The Man Christ Jesus, had no Father?? WHAT!? [Archive]

Donny Cage

08-08-2007, 09:33 AM

drummerboy_dave

08-08-2007, 09:51 AM

The key to this matter lies in the definition of is. :rolleyes:

Donny Cage

08-08-2007, 10:09 AM

The key to this matter lies in the definition of is. :rolleyes:

forgive me, but I don't know your beliefs (I haven't been in here in a while, and my memory is bad). So I don't know if you are oneness, trinitarian or other...

But do you believe the Man Christ Jesus had a Father? And when I say, "Father" I don't mean, just a term that doesn't really mean He's the Father.

I mean, there was a Man born of a Woman 2000 years ago, known as "Jesus of Nazareth". This MAN's mother was a virgin by the name of Mary. His Father was __________.

A. No one, He had no Father. (Which means, the Man born was not the Son OF God)
B. God.
C. some Roman soldier (Which means the Man born was not the Son OF God.)
E. other (please explain)

drummerboy_dave

08-08-2007, 10:32 AM

All right, a quiz!

My answer is b, Donny.

Tell me what I've won.

TheLayman

08-08-2007, 10:42 AM

It’s come to my knowledge over the last few months that there are some Trinitarians that believe the Man, Christ Jesus has no Father. I won’t name any names, because I don’t want to embarrass anyone, but if you need some links, let me know..

Now, I grew up in a protestant church, (been to MANY protestant churches), stuidied the doctrine much, and not one time have I ever heard this, until recently.

Out of all the problems with Trinitarianism… and now THIS lands on my plate. I don’t even know what to say about this. I’m just completely in shock.

When I first heard this idea, I figured it’s just some fluke. Just a random “Trinitarian” that really doesn’t know his own doctrine (there’s always “that one guy”)… But then a “studied up” Trinitarian agreed with him! I was in complete shock. Still not fully convinced that this was a “Trinitarian” doctrine, I let it slide.

Then several weeks later, I read in another forum, yet ANOTHER “studied up” Trinitarian claiming that the Man Christ Jesus had no Father! Then ANOTHER “Studied up” Trinitarian agreed with him!

Now, I’m almost convinced, that this is no fluke, and that this is ACTUALLY a Trinitarian doctrine! If it is, then you can take your doctrine and throw it right out the window with the rest of the false junk you are trying to spread.

Jesus is the SON OF GOD!!!!

Now, God had many sons (Job 1:6). But what makes Jesus so special and so unique is the fact that He’s the only BEGOTTEN Son of God (John 3:16). He was actually BEGOTTEN of God (Hebrews 1:5). This literally took place about 2000 years ago (Luke 1:35). He was born of a Woman (Galatians 4:4) and His Father is God (Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:18). Thus He is called, “Son of GOD” (He's also unique, in that He is God revealed in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16; John 14:9; Hebrews 1:3; John 1:1,14))

This isn’t just some metaphorical expression, that really doesn’t mean what it says (like “sons of thunder”). Jesus really IS the Son of God, and the Bible is emphatic about this!

Luke 1:35 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Luke+1%3A35) And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

Matthew 1:18 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Matthew+1%3A18) Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

2 John 1:3 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=2+John+1%3A3) Grace, mercy, [and] peace will be with *you from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

So, who out there, disagrees with scripture that the Man, Christ Jesus’ actually had a Father, and His Father is God?

I thought the whole “Son of God” thing would give it away, but apparently not!

And before you ask, no God did not have sex with Mary. Don’t even bring that up. Besides, who said sex is required to beget or Father a Child? (it’s not)

Hello Donny:

I have no idea what you've been reading but perhaps you have misunderstood. I titled this post the same thing I titled it in another thread which is, "Jesus Christ has no biological father." And I suggest you look at the form of the question from David Bernard no less, as it in addition to genetic material (DNA which God does not have) the form of his question most definitely does imply that the Holy Spirit procreated with Mary. At any rate I copy that post below and point out again, the Son of God had no biological father (unless you are going to argue that God is a biological creature possessing DNA).

_________________________________________________

Greetings:

1. Did Jesus Christ have two fathers? The Father is the Father of the Son (I John 1:3), yet the child born of Mary was conceived by the Holy Ghost (Matthew 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35). Which one is the true father? Some trinitarians say that the Holy Ghost was merely the Father's agent in conception - a process they compare to artificial insemination! [109] (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/One-Foot.htm#b109)

First of all, when the questions from CARM were posted, they were posted one at a time, each one being a thread, which is as it should be if you really want some participation. Just a thought as I don’t intend to spend all of my time debating each one of these questions.

I did want to answer the first question as it has some bearing on some other threads that I’m going to make some quick comments in. So in answer to question #1 I must observe (as I usually do when this question is asked) that the person asking this question reduces the Holy Spirit to a Holy incubus (which Trinitarians do not). Indeed, I have seen some recent posts in other threads that say the Holy Spirit implanted His seed in Mary. Now that is some bad and unbiblical doctrine.

The Trinitarian answer to the question is that Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, has no biological Father. God does not have ”biology,” that is to say flesh and DNA. The body of Jesus was biologically a product of Mary and Mary alone.

3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; (Romans 1:3)

4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, (Gal. 4:4)

So, the question itself implies the false idea that the birth of the Son of God was the result of procreation. Trinitarians properly teach that the birth of the Son of God was the result of an incarnation. This means that the Father was and is the Father of the Son because the Father always was the Father of the Son (which is why the Father is called the Father and the Son is called the Son). The Son, who always existed with the Father, was incarnated in the womb of Mary, not created in the womb of Mary. The Holy Spirit was the agent in the incarnation of the Son, not in procreation. Once again, God has no DNA, Jesus was related biologically only to Mary, He had no biological father.

Blessings,
TheLayman

Donny Cage

08-08-2007, 10:45 AM

All right, a quiz!

My answer is b, Donny.

Tell me what I've won.

You've won a smiley face from me, for agreeing with what scripture says. :)

Donny Cage

08-08-2007, 10:48 AM

TheLayman

08-08-2007, 11:13 AM

TheLayman, if the Man born of that woman 2000 years ago, did not have a Father, then He is not actually the Son of God.

Scripture disagrees with you.

Matthew 1:18 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Matthew+1%3A18) Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

According to this scripture, who is Jesus a Child of?

Luke 1:35 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Luke+1%3A35) And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

According to this scripture why is Jesus to be called "Son of God"? (Notice the keyword, "therefore") this scripture emphatically declares WHY He is to be called "Son of God."

2 John 1:3 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=2+John+1%3A3) Grace, mercy, [and] peace will be with *you from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

According to this scripture who is Jesus the Son of?

Scripture disagrees with you. Jesus Christ really IS the Son of God. This is not just some term. He REALLY IS the Son OF GOD.

It amazes me. Absolutely AMAZES me what trinitarianism has done with the Son of God.

Donny:

I'm not going to play with you so either respond to what I said or do not, but do not misrepresent what I say. I said the Son has a Father very clearly. I said He does not have a biological Father, but you believe the Father is a biological creature which has DNA, or perhaps in your theology whatever it may be you believe the Holy Spirit is a biological creature with DNA. That would be your problem.

Scripture does not disagree with me, sorry. You have not shown one place where it states that the God has DNA, that Jesus is related in FLESH to God. I quoted Scripture, and you are the one disagreeing with Scripture.

So let's get something straight. All of the passages that say The Father is the Father of The Son, Jesus Christ, or that God is the Father of the Son Jesus Christ is because God the Father is the Father of the Son Jesus Christ. All Trinitarians including me state this so if you feel the need to lie remember you are representing the people of your faith when you do so. As to Jesus not having a biological Father I stand by those statements, I get them from Scripture. As for Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:35, they state the reason Mary is pregnant, those passages absolutely do not say that God is a biological creature which sired a child with Mary (better read them more closely). But obviously you disagree. So, how many of your fellow Oneness Pentecostals believe that God is a biological creature which procreated with Mary and passed along His genetic code? (Not to mention ignoring the Scripture that actually does deal with the flesh of Jesus just as you did). The Mormons would love you though Donny.

Blessings,
TheLayman

mizpeh

08-08-2007, 11:15 AM

Greetings:

First of all, when the questions from CARM were posted, they were posted one at a time, each one being a thread, which is as it should be if you really want some participation. Just a thought as I don’t intend to spend all of my time debating each one of these questions.

I did want to answer the first question as it has some bearing on some other threads that I’m going to make some quick comments in. So in answer to question #1 I must observe (as I usually do when this question is asked) that the person asking this question reduces the Holy Spirit to a Holy incubus (which Trinitarians do not). Indeed, I have seen some recent posts in other threads that say the Holy Spirit implanted His seed in Mary. Now that is some bad and unbiblical doctrine.

The Trinitarian answer to the question is that Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, has no biological Father. God does not have ”biology,” that is to say flesh and DNA. The body of Jesus was biologically a product of Mary and Mary alone.

3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; (Romans 1:3)

4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, (Gal. 4:4)

So, the question itself implies the false idea that the birth of the Son of God was the result of procreation. Trinitarians properly teach that the birth of the Son of God was the result of an incarnation. This means that the Father was and is the Father of the Son because the Father always was the Father of the Son (which is why the Father is called the Father and the Son is called the Son). The Son, who always existed with the Father, was incarnated in the womb of Mary, not created in the womb of Mary. The Holy Spirit was the agent in the incarnation of the Son, not in procreation. Once again, God has no DNA, Jesus was related biologically only to Mary, He had no biological father.

Blessings,
TheLayman
So many questions spring to my mind while reading your post. But first I'd like to say that I don't know any Oneness who believe God has DNA for God is a Spirit. Neither do we believe there was procreation in the making of the holy child within Mary's womb as in 'God knew Mary' carnally. I find that completely insulting when a Trinitarian accuses a Oneness believer of such a thing!

By biological are we talking natural as opposed to spirit?

Adam had no human progenitors, no biological parents, yet he was fully human. Adam was not begotten but created. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God because Jesus was begotten in the womb of Mary of the Holy Spirit. No other man came into the world in this fashion.

Why did the Son, if God, need an agent to assist Him with the incarnation?

How was Jesus a male if Mary was the only supplier of DNA? Where did Adam receive his genetic code? From God of course! Could not God do the same with the conception of Jesus?

I believe what the Bible says in Luke 1:35 and Matt 1:20.

Luke 1:35 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Luke+1%3A35) And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

You cannot assume an incarnation from this verse. It doesn't teach it. It also doesn't teach a preexistent Son of God. Neither does it say the holy One who is to be born IS called the Son of God but WILL BE called the Son of God. Son of God is a future title that the Jesus would be called at birth.

drummerboy_dave

08-08-2007, 11:30 AM

You guys need to bury the hatchet. Really. What a silly thread.

Donny Cage

08-08-2007, 11:39 AM

You guys need to bury the hatchet. Really. What a silly thread.

I take this very seriously when someone says the Son of God does not have an actual Father. If He does not have a Father, then He is not the only begotten Son of God.

There's all kinds of problems that arise. You have God claiming to be the Father of that Man. You have that Man claiming to be the Son of that God. You have an angel telling Mary how it will all go down, and WHY He was to be called "Son of God".

You have scripture stating that He is the Child of the Holy Spirit.

And now you have a whole group of people saying all that is false, and that Jesus really actually had no Father.

This is serious.

TheLayman

08-08-2007, 11:40 AM

So many questions spring to my mind while reading your post. But first I'd like to say that I don't know any Oneness who believe God has DNA for God is a Spirit.

Well Mizpeh, perhaps you and any other Oneness who want to argue that God the Father is biologically related to the flesh of the Son should stop doing so, think about it.

Neither do we believe there was procreation in the making of the holy child within Mary's womb as in 'God knew Mary' carnally. I find that completely insulting when a Trinitarian accuses a Oneness believer of such a thing!

Well Mizpeh, perhaps Oneness should stop repeating the tired old question of David Bernard's, "Does Jesus have two Father's." You see, when you imply that God is BIOLOGICALLY related to the Son, and if the Holy Spirit is not the Father then Jesus must have two fathers, you imply that this would mean that the Father and the Holy Spirit are biological creatures and depending upon who met up with Mary would determine who the biological father was. I find the question itself crass and poorly thought out so if you don't like the answer talk to those who ask the question. Beyond that, you'll just have to live with it.

By biological are we talking natural as opposed to spirit?

Mizpeh, don't you think you should be explaining what you're talking about rather than asking others what you're talking about. I know what I'm talking about and I have been very clear on the subject.

Adam had no human progenitors, no biological parents, yet he was fully human. Adam was not begotten but created.

That is a wonderful piece of completely useless information in this discussion Mizpeh. Unless of course you are now saying that Adam was also genetically/biolgocially realted to God?

Jesus is the only begotten Son of God because Jesus was begotten in the womb of Mary of the Holy Spirit. No other man came into the world in this fashion.

That's all wonderful Mizpeh, but has nothing to do with being biologically related to anyone. If you could stay on topic and make your point as you should know as well as anyone, I do not like to bunny trail around in a topic, nor will I.

Why did the Son, if God, need an agent to assist Him with the incarnation?

How was Jesus a male if Mary was the only supplier of DNA? Where did Adam receive his genetic code? From God of course! Could not God do the same with the conception of Jesus?

I believe what the Bible says in Luke 1:35 and Matt 1:20.

Luke 1:35 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Luke+1%3A35) And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

You cannot assume an incarnation from this verse. It doesn't teach it. It also doesn't teach a preexistent Son of God. Neither does it say the holy One who is to be born IS called the Son of God but WILL BE called the Son of God. Son of God is a future title that the Jesus would be called at birth.

Mizpeh:

First of all Mizpeh, your last paragraph is all a straw man.

