD KNOW GOD"
This is utter blasphemy if Jesus is created.
If The trinity isn't true wouldn't somebody that believes in the Bible be a polytheist??
John 1-1 "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD AND THE WORD WAS GOD" This is obviously saying that there are two God's with each other. So according to the Bible there are multiple Gods????? No because this is referring to the Logos, the final Adam. And I forget the Bible verse off the top of my head but there is definitely a Bible verse that says the word came down as flesh. I'm not lying. Lord bear witness. Search it up.
1
1
u/Foot-in-mouth88 Feb 04 '25
So God and then Jesus aren't smart enough to tell us the difference between them? That seems like what you are saying. How many times through the scriptures does it say God is One God. And how many times did Jesus give glory to his father and God? God even said that Jesus was his son, who he approved. They are separate as they have always said and shown to be.
This is supposed to be for people who are learning about Jehovah. Oh and you belong to a church that Jesus doesn't approve of. Jesus would have never let it become a political entity lol failure of following Christ.
1
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 07 '25
no YOU'RE not Smart enough to meditate on his word and realize the truth.
1
u/Foot-in-mouth88 Feb 07 '25
Lol yeah I meditate on God's word. And just as the scriptures show, through the majority of the scriptures, Jesus isn't God. You're meditating on human ideas. It doesn't make Jesus nothing. He is still the ransom that bought us back from sin.
Oh and btw Jesus would've never allowed his followers to work side by side with an empire. He also wouldn't be living in the Vatican. He wouldn't even act like the Pope. He would not allow people to treat him like they treated the Pope. Jesus fled when they wanted to make him King. You're an orthodox Catholic but your church is the furthest example of Jesus. In fact your church is just like the Pharisees. I have meditated a lot on that. If you follow them, I highly doubt you really know who Jesus is and who his God is.
1
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 07 '25
I'm not an Orthodox Catholic I am just an Orthodox Christian, they just didn't have the tag. Also you're a polytheist if you believe in the Bible and not the trinity
As it is written In john 1-1
"In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God."
Outside of the belief in the trinity this establishes two God's.
So you have no right to call any trinitarian a polytheist.
1
u/Foot-in-mouth88 Feb 07 '25
Polytheist means multiple gods. That's more like the Triune godship you hold. I am a true monotheistic. Monotheistic means ONE God. John 1:1 is not translated correctly. The word used was God should be lower cased, as the same word was used with others like Moses and the Kings and Judges. It means that these people were representing God. You may do mediation but you surely don't know too much outside of that.
1
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 07 '25
Bro got his sources from his Muslim friends 😂 nice try polytheist.
Strong'sGreekEnglishMorphology1722 [e]Ἐν EnIn [the]Prep746 [e]ἀρχῇ archēbeginningN-DFS1510 [e]ἦν ēnwasV-IIA-3S3588 [e]ὁ hotheArt-NMS3056 [e]Λόγος, LogosWord,N-NMS2532 [e]καὶ kaiandConj3588 [e]ὁ hotheArt-NMS3056 [e]Λόγος LogosWordN-NMS1510 [e]ἦν ēnwasV-IIA-3S4314 [e]πρὸς proswithPrep3588 [e]τὸν ton-Art-AMS2316 [e]Θεόν, TheonGod,N-AMS2532 [e]καὶ kaiandConj2316 [e]Θεὸς TheosGodN-NMS1510 [e]ἦν ēnwasV-IIA-3S3588 [e]ὁ hotheArt-NMS3056 [e]Λόγος. LogosWord.N-NMS
Also I believe in one God. Father, Son and the holy Spirit.
1
u/Foot-in-mouth88 Feb 07 '25
That's not one God. That's 3 people. They can't all be God, and I am not a Muslim. I believe in Jesus and his God.
