the 4 horsemen--ancient or now?

[Stumpmaster]

The white robes are our glorified bodies.

That part is not a harvest. Beheaded people die, but their beheaded bodies will be resurrected only at one time, altogether, after Armageddon.

I'm trying to reconcile your former assertion that the white robes are glorified bodies with your latter statement regarding the resurrected bodies of the beheaded saints.

 

[Timtofly]

I'm trying to reconcile your former assertion that the white robes are glorified bodies with your latter statement regarding the resurrected bodies of the beheaded saints.

Revelation 6 is about the Cross, the Atonement, and the saints from the cross to the rapture, Paul mentions, where the dead in Christ will rise first, then those who are alive will be caught up to meet them in the air.

Revelation 20 are those who do not take the mark 666 in the 3.5 years prior to their resurrection.

Two different groups. Two different resurrections. Those Christians being martyred today all over the world, are still the body of Christ. They are sealed and waiting under the alter for their robe of white.

No one is being told today, they need to have the mark 666. God has not brought to completion the 6000 year punishment given to Adam. The mark only comes out after the expiration of the punishment. So those in Revelation 20 are those humans still stuck on earth with Satan, after the Second Coming. That is why Satan cuts their heads off, because they refuse to take the mark 666. It is not that they take the mark. Humans will proudly show the mark in solidarity with Satan as he mocks God. I am not sure why any in this forum want to persevere all the way to the end of Satan's 3.5 years of literal hell on earth. Post trib people will be in for a shock, when The Lamb and his angel kill them and send them to the lake of fire, for their perseverance. They decided to live past their expiration date and had to be either removed from God knowing them, or their head removed by Satan. I am not making this up. It is all written in Revelation between chapters 11 and 20. Probably not how people have interpreted it, because to interpret it literally would not be as fun as just making things up to make it sound better.

 

[Stumpmaster]

Post trib people will be in for a shock, when The Lamb and his angel kill them and send them to the lake of fire, for their perseverance.

Hilarious!

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

The 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse sort of launch the judgment of God against the world in preparation for the Kingdom of Christ. But no real time frame is given. We know that the endtimes, in a sense, began after Jesus' died on the cross, and judgment against mankind became sort of "last chance."

But the endtimes is also our day, what we might call "the last of the last days." It is the time immediately preceding the return of Christ. So my question is, and I sincerely ask it, do the 4 horsemen, or even more broadly, the 7 seals, represent something that began in ancient history, in the time of Christ's apostles, or does this actually refer to our day?

I think the backdrop was actually from Dan 7, where the Roman Empire presented the last obstacle to the coming of Christ's Kingdom. But that Kingdom would sort of hold the world in place until it finally breaks up into 10 states, and then is reconsolidated under Antichrist.

The 4 horsemen may have begun to show cracks in the Roman Empire, because after war and varied disasters ripped into that area, the city of Rome fell to barbarians in 476 AD.

But in these last days the old Roman Empire exists in these 10 plus states, although yet to be consolidated under Antichrist. Perhaps these 4 horsemen come to make cracks in this edifice today, which is the European Union? Is war and natural disasters starting to whittle away the unity and continuity of this heir to the old Roman system?

I don't know. But I do think John was given to refrain from mentioning the Roman tradition specifically because it would've been looked on as sedition, or rebellion. In a number of places in NT Scriptures Rome is treated gently, with an eye to preserving social order and a good Christian witness. But Christians also knew how corrupt Rome was, and wanted to be careful to not "become them" in trying to "win them!"

Let me know your opinion on this?

I believe the scriptures show us that the Apostle John by God's Holy Spirit was taken into the future in the Lord's day which I believe to be Jesus 2nd presence which is an invisible presence.

The Apostle Paul refers to it as a time of judgment and of fulfillment of divine promises. (1 Corinthians 1:8; 2 Corinthians 1:14;Philippians 1:6, 10; 2:16) With the arrival of that “day,” Jehovah’s grand purposes move progressively and triumphantly toward their climax. That “day” begins with the crowning of Jesus as heavenly King. Even after Jesus executes judgment on Satan’s world, the Lord’s day continues, with the restoration of Paradise and the perfecting of mankind, until Jesus finally “hands over the kingdom to his God and Father.”—1 Corinthians 15:24-26; Revelation 6:1, 2.

By other fulfilled prophecies that are in Scripture I honestly believe this invisible 2nd presence of Jesus started in 1914.

