No Pre-existing Son... Before Christ's Birth? - Page 11

hadassah · #**101** 04-04-2009, 05:34 PM

In the beginning was the Word{speech} the Word was God and with God. The Spirit of God spoke and it was so. God spoke into existence. Gabriel spoke the Word of Prophecy to Mary, she believed and received it and the Word{spoken prophecy or logos or rhema , if you will} and the Word found a place of faith in her, she beleived and God created flesh in her womb. Its the same Word when God said"Let there be light and it was so. Let their be seed in the earth and it was so and the mist watered the seed and it b ecame fruit bearing trees, grasses etc. There is only one God, the plan of Jesus was in his mind at creation, not the physical form.God sent his Word into Mary and the christchild was created.

Steve Epley · #**102** 04-04-2009, 06:31 PM

"In the beginning was the Thought and the Thought was with the Thinkerand the Thought was the Thinker."

Sam · #**103** 04-04-2009, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

LOL! I too was looking for the dancing hula girls in grass skirts!

If you have a Mac computer you can download one for your desktop from:
http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashb.../hulagirl.html

tbpew · #**104** 04-05-2009, 08:04 AM

CC1, my apology for posting when I am only able to commit to visits on the board.

CC1 wrote:
tbpew,

I am curious at to how you would differentiate God being in Jesus as opposed to God's Spirit being in us when we receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Obviously there is a difference but I am curious as to how you would state it.

It is figuring out the fusion of God and man that fascinates me and I have never completely felt comfortable with an explanation.

{note: I acknowledge this thread is directed toward something more specific)
My personal motive in participating in most threads that discuss the witness of the Father (who begat) and the Son (which was begotten) among my brethren who define themselves under the banner of “I am oneness” is to provoke them to decide whether they REALLY BELIEVE our Lord and Saviour is the Son of God within the application of the simplicity that the words Father and Son reveal.

I think it is worthwhile to provoke thought among those who post here to consider if ONENESS fervor is fueled mostly by an anti-theological position that is defined primarily by CONTRAST of Trinitarian theology. The casualty from either side in this war of words (often exchanged in highly charged political atmospheres) is the RELATIONAL witness scripture provides that reveals a Father loving his Son and the Son loving his father --as something other than SELF LOVE.

I am one who zealously opposes any two God or three God confusion being taught. Whether plurality is taught as a mystery tri-plexing of God persons or is taught as a mystery plurality of concurrent God manifestations, either theological view establishes an astigmatism that obstructs our seeing of the witness of relational love being foundational in God’s handiwork.

So CC1,
I submit that the FUSION of God and man witnessed in Jesus may be the result of a lens being distorted. God has a child that he indwells; a house he built for himself without any man’s hand being involved.

God’s primary purpose for mankind is for the creature to dwell within him (his anointing, the Christ) and for him to dwell within the hearts of mankind; thus revealing the all in all.

...

The word fusion may be helpful, but for me it does not apply. A marriage is not a fusion of a husband and a wife; it’s a relational covenant established by the act of love comitted by two.

I submit that post-FUSION would not a circumstance where love would have occasion to be revealed.

Revelationist · #**105** 04-06-2009, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Those of you that are uncomfortable in speaking of the pre-existing Sonship of Christ, how do you read Hebrews 1 - especially verse 2?

2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

It may have been brought up already, but what about...

1 Cor 10:4

4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

KJV

That Rock was Christ... maybe it wasn't the same Christ?

Sister Alvear · #**106** 04-06-2009, 07:42 AM

I sure don´t have time to spend debating but when I saw the title of this thread I thought about that same scripture in Cor...the rock that followed them was Christ... I sure am a oneness believer and I am NOT a Bible teacher

Could we say HE was manifest but not as a person?

Revelationist · #**107** 04-06-2009, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

I sure don´t have time to spend debating but when I saw the title of this thread I thought about that same scripture in Cor...the rock that followed them was Christ... I sure am a oneness believer and I am NOT a Bible teacher

Could we say HE was manifest but not as a person?

Not only that Sister Alvear, but the Old Covenant was a shadow of that which was to come... and where there is a shadow, the real thing is present casting that shadow...

Hoovie · #**108** 04-06-2009, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revelationist

Not only that Sister Alvear, but the Old Covenant was a shadow of that which was to come... and where there is a shadow, the real thing is present casting that shadow...

Very good. It's difficult to see through our eyes... but I am sure it makes perfect sense in Godvision.

Praxeas · #**109** 04-07-2009, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sept5SavedTeen

With of our views is more orthodox by OP standards?

... Bro. Alex begins taking out his torture instruments from his briefcase, begins looking around the plain stone room, and gets out his burlap robe and funny looking hat...

[[[Sinister voice]]] After this we'll have a few more questions...

-Bro. Alex

Have you read David Bernards books? In it he speaks of the son and defines the word as both Deity and Humanity. The question might be how. Here is where we speak of God in Christ. Not that one person was in another, but that the Divine Spirit was In the Humanity and ontologically united. The Son then is the Humanity (not just skin or flesh but nature) and Spirit (what makes God Divine)

The Son, according to DB, is the creator incarnate as the Son

Revelationist · #**110** 04-07-2009, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Have you read David Bernards books? In it he speaks of the son and defines the word as both Deity and Humanity. The question might be how. Here is where we speak of God in Christ. Not that one person was in another, but that the Divine Spirit was In the Humanity and ontologically united. The Son then is the Humanity (not just skin or flesh but nature) and Spirit (what makes God Divine)

The Son, according to DB, is the creator incarnate as the Son

No... I've never read any of his books... without a doubt though, the creator was incarnated son... I don't believe the flesh itself was God though. God can not die....