What does the Godhead really mean?

[danielwoods]

7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I Don't generally either which is why I rely on the multiple scriptures which plainly state Jesus was begotten on a day - not eternally. There is nothing in the scriptures saying He was "eternally begotten." That is plainly an interpretation come up with by the Nicene council - which was btw a minority representation of the church.

Hebrews 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

 6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

 7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered upprayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heardin that he feared;

 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternalsalvation unto all them that obey him;

 10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

Your argument appears to be that Jesus had a beginning. You say, "Jesus was begotten on a day - not eternally." This contradicts John 1:1, where it states that Jesus never had a beginning, because He was there in the beginning. And in Proverbs 8:23 "I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was."

Further, John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

Now, I'm going to offer an alternative to your claim. You claim that Jesus was begotten on a day. You use the verse you quoted above. "On this day..." Notice who is talking though, the Father God. Are there any "days" to an Eternal/infinite being? No. There is but one Eternal day or existence, because there is no night ever for him. Just as it will be for us in the future. "And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever." (Rev. 22:5)

So, the reference to "on this day..." or "today..."  Is a reference to Jesus being eternally begotten of God and is a description of his relationship with the Father, just as "in the bosom of the Father." Is also a description of their relationship. 

 

Quote

Hebrews 7:1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;

 2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

 3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

 4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

Hmm. Well, I think this section is clearly speaking of Melchizedek.  See how Melchizedek became without beginning of days there...? He inherited an everlasting priesthood... So I am the beginning and the last can certainly pertain to the word as it is given in this world. 

Again, have a nice day

One will notice that Melchizedek didn't claim to be the "I AM" the beginning and the last. Rather, this is the claim of Jesus alone. The reference to Melchizedek is as a type of Christ because it was a priesthood based on faith, not the law. Which is what we have today through Christ. 

Edited March 10, 2016 by danielwoods

[RevTestament]

21 hours ago, danielwoods said:

Your argument appears to be that Jesus had a beginning. You say, "Jesus was begotten on a day - not eternally." This contradicts John 1:1, where it states that Jesus never had a beginning, because He was there in the beginning. And in Proverbs 8:23 "I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was."

Further, John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

Now, I'm going to offer an alternative to your claim. You claim that Jesus was begotten on a day. You use the verse you quoted above. "On this day..." Notice who is talking though, the Father God. Are there any "days" to an Eternal/infinite being? No. There is but one Eternal day or existence, because there is no night ever for him. Just as it will be for us in the future. "And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever." (Rev. 22:5)

So, the reference to "on this day..." or "today..."  Is a reference to Jesus being eternally begotten of God and is a description of his relationship with the Father, just as "in the bosom of the Father." Is also a description of their relationship. 

You still do not understand what I am saying. How can Jesus have a beginning as a being if He was alive to hear the oath "this day I have begotten thee?" He existed before, just as we did as spirit and man. He did have a beginning as the Son, which is a priesthood office... in other words His relationship with the Father is one of covenant not physicality. When He received the covenant, He became the Son or was begotten as the Son.  Perhaps if you review Acts 13 you will get it.

33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in 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.

 34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.

 35 Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

 36 For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:

 37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.

 38 ¶Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgivenessof sins:

 39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

 40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;

 41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.

Quote

One will notice that Melchizedek didn't claim to be the "I AM" the beginning and the last. Rather, this is the claim of Jesus alone. The reference to Melchizedek is as a type of Christ because it was a priesthood based on faith, not the law. Which is what we have today through Christ. 

Jesus is the "I am" as in I am El Shaddai, the power which weans you from the breast, which orthodoxy gets wrong too. 

 

[danielwoods]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

You still do not understand what I am saying. How can Jesus have a beginning as a being if He was alive to hear the oath "this day I have begotten thee?" He existed before, just as we did as spirit and man. He did have a beginning as the Son, which is a priesthood office... in other words His relationship with the Father is one of covenant not physicality. When He received the covenant, He became the Son or was begotten as the Son.  Perhaps if you review Acts 13 you will get it.

33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in 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.

 34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.

 35 Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

 36 For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:

 37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.