For example, Daniel described a chopping down of rulership in the line of King David; after “seven times” it would be known “that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind, and that to the one whom he wants to he gives it.” (Daniel 4:23, 24, 31, 32) The major fulfillment of that prophecy started with the desolating of the kingdom of Judah, which is indicated by Bible evidence to have been completed by October 607 B.C.E. Revelation 12:6, 14 shows that 3 1/2 times amounts to 1,260 days; hence, seven times (twice that number) must be 2,520 days. Reckoning “a day for a year,” we arrive at 2,520 years as the duration of the “seven times.” (Ezekiel 4:6) Therefore, Christ Jesus began his heavenly rule in the latter part of 1914. The erupting of the first world war in that year marked “a beginning of pangs of distress” that have continued to plague mankind. Since 1914, how remarkably events in this bloodstained earth have confirmed that year to be the start of the “day” of Jesus’ presence!—Matthew 24:3-14.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I believe the scriptures show us that the Apostle John by God's Holy Spirit was taken into the future in the Lord's day which I believe to be Jesus 2nd presence which is an invisible presence.

The Apostle Paul refers to it as a time of judgment and of fulfillment of divine promises. (1 Corinthians 1:8; 2 Corinthians 1:14;Philippians 1:6, 10; 2:16) With the arrival of that “day,” Jehovah’s grand purposes move progressively and triumphantly toward their climax. That “day” begins with the crowning of Jesus as heavenly King. Even after Jesus executes judgment on Satan’s world, the Lord’s day continues, with the restoration of Paradise and the perfecting of mankind, until Jesus finally “hands over the kingdom to his God and Father.”—1 Corinthians 15:24-26; Revelation 6:1, 2.

By other fulfilled prophecies that are in Scripture I honestly believe this invisible 2nd presence of Jesus started in 1914.

For example, Daniel described a chopping down of rulership in the line of King David; after “seven times” it would be known “that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind, and that to the one whom he wants to he gives it.” (Daniel 4:23, 24, 31, 32) The major fulfillment of that prophecy started with the desolating of the kingdom of Judah, which is indicated by Bible evidence to have been completed by October 607 B.C.E. Revelation 12:6, 14 shows that 3 1/2 times amounts to 1,260 days; hence, seven times (twice that number) must be 2,520 days. Reckoning “a day for a year,” we arrive at 2,520 years as the duration of the “seven times.” (Ezekiel 4:6) Therefore, Christ Jesus began his heavenly rule in the latter part of 1914. The erupting of the first world war in that year marked “a beginning of pangs of distress” that have continued to plague mankind. Since 1914, how remarkably events in this bloodstained earth have confirmed that year to be the start of the “day” of Jesus’ presence!—Matthew 24:3-14.

That is JW doctrine, whether you are JW or not. I believe this is a perfect example of a *failed prophecy!* We should never try to rationalize away a failure, since God may be trying to teach us a hard lesson.

In this case, the JWs should've turned back to orthodox Christianity, and not tried to stand apart from the Church. Cults are defined by their opposition to the historic Church, by claiming to somehow be the "elite," or "superior" to the established Church.

Nobody would deny that historic Christianity has suffered the same plight as ancient Judaism. There is always a tendency to "fall away." But to try to establish a "new church" is over the top, as far as I'm concerned. What is needed is a reaffirmation of the original doctrines of the Church, and not a whole new "Christian" group that claims to be "Christian" and yet teaches a "different gospel."

So I hope you're not a JW. But if you are, I would pray you consider turning to God, and not necessarily to Christians that confuse you, to learn from Him what He is saying to you. False prophecies are a serious matter, because they "take the Lord's name in vain." If you are in this predicament I believe there are good Christians here who can help you.

That aside, numerology is not an acceptable way of dating things unless there is something more explicit in the Scriptures to back it up. There is *nothing* to back up the 1914 date, apart from the fact it was an important date in history. It was the beginning of WW1.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

That is JW doctrine, whether you are JW or not. I believe this is a perfect example of a *failed prophecy!* We should never try to rationalize away a failure, since God may be trying to teach us a hard lesson.

In this case, the JWs should've turned back to orthodox Christianity, and not tried to stand apart from the Church. Cults are defined by their opposition to the historic Church, by claiming to somehow be the "elite," or "superior" to the established Church.