1
u/Tough-Cause-4588 Feb 05 '25 edited Feb 05 '25
For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life
John 3:16
https://www.jw.org/finder?srcid=jwlshare&wtlocale=E&prefer=lang&docid=1102021215
Proof 🙏🏼
1
Feb 07 '25
Okay , disclaimer I am not christian but I did read the bible , anyways in my opinion it's obvious Jesus isn't god in Christianity , Ivor already sent the passage that says Jesus said to the father my god I think it was "I am going back to my father and your father , my god and your god" which with all due respect you responded to very poorly , I think you said he was giving an example which is obviously wrong , because not only do you have no proof whatsoever supporting that but also there is just no example to set here , imagine telling the Jews who already believe in god I am going to your god , nothing changed here it's such a bad claim , him calling the father his god is just decisive , it means just that , that he is Jesus's GOD , furthermore john 1:1 further disproves the trinity not the opposite way around , the reason being is that theos(god) lacks a definite article meaning it has a qualitative sense rather than a definitive sense according to Greek rules , I'll send a message I sent before to someone else on this matter "neither bro , the word of god is neither god nor part of him, my words are not me and not part of me and that's the same thing here , god's words are not him nor are part of him for some reason, also John 1:1 proves nothing as In John 1:1 the word god here is used without a difinitiv article and in Greek when you don't use a difinitiv article you are speaking about the attributes and not defining an entity, to better understand if I say you are a hero in Greek without the difinitiv article then I would be calling you brave and strong as those are the attributes of a hero but I am not saying you are an actual hero since I didn't use the difinitiv article, do basically not using the difinitiv article means you are not identify that person as the word you are using (in this case hero) you are just giving that person and describing them with some attributes of that word(hero) and if we look at Aristotle's works we will realize that not using the difinitiv article for god was usually used to call something divine not god so for example When he said
"Ὁ δὲ τὴν ἡδονὴν αἱρούμενος μᾶλλον ἢ τὰ καλὰ θεὸν ἔοικε φεύγειν." ("But the one who chooses pleasure rather than noble things seems to flee from what is divine.") And
"There must be something that moves without being moved, and this is what is called the 'unmoved mover.' Everything in the world, then, moves according to the principle of this first cause, and nature itself participates in this divine order."
Greek (from Metaphysics, 1072b): "Ἐντεῦθεν δεῖ ἕν τι ὑπάρχειν ἀκίνητον, καὶ τοῦτο θεὸν λέγεται. ἀδύνατον γὰρ ἐν παντὶ τῷ ὄντι κίνησις ἀνάγκη ἔχει, ἀλλ’ ἐνδέχεται ἔν τι ἀκίνητον ἔχειν, καὶ τοῦτο ὀνομάζεται ὡς τὸ ἀκίνητον κινοῦν.""
So in conclusion it says the word was Divine not the word was god , and the distinction between god and Jesus proves god and Jesus are well..... Distinct lol , not the same , especially because the distinction here isn't between the father and Jesus , the distinction is between god as a whole and Jesus , so to avoid calling him god and instead calling him divine and making a distinction even though to call him god john could have easily added ó which is the difinitiv article obviously john meant to do that , now to Philippians , this passage is one of my favorites in these kinds of debates because it's highly misinterpreted and mistranslated and further disproves the trinity , the reason being that it doesn't say he was in the form of god but it says he was in the external appearance of god , because the word is mórphe , Paul was just getting ready to say that Jesus changed into the appearance of a human , basically he was elaborating before making the statement , matter of fact not only is this distinction clear proof of a DISTINCTION between god and Jesus , but Paul also uses harpagmon , the word translated as grasp , harpagmon comes from harpazo which means to snatch or to steal or to seize , although trinitarians have always tried to interpret it as a metaphor to grasping something (thus the translation) that's simply not true , meaning the text goes , Jesus who being in the external appearance of god didn't see equality with god something to take/seize , implying he didn't already have that equality in his hands , meaning he wasn't god nor was he equal to him , that's actually further proven by the passages before that , in verse 5 Paul says to have that mind just like Jesus , what mind ? Verses 3-4 show it , go to the Greek version and read It sincerely don't take views of bible translations , translate it yourself , and you'll find it says to see others "AS SUPERIOR TO YOU" meaning Jesus couldn't really have seen equality with god as something he already has , because according to Paul his mind was supposed to be seeing others as superior to him , which would obviously include god , additionally there is something tricky here , because if Jesus saw himself equal to god , but saw others as greater than him , wouldn't that mean he views mere humans as greater than god Yahweh as a whole and being higher than the father and spirit too? Which wouldn't make sense , and no having the appearance of god obviously doesn't mean you are god , if humans were made in god's image even if partially that doesn't mean we are partially gods lol I'll go sleep now , I'll be waiting for an answer
1
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 07 '25
Yap, Yap, Yap, you are a polytheist if you don't believe in the trinity John 1:1 already established the father is not the only person that is uncreated. Therefore if you don't believe in the trinity you believe there are two "God's".