Let me see if I can help you and Donny understand the obvious by way of a single simple question:

What EXACTLY makes a Father the biological Father of a Son, and a Son the biological Son of a Father?

Blessings,
TheLayman

mizpeh

08-08-2007, 11:45 AM

Donny,

Maybe the Trinitarians you spoke to didn't specify 'biological' and what is meant by that word.

TLM seems to be saying Jesus is the Son of God from eternity but strangely enough TLM is leaving out the man, Jesus Christ. As a man, according to what I understand him to be saying, Jesus has no Father only a mother, which is very sad. Yet, Jesus as a man prayed to his Father.

Hmmmm...we look at these things so differently.

TheLayman

08-08-2007, 11:47 AM

I take this very seriously when someone says the Son of God does not have an actual Father. If He does not have a Father, then He is not the only begotten Son of God.

There's all kinds of problems that arise. You have God claiming to be the Father of that Man. You have that Man claiming to be the Son of that God. You have an angel telling Mary how it will all go down, and WHY He was to be called "Son of God".

You have scripture stating that He is the Child of the Holy Spirit.

And now you have a whole group of people saying all that is false, and that Jesus really actually had no Father.

This is serious.

Donny:

Pointless to have a conversation with you as you don't respond to the things said to you, you haven't done so once (and if you don't respond to responses, it's not a conversation. And that would mean you are pontificating, which you are).

Once again Donny, Trinitarians do believe Jesus Christ the Son of God has an actual Father, He does not have a biological Father (but this means so much to you that you failed to tell me about the BIOLOGICAL FATHER of Jesus, the BIOLOGICAL CREATURE that passed on His DNA to His BIOLOGICAL SON). You're not going to admit you're wrong and will consequently keep digging a deeper hole, and I'll eventually get a PM from someone telling me what a meanie I am.

Lastly Donny, I already told you once but I will do so again to save you from going down this road. Scripture NEVER says that Jesus Christ the Son of God is the child of the Holy Spirit, you better read it more closely. And you can also tell me about this biological creature that sired the Son and passed on its genetic code making them biologically father and son.

Blessings,
TheLayman

drummerboy_dave

08-08-2007, 11:49 AM

Then, please excuse me when I say, you all may just be delusional.

Donny Cage

08-08-2007, 11:57 AM

TheLayman, saying "God doesn't have 'biology' so He couldn't be the Man's 'Biological Father'" is like saying "God doesn't have Matter, therefore He could not create existence." It's nonsense.

Scripture is specific that there was a Man born 2000 years ago. The mother of this Man was a virgin by the name of Mary. His Father is God. Thus He is called, "Son of God". God caused the pregancy of Mary, which makes God the actual Father of that Man.

Luke 1:35 which is possibly the most ignored scriptures by trinitarians, tells us EXACTLY why He would be called the Son OF God. The Son of God actually had a Father (Luke 1:35) and God actually beget a Son (Hebrews 1:5).

You can call it what you want. You believe what you want. But THAT is what scripture teaches.

PS: This seals the deal for me, as far as trinitarianism. (fortunately, however, not all trinitarians think this)

TheLayman

08-08-2007, 12:02 PM

TheLayman, saying "God doesn't have 'biology' so He couldn't be the Man's 'Biological Father'" is like saying "God doesn't have Matter, therefore He could not create existence." It's nonsense.

Actually, what you just wrote is nonsense, it's called a false analogy. But if you don't think so, see the question below which I asked Mizpeh and which I have a feeling you already saw.

Scripture is specific that there was a Man born 2000 years ago. The mother of this Man was a virgin by the name of Mary. His Father is God. Thus He is called, "Son of God". God caused the pregancy of Mary, which makes God the actual Father of that Man.

Luke 1:35 which is possibly the most ignored scriptures by trinitarians, tells us EXACTLY why He would be called the Son OF God.

You can call it what you want. You believe what you want. But THAT is what scripture teaches.

Then again, maybe you missed it in my response to Mizpeh, here it is again Donny:

Let me see if I can help you and Donny understand the obvious by way of a single simple question:

What EXACTLY makes a Father the biological Father of a Son, and a Son the biological Son of a Father?

TheLayman

mizpeh

08-08-2007, 12:08 PM

Well Mizpeh, perhaps you and any other Oneness who want to argue that God the Father is biologically related to the flesh of the Son should stop doing so, think about it.Who said 'biologically related"? Biologically created perhaps. And to me that would mean the Holy Spirit caused the egg of Mary to divide resulting in a human baby. Human eggs don't start dividing on their own accord. I'm not sure what you believe regarding the making of every child that is born, but I believe the natural process of egg and sperm does not a complete human make. God gives each child the inner nature or their spirit and soul. The human spirit and soul does not come from the joining of a sperm and an egg.

John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Just as God created Adam with all the necessary genetic code and then Eve from Adam with genetic code to peculiar to females, two X chromosomes as opposed to an X and a Y chromosome for males.

I don't believe God has genes or chromosomes or DNA or sperm.

Well Mizpeh, perhaps Oneness should stop repeating the tired old question of David Bernard's, "Does Jesus have to Father's." Yeah, well, I've never repeated that question. I've always said Jesus has one Father.

You see, when you imply that God is BIOLOGICALLY related to the Son, and if the Holy Spirit is not the Father then Jesus must have two father, you imply that this would mean that the Father and the Holy Spirit are biological creatures and depending upon who met up with Mary would determine who the biological father was. I find the question itself crass and poorly thought out so if you don't like the answer talk to those who ask the question. Beyond that, you'll just have to live with it.I didn't imply God is biologically RELATED to the Son. I believe their point would be that the Holy Spirit is the Father of the Son of God and not that the Holy Spirit is not the Father. The funny thing is we don't think of Holy Spirit and the Father as two different persons but two titles of the one God. It must be a preconcieved misconception of Trinitarians when they read Holy Spirit and the Father to automatically think two persons. Because, speaking for myself, when I see Holy Spirit and the Father, I think of different manifestations of the one God. These titles are used in reference to different ways God functions or manifests Himself to his creation.

The bolded in red portion is what I would call "CRAZY TALK"! Absolutely ludicrious and ridiculously bizarre thinking. And only, I repeat only, could be insinuated by a person who believed God was more than one person.

What EXACTLY makes a Father the biological Father of a Son, and a Son the biological Son of a Father?

I've addressed this above. Shall we discuss what it means to be a father as well? Can the Spirit be a Father to the Son of God because He caused the conception of the Son without being a biologically related Father?

mizpeh

08-08-2007, 12:10 PM

Then, please excuse me when I say, you all may just be delusional.
The peanut gallery speaks again. :cool:

drummerboy_dave

08-08-2007, 12:18 PM

:yeah:

mizpeh

08-08-2007, 12:20 PM

:yeah:Don't let me stop you. Your comments add for levity in a serious conversation. You make me smile! :goof:

TheLayman

08-08-2007, 12:27 PM

Who said 'biologically related"?

Please Mizpeh, this is your best explanation? Donny started this thread and you jumped in with him. Of course you didn't mean biologically related did you? That's why Donny continued to argue with me when I copied my post in this forum to his thead and why you joined him.

John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Just as God created Adam with all the necessary genetic code and then Eve from Adam with genetic code to peculiar to females, two X chromosomes as opposed to an X and a Y chromosome for males.

I don't believe God has genes or chromosomes or DNA or sperm.

Well that's nice Mizpeh. Then Jesus Christ the Son of God is not biologically related to God the Father (I just thought I'd help you say it). The other stuff is simply superflous.

Yeah, well, I've never repeated that question. I've always said Jesus has one Father.

That's nice. Then perhaps you should be critical of the question instead of the answer, or simply not comment at all.

I didn't imply God is biologically RELATED to the Son.

Then perhaps you shouldn't be arguing with my comments in that it would certainly imply that you disagree with me. Only you could be arguing with me but actually not arguing with what I'm saying. Sure Mizpeh, perfectly understandable.

I believe their point would be that the Holy Spirit is the Father of the Son of God and not that the Holy Spirit is not the Father. The funny thing is we don't think of Holy Spirit and the Father as two different persons but two titles of the one God. It must be a preconcieved misconception of Trinitarians when they read Holy Spirit and the Father to automatically think two persons. Because, speaking for myself, when I see Holy Spirit and the Father, I think of different manifestations of the one God. These titles are used in reference to different ways God functions or manifests Himself to his creation.

Well that's all just wonderful, but has nothing to do with the topic you move further and further away from which is always a little crazy making. Mizpeh, you believe what you want, my comments on the topic have been clear and there's nothing more I need to add to them, so spin this until you believe you were right to your heart's content.

The bolded in red portion is what I would call "CRAZY TALK"! Absolutely ludicrious and ridiculously bizarre thinking. And only, I repeat only, could be insinuated by a person who believed God was more than one person.

I agree with your first two sentences Mizpeh. Unfortunately, it was insinuated by the ones asking the question, it is inherent in the question, I just pointed it out. That's why I said I found the question to be poorly thought out and crass to begin with, but you must have missed that. And before your little argue program kicks in, I'm not going to argue it with you Mizpeh, I do not argue simply for the sake of arguing.

Blessings,
TheLayman

mizpeh

08-08-2007, 12:34 PM

TheLayman,

I don't want to argue with you either so I hope your move is going well. God bless you and your family. And I cease not to make mention of you in my prayers; that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: that the eyes of your understanding may be enlightened;

Mizpeh

drummerboy_dave

08-08-2007, 12:40 PM

Originally stated by Layman:bla; bla bla, bla bla. to rebut this comment by Donny:bla bla bla; bla bla, bla bla.
Note to self. Time to impliment the ignore feature. :idea:

Enjoy yourselves, fellas.

mizpeh

08-08-2007, 12:41 PM

Originally stated by Layman: to rebut this comment by Donny:
Note to self. Time to impliment the ignore feature. :idea:

Enjoy yourselves, fellas.
I'm out of this discussion as well. Thanks for the smiles.

Donny Cage

08-08-2007, 01:12 PM

I'm out of this discussion as well. Thanks for the smiles.

Well, I'll give you a smiley face too :), but also a frowny face for not sticking around. :(

Of course, I understand. So I'm just kidding with you.

I think we could do an experiment. I think we could read to a 6 year old child Luke 1:35, or Matthew 1:18, and ask, "Who is the Father of this Man?"

And, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say the kid could answer the question, as the Bible is emphatic about this.

I posted this in a different forum, and I'm SO happy to hear SOME trinitarians stepping up and saying, Jesus certainly did indeed have a Father, "God". In fact, one of the most hardcore trinitarians stated, "The father of Christ was the Holy Spirit since it was the Holy Spirit who impregnated the Virgin Mary."

So there is hope that this is not really a "trinitarian doctrine" per se.

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 1:20 Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

mizpeh

08-08-2007, 01:34 PM

Donny Cage

08-08-2007, 01:48 PM

TheLayman

08-08-2007, 01:50 PM

You guys need to bury the hatchet. Really. What a silly thread.

You guys :confused: I didn't start this thread anymore than you did. And as far as bury the hatchet, this would be the first thread I have had (or attempted to have) a conversation with Donny in, so only you know what it is you're talking about. And the only difference in your participation in this thread and mine is that I'm actually responding to the topic (kind of thought that was how the whole discussion board thing worked) and you are...well...I guess telling others that...they shouldn't be responding in this thread...

:lame:

TheLayman

08-08-2007, 02:05 PM

Originally stated by Layman: to rebut this comment by Donny:
Note to self. Time to impliment the ignore feature. :idea:

Enjoy yourselves, fellas.

For a minute I thought you said Donny had responded to me and I was going to ask "where"?? But I realized that's not what you said. And I did not say:

bla; bla bla, bla bla.

I said:

bla: (notice the colon) bla, de bla (please note the definite article), bla bla. I hate being misrepresented. :realmad:

And if you need to implement the ignore feature I must assume you are being held hostage and being forced to read and recite the posts in this thread! :goof:

Doctrinal differences aside I'm willing to help form a rescue team to get you out. :ninja: There's no reason you should be forced to read and participate in a thread that you think is so bad. Of course, what would be even better is if you weren't being held hostage and forced to read and recite this thread because then I could use your posts as a perfect example of the meaning of egocentric: Viewed or perceived from one's own mind as a center. In other words you would see others as the only people reading or participating in this thread as "silly," you can't see yourself in it. But, whatever makes you happy.

:icon_danc

TheLayman

08-08-2007, 02:19 PM

Donny,

And you know what else, that little 6 year old wouldn't have to know a lick of Greek, nor understand the intricacies of grammar, nor have a basic knowledge of biological reproduction to figure out the Holy Spirit is the Father of the man, Jesus Christ.

You know, I'll bet if you read a 6 year old Col 1:12-16 and Heb. 1:1-2 they could tell you that the Son participated in the creation of "all things." I'll bet if you read them John 17:5 they would tell you the Son existed with the Father before the world existed. I'll bet if you read them John 6:38 or John 16:28 they could tell you the Son existed in heaven before coming to earth. So when it's all said and done, if you'd try to listen to a 6 year old we would probably not be as far apart doctrinally.

Caution: double edged knives cut both ways.

Blessings,
TheLayman

TheLayman

08-08-2007, 02:29 PM

You are 100% correct.

Well Donny, since you seem to be having a conversation by yourself, or between you and Mizpeh, I just thought I try to teach you a little something (even though folks like you and David were "Trinitarians for years" and in spite of what you get some poster on another board to say).

From the Nicene Creed:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;

From the Chalcedonian Creed:

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten,

From the Athanasian Creed:

But it is necessary to eternal salvation that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. The right faith therefore is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. He is God of the substance of the Father begotten before the worlds, and He is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God, perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood.

Just so you know since you've never heard of this before or read it in your Bible.