Nobody would deny that historic Christianity has suffered the same plight as ancient Judaism. There is always a tendency to "fall away." But to try to establish a "new church" is over the top, as far as I'm concerned. What is needed is a reaffirmation of the original doctrines of the Church, and not a whole new "Christian" group that claims to be "Christian" and yet teaches a "different gospel."

So I hope you're not a JW. But if you are, I would pray you consider turning to God, and not necessarily to Christians that confuse you, to learn from Him what He is saying to you. False prophecies are a serious matter, because they "take the Lord's name in vain." If you are in this predicament I believe there are good Christians here who can help you.

That aside, numerology is not an acceptable way of dating things unless there is something more explicit in the Scriptures to back it up. There is *nothing* to back up the 1914 date, apart from the fact it was an important date in history. It was the beginning of WW1.

The orthodox Christianity you speak of denies that it was the Only begotten Son of God who became human and died for mankind. Orthodox Christianity denies The True God resurrected his Only Begotten Son three days after his death. Instead they teach it was God who became human and that it was God who died for mankind and was resurrected three days later.

I was brought up in the Orthodox church but have always believed it was the Only Begotten Son of God who became human and die for mankind. That it was The Only Begotten Son of God who was resurrected by God three days after his death. I will continue to believe it was the Only Begotten Son of God who became human, that it was The Only Begotten Son of God who died for mankind and was resurrected three days after his death.

You said Nobody would deny that historic Christianity has suffered the same plight as ancient Judaism. That there is always a tendency to "fall away" and you're right, the problem with what you're saying though is that just as ancient Judaism rejected God's Only Begotten Son as the Messiah so has Orthodox Christianity. Like I said Orthodox Christianity doesn't believe it was the Only Begotten Son of God who became human who died for mankind and was resurrected by God three days after his Only Begotten Son death. So just like ancient Judaism Orthodox Christianity has rejected the true Messiah. This Orthodox Christianity you speak of is actually the Apostate church.

The scriptures have always told us that there would be a period of time after Jesus went back into heaven that there would be people who would be false Christians making up the apostate church. This would coincide with the story of the wheat and the weeds. An apostacy began developing quickly after all the Apostles and first century Christians died off.
People think this Orthodox Christianity is what has to do with the true church of God and it doesn't.

Also there is numerology in the scriptures. Just because someone uses the scriptures who talks about God kingdom not being represented on earth for a period of time, that period of time being 7 times and show you in Scripture that 31/2 times equals 1260 days and therefore twice that amount is 2520 days and then show from scripture that when it comes to prophecies a day equals 1 year therefore 2520 would actually be 2520 years and also show that God kingdom was chopped down Judah desolation was completed by the Babylonian Empire which around 607 B.C.E. If you and others choose to ignore this information and truly don't think the scriptures don't tell us when the times of the gentiles begin and end that your choice. My choice is to disagree with you. I believe the times of the gentiles began in 607 B.C.E. and ended in 1914 and that is when Jesus stood up as King in that heavenly Messianic kingdom and started ruling in the midst of his enemies. This period of time would begin the second prescence of the Messiah Jesus Christ. Which as I said is an invisible presence. People make their choices what to believe. Just because you have decided that staying with Orthodox Christianity is the choice people should make is just your opinion but you certainly have a right to it. It doesn't mean it's the right choice because you say it is though.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The orthodox Christianity you speak of denies that it was the Only begotten Son of God who became human and died for mankind. Orthodox Christianity denies The True God resurrected his Only Begotten Son three days after his death. Instead they teach it was God who became human and that it was God who died for mankind and was resurrected three days later.

I was brought up in the Orthodox church but have always believed it was the Only Begotten Son of God who became human and die for mankind. That it was The Only Begotten Son of God who was resurrected by God three days after his death. I will continue to believe it was the Only Begotten Son of God who became human, that it was The Only Begotten Son of God who died for mankind and was resurrected three days after his death.

You said Nobody would deny that historic Christianity has suffered the same plight as ancient Judaism. That there is always a tendency to "fall away" and you're right, the problem with what you're saying though is that just as ancient Judaism rejected God's Only Begotten Son as the Messiah so has Orthodox Christianity. Like I said Orthodox Christianity doesn't believe it was the Only Begotten Son of God who became human who died for mankind and was resurrected by God three days after his Only Begotten Son death. So just like ancient Judaism Orthodox Christianity has rejected the true Messiah. This Orthodox Christianity you speak of is actually the Apostate church.