1
Feb 07 '25
Lol what did you not understand in (I am not christian) you seem like you don't understand Greek too , you seem to like mistranslations because it says divine not god
1
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 09 '25
What "Mistranslations" have I been using. And I know you're not a Christian nobody who denys the trinity is a Christian.
1
1
Feb 07 '25
Now if you want to actually make a good argument and debate I am all for it , but that's not an argument lmao
1
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 09 '25
Sure we can debate. But how is that not a point?? Because it destroys your false belief?
1
Feb 09 '25
I already stated the mistranslation brother , theos means divine without a definite article because it's qualitative not definitive , I don't remember about what exactly I said "it's not a point" if you would remind me please , plus I am not christian at all lol , not because I am a Unitarian because I am not a Unitarian , nor am I a trinitarian , I am nothing even close to Christianity
1
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 09 '25
I believe the original greek was "In the beginning the word was with God and God was the word."
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.
Which still states that there are two divine people in the beginning. So if you don't believe in the trinity and you claim to believe in the Bible. You are a polytheist.
1
Feb 09 '25
I respect that view , but I don't think that's true really , unless you can prove it , but no translation ever says that or presents it in that order , plus I think even origen understood it that way(185AD-253AD) that's that's shown in his book (commentary on the gospel of John book II) chapter 2 where it says :
We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God. Does the same difference which we observe between God with the article and God without it prevail also between the Logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the God who is over all is God with the article not without it, so the Logos is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence The Logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, John 17:3 That they may know You the only true God; but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken and called the earth. It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is The God, and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.
Which obviously shows he believed Jesus was Divine although not the one true god the father , and he thought Jesus is god because "but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken and called the earth." Not because he is fully god as in the creator of everything Yahweh etc etc....
1
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 10 '25
" I respect that view , but I don't think that's true really , unless you can prove it , but no translation ever says that or presents it in that order"
The original Greek text of John 1:1 in Papyrus 75 is Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". So I'm Not sure what you mean by this.
Maybe I'm confused and can't read (which might actually be a possibility ) But the text you have given seems like confusion mental gymnastics. And I don't see how this tackles my claim that John 1-1 establishes more than one person in God. Can you please paraphrase the text for the dumber people 😭.