Blessings,
TheLayman

mizpeh

08-08-2007, 02:47 PM

You know, I'll bet if you read a 6 year old Col 1:12-16 and Heb. 1:1-2 they could tell you that the Son participated in the creation of "all things." I'll bet if you read them John 17:5 they would tell you the Son existed with the Father before the world existed. I'll bet if you read them John 6:38 or John 16:28 they could tell you the Son existed in heaven before coming to earth. So when it's all said and done, if you'd try to listen to a 6 year old we would probably not be as far apart doctrinally.

Caution: double edged knives cut both ways.

Blessings,
TheLayman
And if that 6 year old was brought up repeating the Shema every day and was shown Matt 1:23.....what would he think? :spin:

Yep, it cuts both ways.

Hey, I'm not suppose to be in this discussion. Okay, I'm gone for good now.

TheLayman

08-08-2007, 03:00 PM

And if that 6 year old was brought up repeating the Shema every day and was shown Matt 1:23.....what would he think? :spin:

Yep, it cuts both ways.

Hey, I'm not suppose to be in this discussion. Okay, I'm gone for good now.

He'd probably have unanswered questions just exactly like the Jews did at the time of Christ. But you're right, you said you were gone a couple of posts back, and the longer you stay the more off topic your arguing becomes, not to mention, well, now it's ridiculous. But as long as you were agreeing with me regarding the Son not having a biological father and not actually arguing with me, there's no point in confusing your six year old. I wouldn't want him to think that he was really his own father.

Blessings,
TheLayman

mizpeh

08-08-2007, 03:08 PM

He would think God couldn't find a man who could stand in the gap to intercede for the sins of his fellow men, so God himself was made like us to do what we could not do for ourselves. And God called that man His Son by virtue of his conception.

mizpeh

08-08-2007, 03:11 PM

He'd probably have unanswered questions just exactly like the Jews did at the time of Christ. But you're right, you said you were gone a couple of posts back, and the longer you stay the more off topic your arguing becomes, not to mention, well, now it ridiculous. But as long as you were agreeing with me regarding the Son not having a biological father and not arguing actually arguing with me, there's no point in confusing your six year old. I wouldn't want him to think that he was really his own father.

Blessings,
TheLayman

Would you like me to show you where you went off topic and made a strawman as well?

TheLayman

08-08-2007, 03:12 PM

mizpeh

08-08-2007, 03:27 PM

Okay, maybe he wouldn't think that of his own self but that is what I would show him from the Bible.

Donny Cage

08-08-2007, 03:27 PM

Well Donny, since you seem to be having a conversation by yourself, or between you and Mizpeh, I just thought I try to teach you a little something (even though folks like you and David were "Trinitarians for years" and in spite of what you get some poster on another board to say).

Well, I was a "trinitarian for years", grew up in a protestant church, and yet never once heard (until recently on the forums) that "the Man Christ Jesus had no Father, only a step father."

Scripture teaches otherwise.

Like I said, it would be one thing for it to be a "fly by night" trinitarian, to say this. I wouldn't even think twice about it. But for "studied up" trinitarians claiming this, then having the audacity to tell ME what sound biblical doctrine is!? Wow. Is all I can say about that.

mizpeh

08-08-2007, 03:35 PM

Donny Cage

08-08-2007, 03:39 PM

Donny,

Did you force or persuade or coerce or trick that knowledgable Trinitarian on another board to say Jesus has a Father?

lol, nope.

And I'm extremely relieved to hear SOME of them say this.

drummerboy_dave

08-08-2007, 04:15 PM

For a minute I thought you said Donny had responded to me and I was going to ask "where"?? But I realized that's not what you said. And I did not say:

bla; bla bla, bla bla.

I said:

bla: (notice the colon) bla, de bla (please note the definite article), bla bla. I hate being misrepresented. :realmad:

And if you need to implement the ignore feature I must assume you are being held hostage and being forced to read and recite the posts in this thread! :goof:

Doctrinal differences aside I'm willing to help form a rescue team to get you out. :ninja: There's no reason you should be forced to read and participate in a thread that you think is so bad. Of course, what would be even better is if you weren't being held hostage and forced to read and recite this thread because then I could use your posts as a perfect example of the meaning of egocentric: Viewed or perceived from one's own mind as a center. In other words you would see others as the only people reading or participating in this thread as "silly," you can see yourself in it. But, whatever makes you happy.

:icon_dancDude, whatever. Hope you feel beter. :lame::beammeup::tup:

TheLayman

08-08-2007, 05:10 PM

Well, I was a "trinitarian for years", grew up in a protestant church, and yet never once heard (until recently on the forums) that "the Man Christ Jesus had no Father, only a step father."

Scripture teaches otherwise.

Like I said, it would be one thing for it to be a "fly by night" trinitarian, to say this. I wouldn't even think twice about it. But for "studied up" trinitarians claiming this, then having the audacity to tell ME what sound biblical doctrine is!? Wow. Is all I can say about that.

Donny:

So you can almost reply to something I say. I thought maybe my writing was invisible on your screen. So you still didn't learn anything did you? I just posted excerpts from the Creeds, so I'm not sure who you are calling a studied up Trinitarian, me or the person who has no idea what a Trinitarian is? But your appeal to authority based on who you consider to be a "studied up Trinitarian" is a fallacy. And I quoted you excerpts from the creeds so that someone would not rightfully accuse me of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

As I said in my first post Donny, all Trinitarians believe Jesus Christ had a very real and actual Father. Trinitarians do not believe Jesus Christ has a biological Father because He had only one biological parent (which Scripture teaches contrary to your false assertions). So Joseph would be the step father of Jesus (which may be important in one geneology) but biologically He is related only to Mary.

Now, since you can see my writing, I'll try this a third time since you are claiming the Son has a biological father and that the Scripture teaches this:

What EXACTLY makes a Father the biological Father of a Son, and a Son the biological Son of a Father?

Well Donny?

TheLayman

Donny Cage

08-08-2007, 05:38 PM

Donny:

So you can almost reply to something I say. I thought maybe my writing was invisible on your screen. So you still didn't learn anything did you? I just posted excerpts from the Creeds, so I'm not sure who you are calling a studied up Trinitarian, me or the person who has no idea what a Trinitarian is? But your appeal to authority based on who you consider to be a "studied up Trinitarian" is a fallacy. And I quoted you excerpts from the creeds so that someone would not rightfully accuse me of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

As I said in my first post Donny, all Trinitarians believe Jesus Christ had a very real and actual Father. Trinitarians do not believe Jesus Christ has a biological Father because He had only one biological parent (which Scripture teaches contrary to your false assertions). So Joseph would be the step father of Jesus (which may be important in one geneology) but biologically He is related only to Mary.

Now, since you can see my writing, I'll try this a third time since you are claiming the Son has a biological father and that the Scripture teaches this:

What EXACTLY makes a Father the biological Father of a Son, and a Son the biological Son of a Father?

Well Donny?

TheLayman

First off, I don't like the way you are talking to me, so I'm actually surprised at myself that I'm responding to you right now. What won't surprise me, is if this conversation ceases between me and you.

To directly answer your question, I'm not a biology major, but I know the basics. I know a Human being is made up of Chromosomes received from his parents. He receives 23 Chromosomes from his mother. He receives 23 Chromosomes from his father, making a chromome count of 46.

Now, the Bible doesn't get specific on how it all went down with the egg, fertilization, ect... But what the Bible DOES get specific on, is the fact that Jesus was Human. So I'm going out on a limb here and saying Jesus had a chromosome count of 46, just like you and me. His Mother was Mary, so we know where one set of Chromosomes came from (23). Now we have another set of Chromosomes that either don't exist, and He's not Human. Or they do exist, and the one that's responsible for them would be His actual Father.

But like I said, the Bible doesn't get into the specifics of the biology (because it's not a biology book). What it does tell us, is there was a Man, born of a Woman. And this MAN, had a mother (Mary) and this MAN had a Father (God). And Luke 1:35 is perfectly clear, and gives us the BIBLICAL reason He is called, "the Son of God".

I understand you as a trinitarian believe the eternal Spirit you call "the eternal Son of God" had a Father (you claim "eternally begotten"). But that's not what this is about. We are talking about an actual Man, that was actually born in a point in time, around 2000 years ago. This Man had a mother. And this Man had a Father.

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

According to this verse, why is Jesus called, the Son of God? (If you want to know the answer, just look at what the scripture says, just before "therefore")

Whether you like it or not, this is the BIBLICAL reason He is called "the Son of God". He was born of a Woman and His Father is God. Period.

And if you don't like the NKJV then let's look at the NASB...

Luke 1:35 The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

This is the BIBLICAL reason He is called the Son of God. Like it, love it. Hate it, ignore it. It makes no difference to me. That is the Biblical reason right there.

TheLayman

08-08-2007, 07:12 PM

First off, I don't like the way you are talking to me, so I'm actually surprised at myself that I'm responding to you right now. What won't surprise me, is if this conversation ceases between me and you.

To directly answer your question, I'm not a biology major, but I know the basics. I know a Human being is made up of Chromosomes received from his parents. He receives 23 Chromosomes from his mother. He receives 23 Chromosomes from his father, making a chromome count of 46.

Now, the Bible doesn't get specific on how it all went down with the egg, fertilization, ect... But what the Bible DOES get specific on, is the fact that Jesus was Human. So I'm going out on a limb here and saying Jesus had a chromosome count of 46, just like you and me. His Mother was Mary, so we know where one set of Chromosomes came from (23). Now we have another set of Chromosomes that either don't exist, and He's not Human. Or they do exist, and the one that's responsible for them would be His actual Father.

But like I said, the Bible doesn't get into the specifics of the biology (because it's not a biology book). What it does tell us, is there was a Man, born of a Woman. And this MAN, had a mother (Mary) and this MAN had a Father (God). And Luke 1:35 is perfectly clear, and gives us the BIBLICAL reason He is called, "the Son of God".

I understand you as a trinitarian believe the eternal Spirit you call "the eternal Son of God" had a Father (you claim "eternally begotten"). But that's not what this is about. We are talking about an actual Man, that was actually born in a point in time, around 2000 years ago. This Man had a mother. And this Man had a Father.

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

According to this verse, why is Jesus called, the Son of God? (If you want to know the answer, just look at what the scripture says, just before "therefore")

Whether you like it or not, this is the BIBLICAL reason He is called "the Son of God". He was born of a Woman and His Father is God. Period.

And if you don't like the NKJV then let's look at the NASB...

Luke 1:35 The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

This is the BIBLICAL reason He is called the Son of God. Like it, love it. Hate it, ignore it. It makes no difference to me. That is the Biblical reason right there.

Your post would have been a great deal shorter if you had just said, "I'm still not going to answer your question." You see, if you can't answer the question (which did not ask how it was done) then how can you assert that Jesus has a biological father? Here, I'll help you. If the Holy Spirit is the biological father of Jesus, then the Holy Spirit is a biological creature who's DNA combined with the DNA of Mary to produce the man Jesus Christ. This is what you are arguing Donny. So do you think the majority of Oneness agree with you and your idea that God is a biological creature which procreated with Mary?

TheLayman

Donny Cage

08-08-2007, 07:46 PM

Your post would have been a great deal shorter if you had just said, "I'm still not going to answer your question." You see, if you can't answer the question (which did not ask how it was done) then how can you assert that Jesus has a biological father? Here, I'll help you. If the Holy Spirit is the biological father of Jesus, then the Holy Spirit is a biological creature who's DNA combined with the DNA of Mary to produce the man Jesus Christ. This is what you are arguing Donny. So do you think the majority of Oneness agree with you and your idea that God is a biological creature which procreated with Mary?

TheLayman

"If the Holy Spirit is the biological father of Jesus, then the Holy Spirit is a biological creature"

incorrect.

"So do you think the majority of Oneness agree with you and your idea that God is a biological creature which procreated with Mary?"

And this is a strawman.

Have a nice day.

mizpeh

08-08-2007, 07:52 PM

"If the Holy Spirit is the biological father of Jesus, then the Holy Spirit is a biological creature"

And this is incorrect.

"So do you think the majority of Oneness agree with you and your idea that God is a biological creature which procreated with Mary?"

And this is a strawman.

Have a nice day.
Lu 3:38 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=lu+3:38&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) -Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

How is Adam the son of God? Is it biological or eternal? or something else? Is there a third choice? Yes, there is. God created the DNA that made Adam and that makes Adam and all of his children human. God created the DNA that fertilized the egg of Mary. In each instance, both offspring are called the sons of God.

(Donny, that was one strawman but there is another which TLM brought up which I know neither of us believe. Does Jesus have two fathers?)

Donny Cage

08-08-2007, 07:56 PM

Lu 3:38 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=lu+3:38&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) -Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. How is Adam the son of God? Is it biological or eternal? or something else just like He is to Jesus.

Donny, that was one strawman but there is another which TLM brought up which I know neither of us believe. Does Jesus have two fathers?

Yes, strawman to say the least... And I want to go ahead and post this scripture up as many times as I need to, to bring the point home.

Scripture plainly and clearly gives us the reason Jesus is called the Son of God. People may love it, or hate it, but it's right here, as plain as day...

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

According to this verse, why is Jesus to be called, the Son of God?

(note: word, "therefore")

And the same verse in NASB...

Luke 1:35 The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

The Man, Christ Jesus, was born of a Woman (Galatians 4:4) and His Father is God (Luke 1:35) thus He is called, "Son of God"

It's right there.

BTW - like I pointed out, God had many sons (Job 1:6). But God only had one BEGOTTEN Son (John 3:16; Hebrews 1:5). And this Son was actually Begotten in a point in time. (around 2000 years ago). Born of a woman.

God actually begot a Son, and God is actually His Father.