The scriptures have always told us that there would be a period of time after Jesus went back into heaven that there would be people who would be false Christians making up the apostate church. This would coincide with the story of the wheat and the weeds. An apostacy began developing quickly after all the Apostles and first century Christians died off.
People think this Orthodox Christianity is what has to do with the true church of God and it doesn't.

Also there is numerology in the scriptures. Just because someone uses the scriptures who talks about God kingdom not being represented on earth for a period of time, that period of time being 7 times and show you in Scripture that 31/2 times equals 1260 days and therefore twice that amount is 2520 days and then show from scripture that when it comes to prophecies a day equals 1 year therefore 2520 would actually be 2520 years and also show that God kingdom was chopped down Judah desolation was completed by the Babylonian Empire which around 607 B.C.E. If you and others choose to ignore this information and truly don't think the scriptures don't tell us when the times of the gentiles begin and end that your choice. My choice is to disagree with you. I believe the times of the gentiles began in 607 B.C.E. and ended in 1914 and that is when Jesus stood up as King in that heavenly Messianic kingdom and started ruling in the midst of his enemies. This period of time would begin the second prescence of the Messiah Jesus Christ. Which as I said is an invisible presence. People make their choices what to believe. Just because you have decided that staying with Orthodox Christianity is the choice people should make is just your opinion but you certainly have a right to it. It doesn't mean it's the right choice because you say it is though.

Thanks for explaining your position. I'm afraid I don't see a big difference between God becoming a man and the Son of God becoming a man. The result is the same.

Since the Son of God preexisted not as a man, but as the eternal word of God, the result is the same: God became a man, because God is His own word.

Whether you say that God became Man or the Word of God became Man, you have the same reality. God became a Man. Why you make a big difference about this I can't fathom?

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Thanks for explaining your position. I'm afraid I don't see a big difference between God becoming a man and the Son of God becoming a man. The result is the same.

Since the Son of God preexisted not as a man, but as the eternal word of God, the result is the same: God became a man, because God is His own word.

Whether you say that God became Man or the Word of God became Man, you have the same reality. God became a Man. Why you make a big difference about this I can't fathom?

Because in reality it's the Only Begotten Son of God who is the Word, saying otherwise, you're denying God has a Only Begotten Son, who is the Word. When Scripture tells me, that it was the Word that became Flesh, then to me, that's saying the Only Begotten Son of God became human. When a person believes God, is the Word and scripture says the Word became Flesh, they believe God became human. There is a difference in belief.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Because in reality it's the Only Begotten Son of God who is the Word, saying otherwise, you're denying God has a Only Begotten Son, who is the Word. When Scripture tells me, that it was the Word that became Flesh, then to me, that's saying the Only Begotten Son of God became human. When a person believes God, is the Word and scripture says the Word became Flesh, they believe God became human. There is a difference in belief.

Yea, we definitely have a different belief. To me God and His Word are indistinguishable. The Word is simply the vehicle through which God expresses Himself, just as our words express who we are.

In John 1 we read that the Word is God. It is written that God exists alongside His Word not because they aren't one, but only because God extends Himself, creatively, beyond a single point in time and beyond a single point in space. So God can be distinguished from the things He makes. And the things He makes can still be identified as one with Him, or not.

In the case of the Only Begotten Son of God, God has expressed Himself, through His Word, to create something that is still one with Himself. The person Jesus has taken upon himself a created human personality, while retaining His divine origins in God. Most everything else that God has created does not identify as God because it is not created to express identification as God.

To say that the Only Begotten Son of God previously existed only as the Word of God does not deny the existence of the Son of God. It only acknowledges that his existence previous to his incarnation was in a different form. To then say the Son of God previously existed as the Word of God or simply as God is saying the same exact thing, since God's Word is God!

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Yea, we definitely have a different belief. To me God and His Word are indistinguishable. The Word is simply the vehicle through which God expresses Himself, just as our words express who we are.

In John 1 we read that the Word is God. It is written that God exists alongside His Word not because they aren't one, but only because God extends Himself, creatively, beyond a single point in time and beyond a single point in space. So God can be distinguished from the things He makes. And the things He makes can still be identified as one with Him, or not.

In the case of the Only Begotten Son of God, God has expressed Himself, through His Word, to create something that is still one with Himself. The person Jesus has taken upon himself a created human personality, while retaining His divine origins in God. Most everything else that God has created does not identify as God because it is not created to express identification as God.