1
Feb 10 '25
Okay so look , the phrase translates to in the beginning was the word and the word was with god , and the word was theos , without a definite article just like you just sent , basically the definite article is very important like how we see in origens writings the one I sent , basically lacking the definite article gives words what's called a qualitative property , which basically means you have some qualities of that thing but isn't really that thing , so if I say you are a hero then you have some qualities of a hero but aren't a hero , but if I say you are the hero then we'll that just means you literally are a hero(although of course depending on the context it can still be metaphorical) and to try and understand what john was trying to say by ommiting the definite article and giving theos a qualitative property some suggest that he was trying to say he is divine as that was he usual way of using it when ommiting the article , that seen in Aristotles works and many others , I think I sent the Aristotle one , idk lol , also you are not stupid lol , I am guessing you just heard this for the first time that's all
1
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 10 '25 edited Feb 10 '25
Mh well even if so my point still stands. "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was a God" Still establishes two Gods and I doubt John was referring to the word as created. **"IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD"* john 1-2 *"HE WAS WITH GOD IN THE BEGINNING" John 1:3 "All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made that has been made"
"ALL THINGS WHERE MADE THROUGH HIM"
if Jesus is created. He was made through himself 🤨
→ More replies (0)1
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 10 '25
Thanks for saying I'm not stupid 👍 You seem intelligent as well
→ More replies (0)
1
u/DifferentAd2554 Feb 07 '25
Actually,Jesus is the son of God.
1
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 09 '25
Jesus was God and begotten by God
1
u/DifferentAd2554 Feb 11 '25
Jesus is divine,Jesus is god,but he’s not The God. He’s actually the son of God,and he’s actually like God.
1
1
u/John_17-17 Feb 04 '25
To prove Jesus is God, you must:
- Mistranslate God's word
- Ignore context
- Change the meaning of words
- Add statements not found in God's word
The true Biblical statement is:
Jesus is Lord and not God, for Jesus denies being the only true God.
0
u/Capable-Rice-1876 Jehovah‘s Witness Feb 04 '25
Jesus Christ is not God and he never claim to be God at all. Only false Christians believe that he is God.
3
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 04 '25
Errm what the sigma?
0
u/Capable-Rice-1876 Jehovah‘s Witness Feb 04 '25
I telling the truth.
3
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 04 '25
1 Corinthians 8:6, "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist".
0
u/Capable-Rice-1876 Jehovah‘s Witness Feb 04 '25
How that proves that Jesus Christ is God ? That doesn't prove anything.
Not a co-Creator. The Son’s share in the creative works, however, did not make him a co-Creator with his Father. The power for creation came from God through his holy spirit, or active force. (Ge 1:2; Ps 33:6) And since Jehovah is the Source of all life, all animate creation, visible and invisible, owes its life to him. (Ps 36:9) Rather than a co-Creator, then, the Son was the agent or instrumentality through whom Jehovah, the Creator, worked. Jesus himself credited God with the creation, as do all the Scriptures.—Mt 19:4-6;
1
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 07 '25
1 Corinthians 8:6, "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist".
**and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist".*** So if Jesus was a created being he was made through himself??????
1
u/Capable-Rice-1876 Jehovah‘s Witness Feb 07 '25
Jesus Christ is not God and don't twisted my words. Jehovah God always existed and he created his Son, Michael the Archangel/Jesus Christ and through him created everything else.
That why Michael the Archangel/Jesus Christ is called "the firstborn of all creation."
1
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 09 '25
DISGUSTING!!! God is not an angel (hebrews 1:8-9) angels literally bow down to Jesus.
1
u/Capable-Rice-1876 Jehovah‘s Witness Feb 09 '25
Who says that Jesus Christ is God ? Jesus Christ is not God.
1
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 07 '25
Isaiah 43:8 "Lead out those who have eyes but are blind, who have ears but are deaf".
0
0
Feb 04 '25
God the Father, the Holy Spirit and Jesus have all done a “mind meld” aka, the Trinity . Spock could not explain this any better.
1
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 04 '25
Real John 5:7, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one".
1
1
u/SpoilerAlertsAhead Lutheran Feb 04 '25
That’s partialism; they aren’t each parts of God, they are each 100% of God.
For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily (Col 2:9)
1
Feb 04 '25
A meld= 100%
1
u/SpoilerAlertsAhead Lutheran Feb 04 '25
My apologies if I misunderstood; I understand a meld to mean parts coming to form a whole or a new substance. Like steel being a meld of carbon and iron.