TheLayman

08-08-2007, 08:20 PM

Donny Cage

08-08-2007, 08:43 PM

Adam was unique, in that he was the first created man. God created him from the dust of the ground, and he was A son of God. But He was not a begotten Son of God. God had many sons (Job 1:6). God only had ONE Begotten Son of God. And yes, He was begotten in a point in time, unlike the false doctrine of "eternally begotten" which rips the very meaning of begotten right away, and makes Jesus not REALLY the Son of God. Jesus is TRULY the Son of God. This isn't just some term that doesn't mean what it says.

Jesus, was born of a woman, just like the rest of us. But unlike us, His Father was actually God. The Man Christ Jesus, is the only BEGOTTEN Son of God. He was actually born. His mother was actually Mary and His Father was actually God.

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

Who is He a child of?

Matthew 1:20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

Mary is His mother, God is His Father. He is called the Son of God for a reason, and Luke 1:35 gives us this reason. Anything short of this, is not only a lie, but heresy.

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

mizpeh

08-08-2007, 08:57 PM

No one is denying the Adam was created, but no one was the mother of Adam. Are you now saying that in addition Adam also shared genetic code with God? This just keeps getting better.I've explained to you at least once that God is a Spirit and doesn't have DNA. Why do you keep bringing up this strawman? This is what I said " God created the DNA that made Adam and that makes Adam and all of his children human."
http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showpost.php?p=297229&postcount=47

and "But first I'd like to say that I don't know any Oneness who believe God has DNA for God is a Spirit."
http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showpost.php?p=297114&postcount=9

Creating DNA is not the same as sharing a genetic code. I also said this, "I don't believe God has genes or chromosomes or DNA or sperm." http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showpost.php?p=297135&postcount=18

For someone who prides himself in being honest and takes quick offense if misquoted, I'm surprised at this from you. :grumble:

Incidentally Mizpeh, creating DNA does not make God the "biological father" now does it?
I'm not so sure. God contributed the DNA (if that is how it happened) to the conception of the flesh of Jesus. Most certainly not in the way we have biological fathers but then our human fathers are not God either. Maybe we should ask our resident scientist, Maria.

Mizpeh, apparently you didn't understand. The "two fathers" thing was part of David Bernard's question to Trinitarians (not mine to Oneness). Go back are read slowly and you perhaps you will finally get what Bernard's question implies.

I understand and completely 'get' what David Bernard is asking but that is not my belief nor was I nor am I arguing that point in respect to who Trinitarians think the Father of Jesus is.

TheLayman

08-08-2007, 08:58 PM

Yes, strawman to say the least... And I want to go ahead and post this scripture up as many times as I need to, to bring the point home.

No strawman Donny. Here's the question I have asked you and Mizpeh several times and the one which you have both refused to answer though you want to argue that Jesus has a biological father (Mizpeh is still arguing though she supposedly didn't think Jesus had a biological father. Maybe she does not, it's always hard to know just what Mizpeh believes). Here is the question again Donny (and I'll answer it for you)

What EXACTLY makes a Father the biological Father of a Son, and a Son the biological Son of a Father?

The answer is the Son obtained half of his genetic code from his father's genetic code, it's biology, hence, biological father and son. So if you are going to assert the Father is the biological father of Jesus, then the father is a biological creature Donny, its axiomatic. Simply denying the express implications of what you say doesn't change the fact.

Scripture plainly and clearly gives us the reason Jesus is called the Son of God. People may love it, or hate it, but it's right here, as plain as day...

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

According to this verse, why is Jesus to be called, the Son of God?

(note: word, "therefore")

Because the Holy Spirit came upon her and the power of the Highest overshadowed her, and she was a virgin who had not had sexual relations with a man. The Holy Spirit is not called the Father, the Father of Jesus, God the Father, or any other such "Father." There is nothing in this passage that makes "God," "the Father," "the Holy Spirit," or anyone or anything else the biological father of Jesus Christ. Once again, Trinitarians do not deny Jesus had a real Father, or that the Holy Spirit was the agency of the incarnation and Marries pregnancy, but Jesus Christ has no biological father.

The Trinitarian answer to the question is that Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, has no biological Father. God does not have ”biology,” that is to say flesh and DNA. The body of Jesus was biologically a product of Mary and Mary alone.

3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.(Romans 1:3-4)

4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, (Gal. 4:4)

What does Scripture say about Jesus Christ according to the flesh Donny? Was Jesus made of the seed of the Holy Spirit according to the flesh? What does it say?

BTW - like I pointed out, God had many sons (Job 1:6). But God only had one BEGOTTEN Son (John 3:16; Hebrews 1:5). And this Son was actually Begotten in a point in time. (around 2000 years ago). Born of a woman.

God actually begot a Son, and God is actually His Father.

Donny, say what you mean, it's why you are disagreeing. God actually has DNA, and half of Jesus Christ's genetic code is that of God. And since God has a genetic code, God has a biology, and therefore God is a creature. That's not what Scripture says, that's what you say Donny. This is interesting to me though. We should have a poll as I'd be interested in knowing how many Oneness Pentecostals believe God had DNA and procreated with Mary.

TheLayman

TheLayman

08-08-2007, 09:07 PM

I've told you at least once that God is a Spirit and doesn't have DNA. Why do you keep bringing up this strawman? This is what I said " God created the DNA that made Adam and that makes Adam and all of his children human."
http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showpost.php?p=297229&postcount=47

Creating DNA is not the same as sharing a genetic code. I also said this, "I don't believe God has genes or chromosomes or DNA or sperm." http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showpost.php?p=297135&postcount=18

For someone who prides himself in being honest and takes quick offense if misquoted, I'm surprised this from you. :grumble:

For someone who was exiting this thread you sure post a great deal. And if you don't believe Jesus Christ has a biological father then perhaps that would be easier to understand in you quit arguing with me about it. If you are saying God is the biological father of Jesus Christ, then God has DNA Mizpeh, you rationalize it anyway you want. But in that you continue to argue with me (rather than Donny who apparently takes issue with the idea that Jesus Christ has no biological father) it continues to appear you are trying to have it both ways.

I'm not so sure. God contributed the DNA (if that is how it happened) to the conception of the flesh of Jesus. Maybe we should ask our resident scientist, Maria.

Mizpeh, if God does not have DNA (which He doesn't) then He can not be the biological father of Jesus Christ. So perhaps if you want to continue not participating in this thread you could take a moment to stop arguing, state your position succintly and clearly, and then back it up. Once again, Donny is taking issue with Trinitarians saying Jesus Christ does not have a biological father because God is His Father and God is not a creature which possesses a biology. Scripture cleary states who Jesus Christ is related to according to the flesh. So in all honesty, I really have no idea what you are arguing for or against, I just see you arguing, again...

I understand and completely 'get' what David Bernard is asking but that is not my belief nor was I or am I arguing that point in respect to who Trinitarians think the Father of Jesus is.

Mizpeh, what are you talking about now? You said it was a straw man I offered, I said it came from David Bernard's questions. That was all, I corrected you regarding the "straw man." Argue just to argue.

TheLayman

mizpeh

08-08-2007, 10:50 PM

TLM,

You are not 'getting' anything I'm saying to you. You brought up DB's argument and made it a strawman since neither Donny nor I were using that arguement.

God, in my opinion, must have provided the matching chromosomes to make Jesus a human being with a complete human genetic makeup. I didn't say nor do I belive God has DNA in his spirit nature. Does God creating DNA to the formation of the man, Jesus Christ, make God a 'biological Father'? I said I'm not sure or I don't know. It would not be in the same sense our fathers provided the sperm (carries the genetic material) to become our 'biological fathers'. This is as succinct and clear as I can get. And please note that I'm not arguing, I'm clarifying. And neither am I saying God provided a sperm to fertilize Mary's egg though that is entirely possible as well (but not in a carnal way.)

Oh and one last thing.....

According to this verse, why is Jesus to be called, the Son of God?

Luke 1:35 The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

mizpeh

08-08-2007, 11:28 PM

Donny,

Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

This verse describes the Son being begotten on a certain day, this day. And that God will be his Father, not from eternity past, but will be his father which refers to a future time when this Father-Son relationship will come to exist. So the Son was begotten by His Father on a certain day, the day Jesus was born. Jesus has a Father.

TheLayman

08-08-2007, 11:28 PM

TLM,

You are not 'getting' anything I'm saying to you. You brought up DB's argument and made it a strawman since neither Donny nor I were using that arguement.

Mizpeh, me thinks you are not getting it. I have been saying that Jesus Christ has no biological father from my first post in this thread. You have been arguing with me since my first post in this thread. Even intuitively, what does that say? If you're not disagreeing with me then stop disagreeing with me. If you are disagreeing with me it's not a straw man.

And me really thinks you're not getting it if you go back an look at Donny's responses Mizpeh. Neither you of Donny would answer my question regarding what makes a Father the biological father of a Son, and what makes a Son the biological Son of a Father. Neither one of you answered although I asked repeatedly. I also repeatedly said Trinitarians do believe Jesus has a very real and actual Father, but not a biological father. That being the case, in that Donny adamently disagrees, once again, methinks there is no straw man and you aren't getting it. Now I have supplied the definition of biological father and son. I think I've been extremely clear with what I'm saying and I repeat, you and Donny have been arguing that I am wrong. Why do you think this thread is so long Mizpeh?

God, in my opinion, must have provided the matching chromosomes to make Jesus a human being with a complete human genetic makeup. I didn't say nor do I belive God has DNA in his spirit nature. Does God creating DNA to the formation of the man, Jesus Christ, make God a 'biological Father'? I said I'm not sure or I don't know.

You're right, that's your opinion. But if that is what happened, that certainly doesn't make God the biological father of Jesus Christ as God does not have DNA, He has no genetic code!! When speaking of the flesh of Jesus Scripture speaks of Mary in that His physical geneology is always through Mary.

It would not be in the same sense our fathers provided the sperm (carries the genetic material) to become our 'biological fathers'. This is as succinct and clear as I can get. And please note that I'm not arguing, I'm clarifying. And neither am I saying God provided a sperm to fertilize Mary's egg though that is entirely possible as well (but not in a carnal way.)

Maybe you should be arguing with Donny then instead of me. Half of your genetic code came from your father's genetic code Mizpeh, that's why he is your biological father. That's why we could determine this with a paternity test. God has no DNA, God is not a biological creature, Jesus Christ has no biological Father according to Scripture. If you're not taking issue with that perhaps you would be easier to understand if you turned your argue button off or argue with Donny.

TheLayman

TheLayman

08-08-2007, 11:37 PM

Donny,

Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

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. (Acts 13:33)

and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. (Rom. 1:4)

This verse describes the Son being begotten on a certain day, this day. And that God will be his Father, not from eternity past, but will be his father which refers to a future time when this Father-Son relationship will come to exist. So the Son was begotten by His Father on a certain day, the day Jesus was born. Jesus has a Father.

All Trinitarians say Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has a very real and actual Father, but He has no biological Father. So tell me Mizpeh, are you still arguing and disagreeing with me, or are you actually agreeing with me even though you seem to be arguing and disagreeing with me? If you're agreeing with me what do you keep going on about?

TheLayman

Abigail4476

08-09-2007, 12:23 AM

Wow! What a spicy debate! Sweet and spicy go well together...so...keep it balanced guys (and galz). :) Carry on!

mizpeh

08-09-2007, 01:00 AM

You're right, that's your opinion. But if that is what happened, that certainly doesn't make God the biological father of Jesus Christ as God does not have DNA, He has no genetic code!! When speaking of the flesh of Jesus Scripture speaks of Mary in that His physical geneology is always through Mary. I agree with you, God does not have DNA. I agree with you, God does not have a genetic code. I agree with you that according to the flesh, Jesus' only fleshly progenitor is Mary. But if there is no other DNA provided apart from Mary then Jesus is not a true human or he should be a female because Mary did not have a Y chromosome to contribute. And if it was the Holy Spirit who provided the DNA by supernaturally creating the DNA just like He did for Adam then perhaps, in a sense, the Holy Spirit is the biological Father of Jesus because He provided the second set of chromosomes. Adam is called the son of God in a geneology in Luke. A geneology of human descendency. Explain that oddity if you would?

Lu 3:38 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=lu+3:38&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) -Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Maybe you should be arguing with Donny then instead of me. Half of your genetic code came from your father's genetic code Mizpeh, that's why he is your biological father. That's why we could determine this with a paternity test. God has no DNA, God is not a biological creature, Jesus Christ has no biological Father according to Scripture. If you're not taking issue with that perhaps you would be easier to understand if you turned your argue button off or argue with Donny. I'm a nurse. I've taken a number of biology, chemistry, pathophysiology classes. I've worked in labor and delivery. I understand human reproduction.

I agree with you that God has no DNA. I agree with you that God is not a biological creature. But like I've said I'm not sure you can dismiss that God is not in a sense the biological Father of Jesus. My argue button is not on. You're not addressing my comments. If you don't want to address my points then I'll talk to Donny.

mizpeh

08-09-2007, 01:20 AM

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. (Acts 13:33)
This verse above is speaking of the birth of the Son. Let's look at it in context.

Acts 13:22.....I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will. 23 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+13:23&t=kjv&sr=1&l=en) Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

32 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+13:32&t=kjv&sr=1&l=en) And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+13:33&t=kjv&sr=1&l=en) 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 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+13:34&t=kjv&sr=1&l=en) 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 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+13:35&t=kjv&sr=1&l=en) Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 36 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+13:36&t=kjv&sr=1&l=en) 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 (http://studylight.org/desk/?query=ac+13:37&t=kjv&sr=1&l=en) But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.

1)Paul quoted from the second psalm to prove Jesus was the begotten Son, the one God promised to David who was to be the Savior of Israel not the first begotten of the dead.