To say that the Only Begotten Son of God previously existed only as the Word of God does not deny the existence of the Son of God. It only acknowledges that his existence previous to his incarnation was in a different form. To then say the Son of God previously existed as the Word of God or simply as God is saying the same exact thing, since God's Word is God!

I understand how some Bibles translate John 1:1 but not all Bibles translate this verse the same. This debate, how John 1:1 should be translated has been going on for centuries. It didn't start in our time. We all must make our choice of which translation is the accurate translation.
You and others who believe as you do, believe God is the Word, you don't believe that the Only Begotten Son of God is the Word. These two statements don't say the same thing. The Only Begotten Son of God existed in heaven with his Father who is God before the Only Begotten Son of God who is the Word became human. Now that the Only Begotten Son of God is back in heaven, he is still the Only Begotten Son of God who is the Word but God has rewarded his Only Begotten Son with immortality and inherited incorruption, two things the Only Begotten Son of God didn't have before he became human or while he was human but received from God his Father after he resurrected his Only Begotten Son from the dead. God has always been immortal and incorruptible it's not something he is rewarded with or given to him.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I understand how some Bibles translate John 1:1 but not all Bibles translate this verse the same. This debate, how John 1:1 should be translated has been going on for centuries. It didn't start in our time. We all must make our choice of which translation is the accurate translation.
You and others who believe as you do, believe God is the Word, you don't believe that the Only Begotten Son of God is the Word.

Technically, what John 1 says is that "the Word was God." To reverse this may be true in a sense, but it confuses the point. We identify the source of the Word 1st, who is God. And then we reference the Word that proceeds from God, the source.

1 John 1.1 ...and the Word was God.

This identifies the Word as originating from God and as being God both. So there is no question that the Word, proceeding from God, is in fact God Himself. It is, as it were, an extension of God's own Person, to be depicted within the realm of finite men, so that we can appreciate God in a revelation that we can understand.

These two statements don't say the same thing. The Only Begotten Son of God existed in heaven with his Father who is God before the Only Begotten Son of God who is the Word became human.

The problem is, of course, our disagreement here. I don't see the Son of God except in his pre-incarnate form, as the Word of God. Did the Son of God then preexist his pre-human form? Of course!

But the issue is not whether the Son of God preexisted the incarnation, but in what form he existed before the incarnation. I believe he preexisted his incarnation not in the form of man, but only in the form of the Word of God.

The Word of God proceeded from eternity. Therefore, what came to appear as the Son of God existed beforehand in eternity, but not in the form of man.

So I identify the Son of God as an eternal being who can only be identified as such, after the incarnation, in the form of man, and previously existing not as a man but as the Word of God. I hope you can understand my position here?

Now that the Only Begotten Son of God is back in heaven, he is still the Only Begotten Son of God who is the Word but God has rewarded his Only Begotten Son with immortality and inherited incorruption, two things the Only Begotten Son of God didn't have before he became human or while he was human but received from God his Father after he resurrected his Only Begotten Son from the dead. God has always been immortal and incorruptible it's not something he is rewarded with or given to him.

Of course! God could never have bestowed immortality on His Son, until His Son actually evolved from the Word of God to the Son of God, becoming a man. Prior to becoming a man, Jesus had not been designated as the Son of God, although he had indeed existed beforehand as the Word of God.

Until Jesus was actually designated the "Son of God" Jesus could not have been made immortal, because he had to be mortal before he could be made immortal! Certainly Jesus had been sinless, eternal, and divine. But becoming "immortal" has the sense of glorification, which is a kind of crowning gift upon men who are entitled to live forever in God's good pleasure.

Christ came to do a work for which he also would receive God's good pleasure for eternity. So I of course would at least partly agree with you.

But I do not agree that the Son of God was designated as such before the incarnation, unless it is merely expressed prophetically, as God's plan to eventually turn the Word of God into a man. This, of course, He did.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Technically, what John 1 says is that "the Word was God." To reverse this may be true in a sense, but it confuses the point. We identify the source of the Word 1st, who is God. And then we reference the Word that proceeds from God, the source.

1 John 1.1 ...and the Word was God.

This identifies the Word as originating from God and as being God both. So there is no question that the Word, proceeding from God, is in fact God Himself. It is, as it were, an extension of God's own Person, to be depicted within the realm of finite men, so that we can appreciate God in a revelation that we can understand.