 38 ¶Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto yu the forgivenessof sins:

 39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

 40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;

 41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.

Jesus is the "I am" as in I am El Shaddai, the power which weans you from the breast, which orthodoxy gets wrong too. 

 

So in your view, when did Jesus receive the covenant?

[RevTestament]

46 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

So in your view, when did Jesus receive the covenant?

When the Bible teaches He did:

33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in 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.

"raised up Jesus again" is being translated from the Greek anistemi Ieosus anistemi or literally He raised Yahoshua again. Heavenly Father told Jesus He would glorify His name AGAIN. 

Hebrews 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

 6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

 7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Notice that in Job it speaks of the morning stars which sang together.

Jesus tells us "The Son can do nothing of Himself but that which He sees the Father do, and whatsoever the Father doeth, the Son does likewise."

Again, btw Melchisedec is not the name of a man, but is a title which means something like priestly king. So He inherits this order of priestly king - not a man's name. The order of priestly king is eternal and will exist in the new world - like the office of Son. 

[danielwoods]

9 hours ago, RevTestament said:

When the Bible teaches He did:

33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in 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.

"raised up Jesus again" is being translated from the Greek anistemi Ieosus anistemi or literally He raised Yahoshua again. Heavenly Father told Jesus He would glorify His name AGAIN. 

Hebrews 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

 6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

 7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Notice that in Job it speaks of the morning stars which sang together.

Jesus tells us "The Son can do nothing of Himself but that which He sees the Father do, and whatsoever the Father doeth, the Son does likewise."

Again, btw Melchisedec is not the name of a man, but is a title which means something like priestly king. So He inherits this order of priestly king - not a man's name. The order of priestly king is eternal and will exist in the new world - like the office of Son. 

So it's your view that the "day" being referred to here is the day Jesus was resurrected. Is that correct? 

[RevTestament]

Just now, danielwoods said:

So it's your view that the "day" being referred to here is the day Jesus was resurrected. Is that correct? 

The prior time - yes.

He was sent to this world as the only Begotten Son, and was announced as such at His baptism by the Father.

[danielwoods]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

The prior time - yes.

He was sent to this world as the only Begotten Son, and was announced as such at His baptism by the Father.

What do you mean the prior time? You mean the first time? Do you believe he was begotten more than once?

[RevTestament]

28 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

What do you mean the prior time? You mean the first time? Do you believe he was begotten more than once?

No, He was sent into the world as the only begotten Son. Where does the Bible say He was not the Son? He said He was the Son of God. The Father said He was the Son at His baptism. All scriptures say the Only Begotten of the Father was sent into the world. But He was resurrected again. This means He was previously resurrected - apparently as the Son of the Father. 

Again I believe the scriptures which say He could do nothing of Himself, but did all things He saw the Father do. He told us He laid down His life for us and would raise up His tabernacle. Is that something He saw the Father do? or am I missing something? BTW one of the names of the Father and Jesus is YHWH - at least that is how I interpret Gen 3:22. YHWH Hebrew letters mean Behold the hand, behold the nail. Why does the Father have that name?

Edited March 11, 2016 by RevTestament

[danielwoods]

29 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

No, He was sent into the world as the only begotten Son. Where does the Bible say He was not the Son? He said He was the Son of God. The Father said He was the Son at His baptism. All scriptures say the Only Begotten of the Father was sent into the world. But He was resurrected again. This means He was previously resurrected - apparently as the Son of the Father. 

Again I believe the scriptures which say He could do nothing of Himself, but did all things He saw the Father do. He told us He laid down His life for us and would raise up His tabernacle. Is that something He saw the Father do? or am I missing something? BTW one of the names of the Father and Jesus is YHWH - at least that is how I interpret Gen 3:22. YHWH Hebrew letters mean Behold the hand, behold the nail. Why does the Father have that name?

Two things. I'm confused still. Do you believe he was begotten more than once?  At the beginning of your answer you said no, but then you talked about him being resurrected again?

Earlier you mentioned that ,""raised up Jesus again" is being translated from the Greek anistemi Ieosus anistemi or literally He raised Yahoshua again. Heavenly Father told Jesus He would glorify His name AGAIN."