2)Paul then after declaring Jesus to be the begotten Son of God goes on in verse 34 to point out how Jesus was raised from the dead.

and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. (Rom. 1:4)
What are you trying to prove by quoting this verse? That Jesus was not called the Son of God until his resurrection? Well, that doesn't jive with Luke 1:35. Or would you say His resurrection verified, attested to, and confirmed that the man, Jesus Christ, is the Son of God.

All Trinitarians say Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has a very real and actual Father, but He has no biological Father. So tell me Mizpeh, are you still arguing and disagreeing with me, or are you actually agreeing with me even though you seem to be arguing and disagreeing with me? If you're agreeing with me what do you keep going on about? I wrote the post you responded to to Donny to support the fact that the Bible teaches that Jesus is the Son of God because of his birth (He was begotten) and that his Father is God. I wasn't arguing with you. :cool: You seem to have created another strawman so that you can continue to accuse me of arguing. Goodnight.

mizpeh

08-09-2007, 01:27 AM

And I did not say:

bla; bla bla, bla bla.

I said:

bla: (notice the colon) bla, de bla (please note the definite article), bla bla. I hate being misrepresented. :realmad:
Is that a french "de" definite article?

Donny Cage

08-09-2007, 08:42 AM

I'm not even going to acknowledge the strawman that has been set up.

What I will acknowledge is that scripture teaches there was a Man born about 2000 years ago. This Man, is a true Human (Deuteronomy 18:18). Of the bloodline of David (John 7:42).

This Man was born of a virgin, by the Name of Mary. This Man's Father was God.

Like I said, the Bible isn't a biology book, and didn't get into specifics on the egg / fertilization, ect.. But what we do know from the Bible is that Jesus was truly a Human. And what we do know from the Bible, is WHY Jesus was called, "the Son of God" (Luke 1:35)

What we know from Biology is that humans have 46 Chromosomes, they receive from their parents. We receive 23 chromosomes from our mother. And 23 chromosomes from our father. Since the Bible declares Jesus was Human, I'm going to reach real hard here and say, He too had 46 chromosomes (just like the rest of us). Since Mary is His mother, there is one set (23). The other set (23) either doesn't exist, and He's not truly Human, or they do exist, and the one responsible for this set, is His Father.

To say God has to be a creature in order to Father (or beget) a child is not only a strawman, but it's ridiculous and untrue. In fact, scripture very clearly demonstrates God is the Father of that Man (Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:18; 2 John 1:3)

You see, God has this amazing way of making things work. God doesn't "have" matter, yet He commands matter to exist. If God wants light, He tells light to come forth. God doesn't "need" to have "something" to make things happen.

Likewise, if God wants to beget a Son, He makes this happen. And He did. God ACTUALLY Had a Son (not eternally begotten as our trinitarian friends would have us believe), but God ACTUALLY had a Son in a point in time. "You are My Son, TODAY I have begotten you" (Hebrews 1:5). This happened around 4bc. The Son actually had a mother, and actually had a Father. And this Man's Father was God.

He was unique in being the only Man born of a woman, with His Father actually being God. (That's not all that makes Him unique, but that certainly one of the reasons)

I'm not talking about the eternal Spirit here. An eternal Spirit was never born (thus "eternal" = always existed). We are talking about the Man that was born of a Woman, 2000 years ago, that was known as "Jesus of Nazareth". This same Man, whom died on the cross. This Man had a Father. A REAL Father. Not just someone He called Father. And scripture couldn't be anymore clear about this.

Luke 1:35 NASB: The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

This is the Biblical reason he is called Son of God.

TheLayman

08-09-2007, 08:06 PM

This verse above is speaking of the birth of the Son. Let's look at it in context.

1)Paul quoted from the second psalm to prove Jesus was the begotten Son, the one God promised to David who was to be the Savior of Israel not the first begotten of the dead.

2)Paul then after declaring Jesus to be the begotten Son of God goes on in verse 34 to point out how Jesus was raised from the dead.
Sorry Mizpeh, I disagree. Psalm 2 was not about God or anyone else announcing that the had just begotten a Son (in the sense of procreation) to the Son. This is a declaration for the coronation of Davidic Kings. It is also prophetic, but it is not only prophetic. At any rate, Jesus was not born to be King, but:

Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil. 2:6-11)

Jesus took the form of a servant at birth clear through His death on the cross. The Son's exaltation did not occur until His resurrection from the dead. In Acts Paul summarizes:

22 After removing Saul, he made David their king. He testified concerning him: 'I have found David son of Jesse a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do.' 23 "From this man's descendants God has brought to Israel the Savior Jesus, as he promised. 24 Before the coming of Jesus, John preached repentance and baptism to all the people of Israel. 25 As John was completing his work, he said: 'Who do you think I am? I am not that one. No, but he is coming after me, whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.' 26 "Brothers, children of Abraham, and you God-fearing Gentiles, it is to us that this message of salvation has been sent. 27 The people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus, yet in condemning him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath. 28 Though they found no proper ground for a death sentence, they asked Pilate to have him executed. 29 When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb. 30 But God raised him from the dead, 31 and for many days he was seen by those who had traveled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now his witnesses to our people.

Mizpeh, you brought up 13:23, which states that God promised a descendent of David would be Savior and that God fulfilled this promise in Jesus. What any of this has to do with Jesus having a biological father or Donny's thread and what he said concerning Trinitarians is beyond me Mizpeh, you just argue. At any rate, you will note that Paul states succinctly that all the Messianic prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus, including His death and resurrection. In verse 31 Jesus is: for many days he was seen by those who had traveled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem

So His illegal trial, sacrificial death, resurrection, and appearing (all that was written about Him) lead us to verse 32 and forward:

"We tell you the good news: What God promised our fathers 33 he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: "'You are my Son; today I have become your Father.' 34 The fact that God raised him from the dead, never to decay, is stated in these words: "'I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.' 35 So it is stated elsewhere: "'You will not let your Holy One see decay.' 36 "For when David had served God's purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep; he was buried with his fathers and his body decayed. 37 But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay. 38 "Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39 Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses. 40 Take care that what the prophets have said does not happen to you: 41 "'Look, you scoffers, wonder and perish, for I am going to do something in your days that you would never believe, even if someone told you.'"

In verse 33, it would be "he has completely fulfilled" (fulfilled is perfect tense). The promise made to their fathers was not fulfilled by the mere conception of Jesus, but by His sacrificial death and resurrection. And in that He was raised form the dead; death does not have dominion so the Kingdom is eternal and not temporal. As you can see, the Kingship and Kingdom of David is compared to Jesus Christ: 36For when David had served God's purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep; he was buried with his fathers and his body decayed. 37 But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay.

In short, Paul did not stop in the middle of all of this and use a phrase referencing the "relationship" between God and Davidic Kings to say that God sired a child. It speaks of Jesus Christ being the one who fulfills the promise:

12 When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son.When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. 15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.'" 17 Nathan reported to David all the words of this entire revelation. (2Sam 7:12-17)

CONTINUED NEXT POST

TheLayman

08-09-2007, 08:07 PM

Mizpeh, knowing you, I have not changed your mind. While this was a nice diversion it again has nothing to do with Donny's original post, what he said regarding Trinitarians, or Jesus having a biological father. So I leave you to discuss whatever is you are talking about with Donny.

What are you trying to prove by quoting this verse? That Jesus was not called the Son of God until his resurrection? Well, that doesn't jive with Luke 1:35. Or would you say His resurrection verified, attested to, and confirmed that the man, Jesus Christ, is the Son of God.

3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.

Well Mizpeh, the main point I'm making is that Jesus Christ was made of the seed of David (i.e. David's descendent) through Mary. In verse 4 He wasn't made a Son, but declared (proved) to be God's Son by virtue of His resurrection.

I wrote the post you responded to to Donny to support the fact that the Bible teaches that Jesus is the Son of God because of his birth (He was begotten) and that his Father is God. I wasn't arguing with you. You seem to have created another strawman so that you can continue to accuse me of arguing. Goodnight.

Of course Mizpeh, how silly of me to think that you were continuing to disagree and argue. Mizpeh, throughout this thread I have been replying to Donny's original post. And the Bible never teaches that Jesus is only the Son of God because of His physical birth (but you sound more like a Biblical Unitarian all the time). But more than that, that is not what Donny's original post argued nor is it what my responses have been about, so there's another reason for my confusion as it regards you continued non argumentative posts directed at me. But I have nothing else to say to you in this thread, I think my position is pretty clear.

TheLayman

TheLayman

08-09-2007, 08:39 PM

I'm not even going to acknowledge the strawman that has been set up.

Well see Donny, if you identify a straw man everyone knows what you're talking about, including me.

What I will acknowledge is that scripture teaches there was a Man born about 2000 years ago. This Man, is a true Human (Deuteronomy 18:18). Of the bloodline of David (John 7:42).

This Man was born of a virgin, by the Name of Mary. This Man's Father was God.

Like I said, the Bible isn't a biology book, and didn't get into specifics on the egg / fertilization, ect.. But what we do know from the Bible is that Jesus was truly a Human. And what we do know from the Bible, is WHY Jesus was called, "the Son of God" (Luke 1:35)

What we know from Biology is that humans have 46 Chromosomes, they receive from their parents. We receive 23 chromosomes from our mother. And 23 chromosomes from our father. Since the Bible declares Jesus was Human, I'm going to reach real hard here and say, He too had 46 chromosomes (just like the rest of us). Since Mary is His mother, there is one set (23). The other set (23) either doesn't exist, and He's not truly Human, or they do exist, and the one responsible for this set, is His Father.

Starting to equivocate Donny (Mizpeh, that is not to be confused with the fallacy of equivocation, just becoming vague). Incidentally, humans have 23 chromosomes, not 46, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that clones are made from one parent (of anything, that's why they are called clones). The only thing that matters here is that Jesus Christ was not genetically related to God Donny. I refer you back to your first post that you didn't think through before you began accusing Trinitarians of all sorts of stuff. If you still think Jesus Christ is genetically related to God then we will just agree to disagree and I can have a chuckle.

To say God has to be a creature in order to Father (or beget) a child is not only a strawman, but it's ridiculous and untrue. In fact, scripture very clearly demonstrates God is the Father of that Man (Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:18; 2 John 1:3)

Well Donny, here's how you identify a straw man. I have told you from my first post that Trinitarians do not believe Jesus has a biological father in response to your first post. If you agreed with me this thread is real long for nothing. I say this because beget, like most words, is ambiguous and I'm not going to let you dance in the ambiguity. I've been very specific. And to that end, if you argue that Jesus Christ is genetically related to God then you argue that God is a biological creature Donny, one necessitates the other, it is axiomatic (i.e. ridiculously true).

Once again, Trinitarians readily attest to the fact that the Father is the very real and actual Father of His Son, Jesus Christ, but not the biological father of Jesus Christ as He has no biological Father to be related to, only a mother. Incidentally, Luke 1:35, Matt. 1:18, and 1Jn. 1:3 do not use the word "beget."

You see, God has this amazing way of making things work. God doesn't "have" matter, yet He commands matter to exist. If God wants light, He tells light to come forth. God doesn't "need" to have "something" to make things happen.

Another straw man Donny. The argument you here from me is if you are going to argue that God is genetically related to a biological life form, God needs to be a biological life form to have the genetics to be related to. Yes or no Donny?

Likewise, if God wants to beget a Son, He makes this happen. And He did. God ACTUALLY Had a Son (not eternally begotten as our trinitarian friends would have us believe), but God ACTUALLY had a Son in a point in time. "You are My Son, TODAY I have begotten you" (Hebrews 1:5). This happened around 4bc. The Son actually had a mother, and actually had a Father. And this Man's Father was God.

Well, now you're pontificating and it has nothing to do with Jesus having a biological father, though I as a Trinitarian disagree and say the Son most certainly did exist eternally (see, I can do that too). And now you are equivocating in fallacy form. Beget is now a word you are hiding behind as it is ambiguous. And you are also equivocating the word Father. You don't have to be a biological father to be a father, and since biological father has been a major part of our discussion, you need to define you terms. If by begetting and "actually had a father" you mean biological father then you are once again arguing that God is a biological creature whom the Son can be related to.

He was unique in being the only Man born of a woman, with His Father actually being God. (That's not all that makes Him unique, but that certainly one of the reasons)

Seems you have forgotten your first post or you are just purposely being vague. I'll keep saying it. As a Trinitarian I attest to the fact that Jesus Christ has no biological father. If you are saying Jesus does have a biological father, then you are arguing His father is "biological."

I'm not talking about the eternal Spirit here. An eternal Spirit was never born (thus "eternal" = always existed). We are talking about the Man that was born of a Woman, 2000 years ago, that was known as "Jesus of Nazareth". This same Man, whom died on the cross. This Man had a Father. A REAL Father. Not just someone He called Father. And scripture couldn't be anymore clear about this.

Luke 1:35 NASB: The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

This is the Biblical reason he is called Son of God.

I don't see the Holy Spirit "begetting" in that passage Donny. BTW, you were bold enough to start accusing others in your first post Donny. Now the question remains, do you say Jesus Christ has a biological father, yes or no? And if your answer is no you probably owe some Trinitarians an apology.

TheLayman

mizpeh

08-09-2007, 10:46 PM

Mizpeh, knowing you I have not changed you mind. While this was a nice diversion it again has nothing to do with Donny's original post, what he said regarding Trinitarians, or Jesus having a biological father. So I leave you to discuss whatever is you are talking about with Donny. I havent' read your take on Acts 13 yet, but I will (I've been busy today). Your welcome for the diversion but I believe it is related to the topic. I've noticed you stick very narrowly to a topic and do not like to branch out on related issues which address the topic.

I decided to stick around because this subject about the Son having a Father is foundational for Oneness and our simple, non complicated interpretation of the scripture (for this reason...shall be called the Son of God) refutes an eternal Son, something Trinitarianism cannot live without.