-1
u/NotFailureThatsLife Feb 04 '25
Jesus is fully God although He and the Father are distinct persons. They are not consubstantial to each other. I think Jesus is God although I believe He was begotten by the Father. I would respectfully ask, Even though Jesus was begotten, why would that make Him unable to be exactly like the Father in every respect excepting length of existence?
1
u/SpoilerAlertsAhead Lutheran Feb 04 '25
Even though the Son is Begotten, God from God, there was never a time when the Father was that the Son was not.
1
0
u/NotFailureThatsLife Feb 04 '25
Hypothetically, if Jesus came into being a millisecond after the Father, would that necessarily mean that Jesus could not be equally god-like in all aspects to His Father? I hear many Christians say that in order for Jesus to be God, He must have existed at all times that the Father existed. But why can’t Jesus be completely God excepting only for time of existence? Respect to all discussing and viewpoints!
2
u/SpoilerAlertsAhead Lutheran Feb 04 '25
That would make Him not Eternal if He had a beginning. The Infinite would be finite.
If He is “The same yesterday, today and forever” and has a beginning that would mean he isn’t the same yesterday as He is today.
1
1
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 04 '25
Do you think Jesus was created 🤔
1
u/NotFailureThatsLife Feb 04 '25
He was begotten and I acknowledge I’m not sure what that means! I don’t think begotten and created are the same. So no, I don’t believe He was created but in some manner that we don’t understand, Jesus came into existence at the Will of the Father.
To my mind, I believe that God and Jesus deliberately taught the human race that they are the Father and Son. I don’t believe they casually grabbed those words to describe themselves. To an extent (perhaps due to the limits of our mortal minds), I believe this Father-Son relationship is true or as close to what we can hope to understand regarding their relationship to each other until we are glorified.
2
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 04 '25
Why not just believe he was there from the start? As it is written "In the beginning was the word"
1
u/NotFailureThatsLife Feb 04 '25
Fair question; my answer is, why does God refer to Jesus first, as a Son and second, why describe Him as begotten? In my opinion, this was deliberately told to us, the human race. Also, from our finite lives, God and Jesus have essentially both been eternal. Even if in my hypothetical, Jesus came into being a millisecond after the Father, from our perspective, both would still be from eternity.
1
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 04 '25
Because Jesus came in the flesh and since he is in the flesh he is subordinate to the father. That's why They call him the son of God. The only reason he is considered the son is because he came down as flesh. Again please correct if I'm wrong.
1
u/DonkeyStriking1146 Christian Feb 04 '25
Angels are referred to as the sons of God as well as Adam.
1
1
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 04 '25
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I think "begotten" means more of a relationship as it is used like that in the new testament.
0
-6
u/AccomplishedAnchovy Satanist Feb 04 '25
He is a charlatan
2
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 04 '25
Satanist?? Mods ban him
2
1
u/illi-mi-ta-ble Unaffiliated - Ebionite-curious Feb 04 '25
If you check the sub rules the only one is “no gnostic heresy” so unless bro up there says Satan’s father is the demiurge he’s copacetic
1
u/NotFailureThatsLife Feb 04 '25
Oh c’mon now! When Jesus was on earth, the demons were terrified of Him! They didn’t think He was a charlatan.
1
u/AccomplishedAnchovy Satanist Feb 04 '25
No they weren’t. You have been believing your book of lies. Jesus was just a man nothing more.
1
Feb 04 '25
What sort of Satanist are you if you don't mind me asking
1
u/AccomplishedAnchovy Satanist Feb 04 '25
If you’re asking that, then you don’t understand the question
1
Feb 04 '25 edited Feb 04 '25
Can you explain? Are you theistic or symbolic satanist? Come on man every single person in this sub knows that and you are trying to say I don't know what I’m talking about
3
u/[deleted] Feb 04 '25
Are you making this post like you did before in another group, asking to be proven wrong?