I noticed there is no second "anistemi" in that verse. What is happening is that the KJV has translated the verse with the common meaning of "rise again" as in, he once was alive and then died. And now he's alive again. It isn't saying the Jesus resurrectioned twice. Rather it's KJV speak for rising again to life. Other translations don't add the word again, because it's not there. 

[RevTestament]

33 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

Two things. I'm confused still. Do you believe he was begotten more than once?  At the beginning of your answer you said no, but then you talked about him being resurrected again?

Begotten as the Son one time. And yes, He was resurrected again on this world, but was already the Son. Where does the Bible say, God told Him up on the cross "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee?"  There is a rather late codex which adds this to Luke at His baptism, while failing to change the other gospels - obviously I reject that as spurious. 

Quote

Earlier you mentioned that ,""raised up Jesus again" is being translated from the Greek anistemi Ieosus anistemi or literally He raised Yahoshua again. Heavenly Father told Jesus He would glorify His name AGAIN."

I noticed there is no second "anistemi" in that verse. What is happening is that the KJV has translated the verse with the common meaning of "rise again" as in, he once was alive and then died. And now he's alive again. It isn't saying the Jesus resurrectioned twice. Rather it's KJV speak for rising again to life. Other translations don't add the word again, because it's not there. 

There is a second anistemi in Acts 13. I realize other English interpretations leave it out. 

Do you have an answer for my other questions? ie  Again I believe the scriptures which say He could do nothing of Himself, but did all things He saw the Father do. He told us He laid down His life for us and would raise up His tabernacle. Is that something He saw the Father do? or am I missing something? BTW one of the names of the Father and Jesus is YHWH - at least that is how I interpret Gen 3:22. YHWH Hebrew letters mean Behold the hand, behold the nail. Why does the Father have that name?

[danielwoods]

7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Begotten as the Son one time. And yes, He was resurrected again on this world, but was already the Son. Where does the Bible say, God told Him up on the cross "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee?"  There is a rather late codex which adds this to Luke at His baptism, while failing to change the other gospels - obviously I reject that as spurious. 

What do you mean resurrected again on this world? 

And what day was Jesus begotten as the Son? 

Quote

There is a second anistemi in Acts 13. I realize other English interpretations leave it out. 

It's missing in each and every Greek translation I've consulted. 

 Acts 13:33 ὅτι ταύτην ὁ θεὸς ἐκπεπλήρωκεν τοῖς τέκνοις [αὐτῶν] ἡμῖν ἀναστήσας Ἰησοῦν ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ ψαλμῷ γέγραπται τῷ δευτέρῳ·

Notice the bolded word (anistemi) is only used once in that sentence. Maybe you could provide a source to back up your claim. 

Quote

Do you have an answer for my other questions? ie  Again I believe the scriptures which say He could do nothing of Himself, but did all things He saw the Father do. He told us He laid down His life for us and would raise up His tabernacle. Is that something He saw the Father do? or am I missing something? BTW one of the names of the Father and Jesus is YHWH - at least that is how I interpret Gen 3:22. YHWH Hebrew letters mean Behold the hand, behold the nail. Why does the Father have that name?

Your question, was the Father resurrected? No not according to the Bible. 

Jesus did what he saw his Father do, this I agree with. The Father serves and gives of himself everyday for our very existence. This is what Jesus did and is still doing to this day. 

As for your claim that the Father has the name 'behold the nail.' I haven't heard that before, so don't really have a comment at this time. 

[Tsuzuki]

On 2/14/2016 at 2:52 PM, jayman said:

mfbukowski,

I just checked out your blog "Theomorphic Man." I like your tagline..."If God is a Man, Humanism becomes Theology."

I once chatted with a former Mormon who is now a fully initiated advocate of Thelema, Aleister Crowley's philosophy. I asked him to share with me his religion's deepest, most secret, secret. He told me: "Man is God."  Fascinating, isn't it.

Was that me? If so, I may have also pointed out that Trinitarian Christianity also believes in the union of Man with God. This is a common thread among many religions, and only the details differ.