Where in Donny's original post do you find 'biological father'? (This is one of the strawmen Donny and I have been accusing you of committing.) I think you should read his original post more carefully because I think you are reading things into what he is saying.

mizpeh

08-09-2007, 11:18 PM

Because the Holy Spirit came upon her and the power of the Highest overshadowed her, and she was a virgin who had not had sexual relations with a man. Agreed. The Holy Spirit is not called the Father, the Father of Jesus, God the Father, or any other such "Father." Have a closer look at Luke 1:35. The angel is calling the Holy Spirit....God.

The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

....for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

The conception was caused by the Holy Spirit. Which makes the male offspring a Son of the One who conceived him. Jesus is the Son of God because the Holy Spirit is God and the Holy Spirit conceived him in the womb of Mary.

You will note I am not referring to a sexual act nor am I referring to a biological Father nor am I saying the Spirit has DNA. I am leaving the "how" vague because frankly the Bible is vague about it.

There is nothing in this passage that makes "God," "the Father," "the Holy Spirit," or anyone or anything else the biological father of Jesus Christ. Exactly! No one is saying 'biological father', but we are saying Father. You are reading more into what we are saying than is/was actually there.

Once again, Trinitarians do not deny Jesus had a real Father, or that the Holy Spirit was the agency of the incarnation and Marries pregnancy, but Jesus Christ has no biological father.Agency? is that code for 'surrogate Father'? :D ..........................J/K

The Trinitarian answer to the question is that Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, has no biological Father. God does not have ”biology,” that is to say flesh and DNA. The body of Jesus was biologically a product of Mary and Mary alone.Then biologically Jesus is without 23 chromosomes including the Y chromosome which would make him a male member of the human species.

3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.(Romans 1:3-4)This is an interesting scripture. I really would like to know what you think it is saying. Do you think it is showing the dual nature of the person of the Son? Who would you say the Spirit of holiness is? would He be the Holy Spirit?

Because I see it as speaking solely of the man, Jesus Christ who is the Son of God by virtue of his conception of the Holy Spirit (God) and the man who was resurrected from the dead. Jesus was from the geneology of David. Jesus was a man, John 8:40, and this man was declared to be the Son of God with power...by the resurrection from the dead. God confirmed that Jesus was his Son by resurrecting him and fulfillling the scriptures that Christ would have the sure mercies of David and would not see corruption.

4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, (Gal. 4:4)

What does Scripture say about Jesus Christ according to the flesh?
Jesus is the of the seed of David according to the flesh. But that doesn't deny the fact that the Holy Spirit concieved the holy Child in the womb of the virgin Mary which officially maked the Jesus the Son of the Holy Spirit or the Son of God. What we are attesting to is found by using simple reading comprehesion skills.

TheLayman

08-09-2007, 11:59 PM

I havent' read your take on Acts 13 yet, but I will (I've been busy today). Your welcome for the diversion but I believe it is related to the topic. I've noticed you stick very narrowly to a topic and do not like to branch out on related issues which address the topic.

I decided to stick around because this subject about the Son having a Father is foundational for Oneness and our simple, non complicated interpretation of the scripture (for this reason...shall be called the Son of God) refutes an eternal Son, something Trinitarianism cannot live without.

Where in Donny's original post do you find 'biological father'? (This is one of the strawmen Donny and I have been accusing you of committing.) I think you should read his original post more carefully because I think you are reading things into what he is saying.

Well Mizpeh:

If he agreed with me he could have done so about 20 posts ago (how many times have I said this?) But of course, Donny hasn't been arguing with me. Right. Perhaps you should read Donny's original post a bit more closely. Then you can read my first response closely which is titled "Jesus Christ had no biological father." It wasn't a long post, here's a couple of excerpts:

The Trinitarian answer to the question is that Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, has no biological Father. God does not have ”biology,” that is to say flesh and DNA. The body of Jesus was biologically a product of Mary and Mary alone.Once again, God has no DNA, Jesus was related biologically only to Mary, He had no biological father.The following is the very first sentence in Donny's reply to my first post, which you should also read closely (it's in blue below):

"TheLayman, if the Man born of that woman 2000 years ago, did not have a Father, then He is not actually the Son of God.Scripture disagrees with you."Well, here's the thing if you missed it Mizpeh, the only kind of "Father" I said Jesus Christ didn't have was biological father, and I made that very clear in the post that Donny says "Scripture disagrees with you." I know you both have a hard time being wrong, but that's no straw man Mizpeh. Like I said, you read carefully. Donny explicitly says Scripture disagrees with me (I take it that means Donny does too) and he says "if the man didn't have a father" which would indicate to me that he means "biological father" since I titled my post "Jesus has no biological father" and twice said "Jesus has an actual father but no biological father." So you say what you like Mizpeh but I don't have a reading comprehension problem, there is no straw man , a little equivocation on Donny's part now, but I argued no straw man.

Mizpeh I have nothing else to add to this thread. And what you call a narrow focus in my responses is called staying on topic, and you are right, I do have a narrow focus. So if you believe Acts 13 has something to do with all of this, discuss it with Donny. I have made my position clear.

TheLayman

mizpeh

08-11-2007, 11:34 PM

Mizpeh, you brought up 13:23, which states that God promised a descendent of David would be Savior and that God fulfilled this promise in Jesus. What any of this has to do with Jesus having a biological father or Donny's thread and what he said concerning Trinitarians is beyond me Mizpeh, you just argue.

I didn't bring up Acts 13:23, you did. I wrote to Donny and posted this: Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

This verse describes the Son being begotten on a certain day, this day. And that God will be his Father, not from eternity past, but will be his father which refers to a future time when this Father-Son relationship will come to exist. So the Son was begotten by His Father on a certain day, the day Jesus was born. Jesus has a Father.

Although Donny's first post is directed at Trinitarians who deny that Jesus has a Father (biological Father was not specified), the gist of his post and the point that Donny is making is that the man, Jesus Christ, does have a Father, God. (please see the title of this thread) I felt Hebrews 1:5 furthered his appeal and that is why I posted the above to Donny.

You responded to my post to Donny with these scriptures: 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. (Acts 13:33)

and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. (Rom. 1:4)

I just wanted to clarify this since once again you are accusing me of 'ARGUING" when I'm not. You are also implying that once again I am off topic, when I'm not. My post to Donny was very much related to his initial post. I then responded to the two scriptures you quoted from Acts 13 and Rom 1.

Why is it I'm the one arguing when I respond to something you've posted but you're not arguing when you respond to my posts? Instead it would be great if we could discuss these topics without constantly accusing one another of this or that and simply talk scripture. The accusation of arguing was why I initially was going to leave this thread to begin with. Quite frankly, I'm tired of it, but I decided to stay. If I continue to be reprimanded for 'arguing' then I'll discuss this topic with Donny and cease reponding to your posts and you will know that I don't exist to argue with you. I would normally take this to pm's because it seems so trite to air this stuff on an open forum, but I feel you have forced me to air my grievance with your open and constant accusation.

It appears that you are arguing with me that Heb 1:5 is related to Acts 13:33 and is not speaking of the birth of the Son of God who has a Father that begat Him on a certain day in time, this day, but of His resurrection from the dead. (I disagree with you and I will show you why in my next post.) I know you believe in an eternal Son. I think it is important to clarify what type of Son, Jesus is. Donny has stressed Luke 1:35 in an attempt to bring home the point that the man, Jesus Christ, is the Son of God according to a supernatural conception in which He was conceived of the Holy Spirit which makes Him the Son of God. Therefore Jesus is the Son of God by birth not by eternal generation.

mizpeh

08-12-2007, 01:42 AM

TheLayman wrote: Mizpeh, knowing you, I have not changed your mind.

You are right, TLM, you haven't changed my mind and this is why (BTW your post was very well written):

Acts 13:22-23And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will. Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

2 Samuel 7:12-14 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son.

This verse from 2 Samuel is part of the promise that God gave to King David regarding his seed which would be King of Israel. The promise is of a seed, a child to be born, from the lineage of David. None of the Jews understood this and neither did Jesus' disciples that Christ must suffer and die first then return as King to deliver the Jews from the wicked and reign as King in Jerusalem. But the promise of a seed to David, is Jesus Christ a Savior in two senses, 1) He saved mankind from sin, coming first to his own and 2) He will save the nation of Israel from their natural enemies and reign in Jerusalem as King for 1000 years. God raised up Jesus to Israel as a Savior in the same way He raised up Moses, the judges, Samuel, the prophets, and David:

2 Samuel 23:1 David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said,

Judges 3:9 And when the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, the LORD raised up a deliverer to the children of Israel, who delivered them, even Othniel the son of Kenaz,

God raised up a Deliverer and Savior who came into the world as a man. These verses are not speaking of raising up Jesus from the dead.

Acts 13:32-37 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 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. 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. Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 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: But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption

The "and as concerning that he raised him up from the dead" separates the thought prior to that phase from what comes after it. Meaning the quote from psalm 2 "thou are my Son, this day have I begotten thee" doesn't go along with being 'raised from the dead' because it came before the phrase. All the scripture references that are used after "and as concerning that he raised him up from the dead" are given to verify that the Messiah was to rise from the dead.

I'm not sure why the KJV writes "raised up Jesus again" in verse 33 when the word, again, is left out in other translations like NKJV, NASV, NIV, ESV, Green's...because it doesn't fit the narration nor does it fit with what is being said.

Even more than that the repeat use of Psalm 2 in Hebrews once again is referring to the birth of Christ and is quoted along with two other scriptures from the OT all having to do with the birth not the resurrection of Christ from the dead.

Hebrews 1:4-6Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again,when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

mizpeh

08-12-2007, 01:52 AM

TLM,

I just noticed this But I have nothing else to say to you in this thread, I think my position is pretty clear.

and this: Mizpeh I have nothing else to add to this thread.

Okay. Bye.

mizpeh

08-23-2007, 12:38 AM

TheLayman,

I've reread some of this thread and I'm curious how you would explain this verse: Luke 1:35 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Luke+1%3A35) And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

What is the 'therefore' there for?

Also to correct a couple of your errors in biology, you said: Incidentally, humans have 23 chromosomes, not 46, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that clones are made from one parent (of anything, that's why they are called clones) Each human has 23 matching pairs of chromosomes which totals 46 individual chromosomes, 23 from the father and 23 from the mother. If Jesus only had 23 from Mary then Jesus would be a girl.

I'm not sure why you brought up cloning but how could Jesus, a male, have been cloned from a female? You need an 'Y' chromosome to make a male, something Mary did not have.

And lastly I wrote this in response to you: I agree with you, God does not have DNA. I agree with you, God does not have a genetic code. I agree with you that according to the flesh, Jesus' only fleshly progenitor is Mary. But if there is no other DNA provided apart from Mary then Jesus is not a true human or he should be a female because Mary did not have a Y chromosome to contribute. And if it was the Holy Spirit who provided the DNA by supernaturally creating the DNA [the second set of chromosomes which would include a Y chromosome] then perhaps, in a sense, the Holy Spirit is the biological Father of Jesus because He provided the second set of chromosomes.

Rulkiewicz

08-23-2007, 08:26 AM

TheLayman

08-23-2007, 05:44 PM

Mizpeh:

You don’t argue just to argue? Sure. Mizpeh, you had 2 or 3 posts without a response from me to have the last word, you even recorded me saying this (even though you didn’t notice until you were done responding):

But I have nothing else to say to you in this thread, I think my position is pretty clear.

Mizpeh I have nothing else to add to this thread.

Though you left out the rest of that one:

And what you call a narrow focus in my responses is called staying on topic, and you are right, I do have a narrow focus. So if you believe Acts 13 has something to do with all of this, discuss it with Donny. I have made my position clear.

So I am left to wonder at this point if when you reread the thread you read Donny’s original post and my original response? If so are you unclear as to my position on any of the following, or do you disagree with any of my positions?

1. Jesus is related biologically only to Mary.
2. Jesus has no biological father.
3. Jesus does have an actual father.
4. The Holy Spirit was the agent in the incarnation of the Son, not in procreation.

This was of course in response what Donny said Trinitarians believed or did not believe. At any rate, those are my beliefs, those are my positions, and those are on topic. If you agree with them then I have no idea why you are still arguing with me (regardless of what they call this where you come from). If you disagree with one of them, help me out and be specific. I’ll help by giving you blanks to fill in based on the 4 statements above:

1. Jesus is related biologically to Mary and to ________________________?
2. The biological father of Jesus is ______________________________?
3. Jesus does not have an actual father. True/False
4. The Holy Spirit was the agent in the incarnation of the Son, not in procreation. True/False

You see, you keep saying you’re not arguing with me but you keep responding to me so I’m not sure exactly what it is I’m supposed to be doing. In spite of what I said regarding there is nothing more for me to add to this thread, that there is nothing I can do to make my position more clear, you continue to write posts to me and you want me to do exactly what?
TheLayman,

I've reread some of this thread and I'm curious how you would explain this verse: Luke 1:35 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&passage=Luke+1%3A35) And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

What is the 'therefore' there for?

Well Mizpeh, you’re the one offering the passage, you tell me…IF it has anything to do with Donny’s original post regarding the what Trinitarians believe and my response to that. My guess is that it does not.
Also to correct a couple of your errors in biology, you said: Each human has 23 matching pairs of chromosomes which totals 46 individual chromosomes, 23 from the father and 23 from the mother. If Jesus only had 23 from Mary then Jesus would be a girl.
You are correct and my language was so imprecise as to be inaccurate. I was actually responding to this part of a post by Donny: “Since Mary is His mother, there is one set (23). The other set (23) either doesn't exist, and He's not truly Human, or they do exist, and the one responsible for this set, is His Father.”