The problem is, of course, our disagreement here. I don't see the Son of God except in his pre-incarnate form, as the Word of God. Did the Son of God then preexist his pre-human form? Of course!

But the issue is not whether the Son of God preexisted the incarnation, but in what form he existed before the incarnation. I believe he preexisted his incarnation not in the form of man, but only in the form of the Word of God.

The Word of God proceeded from eternity. Therefore, what came to appear as the Son of God existed beforehand in eternity, but not in the form of man.

So I identify the Son of God as an eternal being who can only be identified as such, after the incarnation, in the form of man, and previously existing not as a man but as the Word of God. I hope you can understand my position here?



Of course! God could never have bestowed immortality on His Son, until His Son actually evolved from the Word of God to the Son of God, becoming a man. Prior to becoming a man, Jesus had not been designated as the Son of God, although he had indeed existed beforehand as the Word of God.

Until Jesus was actually designated the "Son of God" Jesus could not have been made immortal, because he had to be mortal before he could be made immortal! Certainly Jesus had been sinless, eternal, and divine. But becoming "immortal" has the sense of glorification, which is a kind of crowning gift upon men who are entitled to live forever in God's good pleasure.

Christ came to do a work for which he also would receive God's good pleasure for eternity. So I of course would at least partly agree with you.

But I do not agree that the Son of God was designated as such before the incarnation, unless it is merely expressed prophetically, as God's plan to eventually turn the Word of God into a man. This, of course, He did.

You and I are going to continue to disagree because the apostle John repeatedly describes the Lord Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God. (Joh 1:14; 3:16,18; 1Jo 4:9) This is not referring to his human birth or to him as just the man Jesus. As the Loʹgos, or Word, “this one was in the beginning with God,” even “before the world was.” (Joh 1:1, 2; 17:5, 24) At that time while in his prehuman state of existence in heaven with his Father who is God, he is described as the “only-begotten Son” whom his Father sent “into the world.”—1Jo 4:9. So as far as I see from the scriptures "The Word" was and is, "The Only Begotten Son of God" therefore when in Scripture it says, "The Word" became Flesh(human) it was, "The Only Begotten Son of God" that became Flesh(human). I'm not going to change on this matter because I have always believed the Only Begotten Son of God to be, "The Word," that became Flesh(human) and it's the reason I've chosen to leave Orthodox Christianity because when I started going to Orthodox Christianity so many long years ago I thought they taught that it was, "The Only Begotten Son of God," was, "The Word" that became Flesh(human) but obviously I was wrong about that. What others think of me or say about me for believing it was the Only Begotten Son of God who became human, who died for mankind and was resurrected by God three days later, they can say and think what they want. I'm not going to change just because others disagree with me. What I know concerning those who disagree with me is that they give me no scriptural reason that proves or convinces me I'm wrong in what I believe.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You and I are going to continue to disagree because the apostle John repeatedly describes the Lord Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God. (Joh 1:14; 3:16,18; 1Jo 4:9) This is not referring to his human birth or to him as just the man Jesus. As the Loʹgos, or Word, “this one was in the beginning with God,” even “before the world was.” (Joh 1:1, 2; 17:5, 24) At that time while in his prehuman state of existence in heaven with his Father who is God, he is described as the “only-begotten Son” whom his Father sent “into the world.”—1Jo 4:9. So as far as I see from the scriptures "The Word" was and is, "The Only Begotten Son of God" therefore when in Scripture it says, "The Word" became Flesh(human) it was, "The Only Begotten Son of God" that became Flesh(human). I'm not going to change on this matter because I have always believed the Only Begotten Son of God to be, "The Word," that became Flesh(human) and it's the reason I've chosen to leave Orthodox Christianity because when I started going to Orthodox Christianity so many long years ago I thought they taught that it was, "The Only Begotten Son of God," was, "The Word" that became Flesh(human) but obviously I was wrong about that. What others think of me or say about me for believing it was the Only Begotten Son of God who became human, who died for mankind and was resurrected by God three days later, they can say and think what they want. I'm not going to change just because others disagree with me. What I know concerning those who disagree with me is that they give me no scriptural reason that proves or convinces me I'm wrong in what I believe.

That's kind of like divorcing your wife because she didn't like the color shirt you're wearing! Really, you're angry at the church because they didn't like your position? Most Christians don't even know how to describe the Trinity!