I agree that we get half of our genetic material from each of our biological parents (I said that a long time ago in this thread). My point to Donny was that each parent contains the genetic material for a human being in and of themselves as well, within their 23 “pairs” of chromosomes, that’s where you get clones from, which brings us to the next part of your post:
I'm not sure why you brought up cloning but how could Jesus, a male, have been cloned from a female? You need an 'Y' chromosome to make a male, something Mary did not have.
Well, it wasn’t to say that Jesus was cloned which I didn’t say. It is to point out what I said above, each parent has the genetic map in their 23 pair of chromosomes for a human being. Did God simply change the sex chromosome in Mary’s egg from xx to xy and make it begin to divide? I don’t know. Did God create 23 chromosomes to pair with Mary’s 23 chromosomes? Don’t know that either. Did God do something else? Maybe. What I do know is that Jesus has no genetic father and that He is not related genetically to anyone but Mary (the same thing I’ve been saying since my first response to Donny).

And this goes hand and hand with what I finished by saying to Donny about genetics as a whole (since I’m not the one who brought them up) which was, it doesn’t matter. In fact, I said:

“The only thing that matters here is that Jesus Christ was not genetically related to God Donny. I refer you back to your first post that you didn't think through before you began accusing Trinitarians of all sorts of stuff. If you still think Jesus Christ is genetically related to God then we will just agree to disagree and I can have a chuckle.”

The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are to trace His human decent to another human, King David (though Luke goes all the way back to Adam). Scripture does not say that Jesus was biologically related to God, but it does call Jesus the Son of God. After the flesh it was Mary in the line of David.

CONTINUED NEXT POST

TheLayman

08-23-2007, 05:48 PM

And lastly I wrote this in response to you:

I agree with you, God does not have DNA. I agree with you, God does not have a genetic code. I agree with you that according to the flesh, Jesus' only fleshly progenitor is Mary. But if there is no other DNA provided apart from Mary then Jesus is not a true human or he should be a female because Mary did not have a Y chromosome to contribute. And if it was the Holy Spirit who provided the DNA by supernaturally creating the DNA [the second set of chromosomes which would include a Y chromosome] then perhaps, in a sense, the Holy Spirit is the biological Father of Jesus because He provided the second set of chromosomes.
Mizpeh, being the “biological father in a sense” is akin to being “sorta pregnant.” You either are or you are not. Trinitarians proclaim the virgin birth, the miracle of the incarnation, brought about through the power of God. The exact how of God’s miracle is not given to us but we do know that God is by nature spirit, He does not have flesh or DNA. We do know God created Adam including his genetic makeup, but Adam is not biologically related to God. God is not the biological father of Adam, and the Holy Spirit is not the biological father of Jesus Christ.

That said, this thread is now 73 posts long. My position was simple enough to state, I did it in my very first response. You say you have not been arguing with me when in fact you have. It I had pointed out every straw man argument you have made a long the way, this thread would be a great deal longer than 73 posts. I would encourage you to again read Donny’s original post which was specifically taking issue with what Trinitarians believe, and my first response which clearly states what Trinitarians believe. I just keep repeating my position. Oddly enough you and Donny have spent so much time arguing that it is still difficult to tell exactly what your point it especially as to how it relates to Trinitarians (original post) and how that relates to your own personal belief.

Incidentally, on another discussion board it is my understanding that you wrote the following:
The Spirit did not have sex with the virgin, she was still a virgin after conception. The Spirit is the biological Father of the Son, otherwise where did the man, Christ Jesus, get his other set of chromosomes?.
And from another thread at GNC Donny writes:
The Son is God revealed in flesh. The Bible is perfectly clear about this (1 Timothy 3:16). He was a REAL Human Being. He wasn't pretending to be Human. He wasn't acting. He truly was Human, born of a Woman around 4bc. He actually had a mother, and a biological Father (God), and an earth father, (Joseph)…

The "Angel of the Lord" certainly spoke as Jehovah Himself. But Christ, when He was born was more than that. He was not merely a spirit manifestation, He actually became Human (John 1:14; Luke 1:35). And because He was a real Man, born of a Woman, with His biological Father, literally being God (Luke 1:35; 2 John 1:3) He is the only begotten Son of God.
Those quotes can be found here respectively.

http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showthread.php?p=233203&highlight=biological#post233203 (http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showthread.php?p=233203&highlight=biological#post233203)

http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showthread.php?p=236479&highlight=biological#post236479 (http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showthread.php?p=236479&highlight=biological#post236479)

So the next time you wonder why I won’t participate in more threads with you come back and reread this one again. This should have been a simple thread. Donny begins by taking issue with what Trinitarians teach regarding Jesus having a biological father. I make clear what Trinitarians teach regarding a biological father. You agree or you don’t. 73 posts later and I’ll bet this thread still isn’t over, and I’ll bet you still aren’t arguing. As for me, my position is as clear now as it was after my very first response to Donny.

TheLayman

mizpeh

08-24-2007, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by Mizpeh

I agree with you, God does not have DNA. I agree with you, God does not have a genetic code. I agree with you that according to the flesh, Jesus' only fleshly progenitor is Mary. But if there is no other DNA provided apart from Mary then Jesus is not a true human or he should be a female because Mary did not have a Y chromosome to contribute. And if it was the Holy Spirit who provided the DNA by supernaturally creating the DNA [the second set of chromosomes which would include a Y chromosome] then perhaps, in a sense, the Holy Spirit is the biological Father of Jesus because He provided the second set of chromosomes.

Mizpeh, being the “biological father in a sense” is akin to being “sorta pregnant.” You either are or you are not. Trinitarians proclaim the virgin birth, the miracle of the incarnation, brought about through the power of God. The exact how of God’s miracle is not given to us but we do know that God is by nature spirit, He does not have flesh or DNA. We do know God created Adam including his genetic makeup, but Adam is not biologically related to God. God is not the biological father of Adam, and the Holy Spirit is not the biological father of Jesus Christ.I agree with this paragraph, except to add that Adam is the son of God just as the scriptures say. That makes God his Father by creation. The Holy Spirit is Jesus' Father by conception. I believe the Holy Spirit must have supplied supernaturally the chromosomes that would make Jesus a true human. Once again, since the DNA supplied is not spirit but biological then the Holy Spirit must have made this biological substance and inserted into Mary's egg. This is my position. I hope it is clear and you will not insist that I believe God has DNA and is a biological being. The 'therefore' in Luke 1:35 is there because the the holy child conceived in the womb of Mary by the Holy Ghost is the Son of God by virtue of conception...therefore.. The Holy Ghost is God. The Holy Ghost concieved the child, therefore the child is the Son of God ie: the Holy Ghost.

I just keep repeating my position. Oddly enough you and Donny have spent so much time arguing that it is still difficult to tell exactly what your point it especially as to how it relates to Trinitarians (original post) and how that relates to your own personal belief. The point of the thread is does Jesus have a Father? Some Trinitarians say 'no'. Donny set out to prove Jesus does have a Father with scriptures from Matthew and Luke. Donny never specified a 'biological' father, that was your own creation.

Incidentally, on another discussion board it is my understanding that you wrote the following:

Quote:
The Spirit did not have sex with the virgin, she was still a virgin after conception. The Spirit is the biological

Quote:
Father of the Son, otherwise where did the man, Christ Jesus, get his other set of chromosomes?.
Obviously, I've changed my position somewhat. Is that allowed? But I still would say in a sense God is the biological father of Jesus since He (the Holy Spirit ) supernaturally supplied the DNA (the biological elements) possible for conception.

And from another thread at GNC Donny writes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny
The Son is God revealed in flesh. The Bible is perfectly clear about this (1 Timothy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny
3:16). He was a REAL Human Being. He wasn't pretending to be Human. He wasn't acting. He truly was Human, born of a Woman around 4bc. He actually had a mother, and a biological Father (God), and an earth father, (Joseph)…

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny

The "Angel of the Lord" certainly spoke as Jehovah Himself. But Christ, when He was born was more than that. He was not merely a spirit manifestation, He actually became Human (John 1:14; Luke 1:35). And because He was a real Man, born of a Woman, with His biological Father, literally being God (Luke 1:35; 2 John 1:3) He is the only begotten Son of God.

Those quotes can be found here respectively.

http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showthread.php?p=233203&highlight=biological#post2 33203 (http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showthread.php?p=233203&highlight=biological#post233203)

http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showthread.php?p=236479&highlight=biological#post2 36479 (http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showthread.php?p=236479&highlight=biological#post236479)
I won't answer for what Donny wrote last year. You will have to ask him if he has changed his position or if he wants to clarify his position.

So the next time you wonder why I won’t participate in more threads with you come back and reread this one again. I'm truly surprised you answered this post. Thank you. But I was hoping you would explain Luke 1:35 from a Trinitarian POV. Sadly, that's the only thing you did not address in these two posts and the only thing I really wanted explained.

Well Mizpeh, you’re the one offering the passage, you tell me…IF it has anything to do with Donny’s original post regarding the what Trinitarians believe and my response to that. My guess is that it does not.

BTW, Donny put Luke 1:35 in almost everyone of his responses for a reason. Did you read his posts?

TheLayman

08-24-2007, 10:18 PM

Hello Mizpeh:

You notice I predicted my response would not end the posts to me in this thread (I can’t really call it a discussion as I’m not sure what the point is and I’m being completely serious). Mizpeh, I suggest once again that your read the original post that began this thread carefully. Then tell me if you are unclear as to my position or what Trinitarian doctrine actually teaches (contrary to Donny’s misrepresentations). If you understand my position and what Trinitarian doctrine teaches I am completely baffled as to what it is you seek from me.

I agree with this paragraph, except to add that Adam is the son of God just as the scriptures say. That makes God his Father by creation. The Holy Spirit is Jesus' Father by conception. I believe the Holy Spirit must have supplied supernaturally the chromosomes that would make Jesus a true human. Once again, since the DNA supplied is not spirit but biological then the Holy Spirit must have made this biological substance and inserted into Mary's egg. This is my position. I hope it is clear and you will not insist that I believe God has DNA and is a biological being. The 'therefore' in Luke 1:35 is there because the the holy child conceived in the womb of Mary by the Holy Ghost is the Son of God by virtue of conception...therefore.. The Holy Ghost is God. The Holy Ghost concieved the child, therefore the child is the Son of God ie: the Holy Ghost.

I’m sorry Mizpeh, but first of all the Holy Spirit didn’t “conceive” the child, Mary “conceived” the child (i.e. Mary was pregnant with child). This doesn’t change anything I said concerning the Holy Spirit and the miracle of the incarnation and virgin birth, let’s just stay accurate here. And also please note that it says, “…The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee…” You really didn’t provide exegesis of the passage. On that note, “conceived” is also not in Luke 1:35, so if you’re just pulpit pounding let me know and I’ll just skip responding.

What your opinion is of how the Holy Spirit accomplished the incarnation is just that, your opinion. But more importantly, it has nothing to do with the original post or my responses to that post, and I have no desire to debate your opinion (which wouldn’t change a thing I’ve said either).

Further, last time I checked Trinitarians believe the Holy Spirit is God and this fact is also explicitly stated in the creeds, so once again I have no idea what point you are trying to make. The fact that a virgin conceived (a fulfillment of Isa. 7:14) by the power of God (how else would a virgin conceive) and not by a man (meaning His father is not human, and please note Mary’s question, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?”) is reason enough to be called the “Son of God.” Add to this that “Son of God” was also at the time of Christ a name for the Messiah, all the more reason.

The point of the thread is does Jesus have a Father? Some Trinitarians say 'no'. Donny set out to prove Jesus does have a Father with scriptures from Matthew and Luke. Donny never specified a 'biological' father, that was your own creation.

No, I’m sorry Mizpeh, that is not what the thread was about and I’ve asked you to reread the original post and my first response several times. I’ve also been down this road with you close to 5 times in this thread which makes me wonder if you’re reading my responses. This thread was about Jesus having a Father and Trinitarian doctrine Mizpeh. So I will once again provide you with excerpts from Donny’s first post, my response, and his response to me, so please read them this time:

Then several weeks later, I read in another forum, yet ANOTHER “studied up” Trinitarian claiming that the Man Christ Jesus had no Father! Then ANOTHER “Studied up” Trinitarian agreed with him!

Now, I’m almost convinced, that this is no fluke, and that this is ACTUALLY a Trinitarian doctrine! If it is, then you can take your doctrine and throw it right out the window with the rest of the false junk you are trying to spread.

So, who out there, disagrees with scripture that the Man, Christ Jesus’ actually had a Father, and His Father is God?

http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showthread.php?p=297093#poststop (http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showthread.php?p=297093#poststop)

Do you see Donny say he’s convinced this is a Trinitarian doctrine? So in my first response I made Trinitarian doctrine quite clear for him. Here are some excerpts:

I have no idea what you've been reading but perhaps you have misunderstood. I titled this post the same thing I titled it in another thread which is, "Jesus Christ has no biological father."

At any rate I copy that post below and point out again, the Son of God had no biological father (unless you are going to argue that God is a biological creature possessing DNA).

The Trinitarian answer to the question is that Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, has no biological Father. God does not have ”biology,” that is to say flesh and DNA.

So, the question itself implies the false idea that the birth of the Son of God was the result of procreation. Trinitarians properly teach that the birth of the Son of God was the result of an incarnation. This means that the Father was and is the Father of the Son because the Father always was the Father of the Son (which is why the Father is called the Father and the Son is called the Son). The Son, who always existed with the Father, was incarnated in the womb of Mary, not created in the womb of Mary. The Holy Spirit was the agent in the incarnation of the Son, not in procreation. Once again, God has no DNA, Jesus was related biologically only to Mary, He had no biological father.

3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; (Romans 1:3)
4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, (Gal. 4:4)http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showthread.php?p=297102#poststopOkay Mizpeh, now read Donny’s response to me carefully, here are the important excerpts:

TheLayman, if the Man born of that woman 2000 years ago, did not have a Father, then He is not actually the Son of God…Scripture disagrees with you.

According to this scripture who is Jesus the Son of?

Scripture disagrees with you. Jesus Christ really IS the Son of God. This is not just some term. He REALLY IS the Son OF GOD.

It amazes me. Absolutely AMAZES me what trinitarianism has done with the Son of God.

http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/showthread.php?p=297106#poststop

So Mizpeh, I was extremely clear in my response as to what Trinitarians teach. In my short post I said 4 times that Trinitarians teach that Jesus did not have a biological Father (that’s what Scripture teaches). In Donny’s response to me did you read him say 2 times that Scripture disagrees with me? (I just assume that if he believes that then he disagrees with me). Did you see that he continues to take issue with Trinitarian doctrine even though I am now quite sure that he knows what it teaches since I just made it very clear? So you can continue to obfuscate this on your own, I will not go through it again since it is quite obvious that either you aren’t reading, or you simply refuse to be wrong, or both.

CONTINUED NEXT POST

TheLayman

08-24-2007, 10:20 PM

Obviously, I've changed my position somewhat. Is that allowed?

Did I say it wasn’t? Would it matter if I did? Anymore pointless questions as long as you aren’t arguing?

But I still would say in a sense God is the biological father of Jesus since He (the Holy Spirit ) supernaturally supplied the DNA (the biological elements) possible for conception.

What can a person say to that Mizpeh? You have your opinions, you can say whatever you want, but you won’t be wrong. For example, the meaning of “biological father” is not very ambiguous and it has been defined in this thread. There is no such thing as “biological father in a sense” but you use it anyway. So, then according to you in a sense the Holy Spirit is a biological creature which in a sense procreated with Mary.

I won't answer for what Donny wrote last year. You will have to ask him if he has changed his position or if he wants to clarify his position.

You didn’t reread the thread very closely Mizpeh or you should have noticed that I asked Donny many, many times.

I'm truly surprised you answered this post. Thank you. But I was hoping you would explain Luke 1:35 from a Trinitarian POV. Sadly, that's the only thing you did not address in these two posts and the only thing I really wanted explained.

Mizpeh, I have reached the point I used to reach at CARM. I have grown tired of anti-doctrine posts which means people don’t get to assign me homework, I’m plenty busy. If you believe a passage of Scripture is important than clearly state why, provide exegesis of the passage, and make your case in the affirmative. Do your own work. Otherwise this is how it goes. I provide the exegesis and then it’s really not commented on, it’s just disagreed with although not in any coherent fashion. Luke 1:35 has no bearing on what I said in response to Donny’s original post.

I will say here though that earlier in this thread you have the unique distinction being the only person I have ever seen be critical of another for staying on topic rather than deviating from it.

BTW, Donny put Luke 1:35 in almost everyone of his responses for a reason. Did you read his posts?

Why yes I did Mizpeh. Now did you read his original post and what he asserted concerning Trinitarian doctrine? Did you read my response? Did you read his response to my response?

Mizpeh, the only question I’m interested in getting an answer to right now is, what do they call this type of discussion where you come from. As you know, I say you’re arguing just to argue, but what do you call it? And what is the point of it?

TheLayman

mizpeh

08-25-2007, 12:04 AM

I would call this discussion where I come from...over. :cool:

God bless you, TLM.

mizpeh

08-25-2007, 12:11 AM

So, then according to you in a sense the Holy Spirit is a biological creature which in a sense procreated with Mary
I just want to correct this misrepresentation of what I said and what I believe. I've said many times the Spirit doesn't have DNA nor a genetic code and is not 'biological' as we are (by which I take it TLM is speaking of human nature). And if by procreated it is meant as a man and woman procreate, then no. If by procreated it is meant conceived a child, then yes, that which was concieved in the womb of the virgin Mary was of the Holy Spirit because that is what the Bible says. The 'overshadowing' is the point of time in which the conception took place.

...she was found with child of the Holy Ghost

...for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

...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

The definition of natural conception:

Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization.
The entity formed by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; an embryo or zygote.The definition of supernatural conception: Luke 1:35, Matt 1:18, 20

The definition of procreate:

To beget and conceive (offspring).
To produce or create; originate.

Ghostrider

11-13-2007, 08:29 PM

Hello Donny:

I have no idea what you've been reading but perhaps you have misunderstood. I titled this post the same thing I titled it in another thread which is, "Jesus Christ has no biological father." And I suggest you look at the form of the question from David Bernard no less, as it in addition to genetic material (DNA which God does not have) the form most definitely does imply that the Holy Spirit procreated with Mary. At any rate I copy that post below and point out again, the Son of God had no biological father (unless you are going to argue that God is a biological creature possessing DNA).

_________________________________________________

Greetings:

First of all, when the questions from CARM were posted, they were posted one at a time, each one being a thread, which is as it should be if you really want some participation. Just a thought as I don’t intend to spend all of my time debating each one of these questions.

I did want to answer the first question as it has some bearing on some other threads that I’m going to make some quick comments in. So in answer to question #1 I must observe (as I usually do when this question is asked) that the person asking this question reduces the Holy Spirit to a Holy incubus (which Trinitarians do not). Indeed, I have seen some recent posts in other threads that say the Holy Spirit implanted His seed in Mary. Now that is some bad and unbiblical doctrine.

The Trinitarian answer to the question is that Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, has no biological Father. God does not have ”biology,” that is to say flesh and DNA. The body of Jesus was biologically a product of Mary and Mary alone.

3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; (Romans 1:3)

4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, (Gal. 4:4)

So, the question itself implies the false idea that the birth of the Son of God was the result of procreation. Trinitarians properly teach that the birth of the Son of God was the result of an incarnation. This means that the Father was and is the Father of the Son because the Father always was the Father of the Son (which is why the Father is called the Father and the Son is called the Son). The Son, who always existed with the Father, was incarnated in the womb of Mary, not created in the womb of Mary. The Holy Spirit was the agent in the incarnation of the Son, not in procreation. Once again, God has no DNA, Jesus was related biologically only to Mary, He had no biological father.

Blessings,
TheLayman

Oh, Layman, where did Mary get the "y" chromosome? Wasn't Jesus a man in your Christology?

Ghostrider

TheLayman

11-13-2007, 11:27 PM

Oh, Layman, where did Mary get the "y" chromosome? Wasn't Jesus a man in your Christology?

Ghostrider

Why are you asking me questions? Talk about your belief. It appears your question is rhetorical so we can gather that you believe God is a biological creature that passed on His "Y" chromosome to the "man" Jesus. I have enough posts in this thread explaining my position that Jesus has no biological Father. You believe He does (and apparently God the Father is the biological creature that He is genetically related to in your Christology). So do you think He got the color of His hair from God's DNA or from His mother?

TheLayman

mizpeh

12-25-2007, 07:18 AM

Donny,

I was curious what Trinitarian Bible commentators had to say about Luke 1:35 and the first one I came to this morning was Adam Clarke, a methodist. Interestingly enough, he says the same thing you have been saying:

Verse 35. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee
This conception shall take place suddenly, and the Holy Spirit himself shall be the grand operator. The power, δυναμις, the miracle-working power, of the Most High shall overshadow thee, to accomplish this purpose, and to protect thee from danger. As there is a plain allusion to the Spirit of God brooding over the face of the waters, to render them prolific, Genesis 1:2 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ge+1:2), I the more firmly established in the opinion advanced on Matthew 1:20 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+1:20), that the rudiments of the human nature of Christ was a real creation in the womb of the virgin, by the energy of the Spirit of God.
Therefore also that holy thing (or person)-shall be called the Son of God.
We may plainly perceive here, that the angel does not give the appellation of Son of God to the Divine nature of Christ; but to that holy person or thing, τοαγιον, which was to be born of the virgin, by the energy of the Holy Spirit. The Divine nature could not be born of the virgin; the human nature was born of her. The Divine nature had no beginning; it was God manifested in the flesh, 1 Timothy 3:16 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=1ti+3:16); it was that Word which being in the beginning (from eternity) with God, John 1:2 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+1:2), was afterwards made flesh, (became manifest in human nature,) and tabernacled among us, John 1:14 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+1:14). Of this Divine nature the angel does not particularly speak here, but of the tabernacle or shrine which God was now preparing for it, viz. the holy thing that was to be born of the virgin. Two natures must ever be distinguished in Christ: the human nature, in reference to which he is the Son of God and inferior to him, Mark 13:32 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mr+13:32); ; John 5:19; (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+5:19;); 14:28 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+14:28), and the Divine nature which was from eternity, and equal to God, John 1:1; (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+1:1;); 10:30 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+10:30); ; Romans 9:5 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ro+9:5); ; Colossians 1:16-18 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=col+1:16-18). It is true, that to Jesus the Christ, as he appeared among men, every characteristic of the Divine nature is sometimes attributed, without appearing to make any distinction between the Divine and human natures; but is there any part of the Scriptures in which it is plainly said that the Divine nature of Jesus was the Son of God? Here, I trust, I may be permitted to say, with all due respect for those who differ from me, that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ is, in my opinion, anti-scriptural, and highly dangerous. This doctrine I reject for the following reasons:-
1st. I have not been able to find any express declaration in the Scriptures concerning it.
2dly. If Christ be the Son of God as to his Divine nature, then he cannot be eternal; for son implies a father; and father implies, in reference to son, precedency in time, if not in nature too. Father and son imply the idea of generation; and generation implies a time in which it was effected, and time also antecedent to such generation.
3dly. If Christ be the Son of God, as to his Divine nature, then the Father is of necessity prior, consequently superior to him.
4thly. Again, if this Divine nature were begotten of the Father, then it must be in time; i.e. there was a period in which it did not exist, and a period when it began to exist. This destroys the eternity of our blessed Lord, and robs him at once of his Godhead.
5thly. To say that he was begotten from all eternity, is, in my opinion, absurd; and the phrase eternal Son is a positive self-contradiction. ETERNITY is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to TIME. SON supposes time, generation, and father; and time also antecedent to such generation. Therefore the conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas. The enemies of Christ's Divinity have, in all ages, availed themselves of this incautious method of treating this subject, and on this ground, have ever had the advantage of the defenders of the Godhead of Christ. This doctrine of the eternal Sonship destroys the deity of Christ; now, if his deity be taken away, the whole Gospel scheme of redemption is ruined. On this ground, the atonement of Christ cannot have been of infinite merit, and consequently could not purchase pardon for the offences of mankind, nor give any right to, or possession of, an eternal glory. The very use of this phrase is both absurd and dangerous; therefore let all those who value Jesus and their salvation abide by the Scriptures. This doctrine of the eternal Sonship, as it has been lately explained in many a pamphlet, and many a paper in magazines, I must and do consider as an awful heresy, and mere sheer Arianism; which, in many cases, has terminated in Socinianism, and that in Deism. From such heterodoxies, and their abetters, may God save his Church! Amen!

mizpeh

12-25-2007, 07:29 AM

Below is from Gill's commentary of Luke 1:35. I found it interesting because he goes on about the three persons of the Trinity and their involvement or noninvolvement in the conception of the Son of God. Wouldn't it be a nice thing for Trinitarians if anywhere in the Bible the Trinity is expressed in such a way so as to teach this doctrine openly.

The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee.
The words, "upon thee", are left out in the Syriac and Persic versions; but are retained in others, and in all copies: the formation of Christ's human nature, though common to all the three persons, yet is particularly, and most properly ascribed to the Spirit; not to the first person, the Father, lest it should be thought that he is only the Father of him, as man; nor to the second person, the Son, since it is to him that the human nature is personally united; but to the third person, the Spirit, who is the sanctifier; and who separated, and sanctified it, the first moment of its conception, and preserved it from the taint of original sin. His coming upon the virgin must be understood in consistence with his omnipresence, and immensity; and cannot design any local motion, but an effectual operation in forming the human nature of her flesh and substance; and not in the ordinary manner in which he is concerned in the formation of all men, (Job 33:4 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=job+33:4)) but in an extraordinary way, not to be conceived of, and explained. The phrase most plainly answers to (le ab) , in frequent use with the Jews F24 (http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=lu&chapter=1&verse=35#x), as expressive of coition.

BroRutledge

05-13-2008, 04:49 AM

Everybody on this thread is invited to continue the Trinity-Oneness discussions on the new Site that we have just built. We also invite you to stay with the GNC and work with us in our new format.

Our new site is http://www.godchatcafe.com

On this new site everybody can have full liberty of expression with no fear of admins banning you or even reprimanding you regardless of how strong you post. Trinitarians have full liberty to teach your doctrines over there as well as oneness and all other beliefs. Anybody can post anything they believe on the new site and even debate and get rough with the person that does not agree if that is your style of posting.

On the new site I will be joining in on many of these discussions, and I have some very strong views that I wish to express, so that will be the place where I will take my liberty also.

God bless
BroRutledge

Troubled1

12-15-2008, 04:51 AM

The Bible says that God was manifested in the flesh. Look the word manifestation up. God and Jesus are one. He showed his glory through Jesus. man⋅i⋅fes⋅ta⋅tion /ˌmænhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngfəˈsteɪhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngʃən, -fɛ-/ [man-uh-fuh-stey-shuhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngn,1.an act of manifesting.2.the state of being manifested.3.outward or perceptible indication; materialization: At first there was no manifestation of the disease. 4.a public demonstration, as for political effect.5.Spiritualism. a materialization.

MawMaw

12-15-2008, 03:31 PM

Amen Troubled1 and welcome to GNC!! :)

tdcanam

12-22-2008, 06:58 PM