As I said, my position doesn't seem appreciably different from yours, except that I think the Son of God preexisted in a non-human form and therefore cannot be called "the Son of God" until he actually became a human. But clearly, the Son of God had existed in some form prior to the Incarnation. But if you want to divorce the Church over this, that's your choice.

 

[Timtofly]

The Lamb of God.

Jesus said that before Abraham He was, so Abraham saw the nail prints, as a post carnate body. As pointed out somewhere, the human body died, and ceased to exist in the tomb, before the stone was rolled away. From dust thou art, unto dust shall thou return. The soul and spirit of the man Jesus would just be corporated into God after Jesus met Mary, and then ascended. After Jesus ascended, he returned to the disciples in the upper room. That a human part would remain does not seem relative, Jesus is now the Lamb of God. Other than the prints and sword hole was still tangible.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

That's kind of like divorcing your wife because she didn't like the color shirt you're wearing! Really, you're angry at the church because they didn't like your position? Most Christians don't even know how to describe the Trinity!

As I said, my position doesn't seem appreciably different from yours, except that I think the Son of God preexisted in a non-human form and therefore cannot be called "the Son of God" until he actually became a human. But clearly, the Son of God had existed in some form prior to the Incarnation. But if you want to divorce the Church over this, that's your choice.

You're right, most Christians don't know how to describe the Trinity. In fact, there is so much confusion as to what the definition of the Trinity is. Each person who believes in the Trinity, has their take on what the definition of the Trinity is. It's also suppose to be a doctrine, that describes to us who The True God is, yet all we have is confusion about the doctrine. The scriptures tell us, that The True God isn't the author of confusion. Yet this confusing doctrine is a doctrine the churches of Christendom say is essential to belief as a Christian. I don't think so. God isn't a mystery who can't be understood. The scriptures tell us that how we get eternal life, is that we know the Father and God of Jesus and his christ, who is Gods Only Begotten Son. Learning about who The True God is and his Only Begotten Son is, isn't confusing. We're able to know who The True God is and who his Only Begotten Son is. We're able to know the truth, without it being confusing or mysterious.
Also I believe The Only Begotten Son of God existed in heaven with his Father before he became human. However just as John tells us in his letters, The Only Begotten Son of God was called the Only Begotten Son of God, before he became human, so I believe.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You're right, most Christians don't know how to describe the Trinity. In fact, there is so much confusion as to what the definition of the Trinity is. Each person who believes in the Trinity, has their take on what the definition of the Trinity is. It's also suppose to be a doctrine, that describes to us who The True God is, yet all we have is confusion about the doctrine. The scriptures tell us, that The True God isn't the author of confusion. Yet this confusing doctrine is a doctrine the churches of Christendom say is essential to belief as a Christian. I don't think so. God isn't a mystery who can't be understood. The scriptures tell us that how we get eternal life, is that we know the Father and God of Jesus and his christ, who is Gods Only Begotten Son. Learning about who The True God is and his Only Begotten Son is, isn't confusing. We're able to know who The True God is and who his Only Begotten Son is. We're able to know the truth, without it being confusing or mysterious.
Also I believe The Only Begotten Son of God existed in heaven with his Father before he became human. However just as John tells us in his letters, The Only Begotten Son of God was called the Only Begotten Son of God, before he became human, so I believe.

Again, saying the Son of God preexisted in some form is not saying he would be designated as such except with respect to his future role as a man. Before he became a man just what exactly would the "Son of Man" mean? In my view, the term only has meaning with respect to his becoming a human, and thus, becomes a "son" at that point.

Saying that he comes to be designated as the Son of God only after he becomes a man does *not* mean he did not preexist in some form. As I said, his preexistent form, before manhood, was as the Word of God. He was God's revelation, about to emerge in human form.

None of this "confusion" disturbs the experience of most Christians, which is the most critical thing. It is less important to understand the intricacies of the Trinity than to have the *experience* of salvation. When we approach the Son of God as a man who bore our abuses, and recognize that he is God, we are able to not only receive a spiritual life that is given to those who obey God, but we are also able to receive this spiritual life as an eternal gift, since he has chosen to forgive our sins.

When we thus receive an eternal spiritual life, which I call a "new nature," we experience all we need for eternal salvation. It enables us to do more than just do good, but we also *become good.* We assume a nature made just like Jesus' nature, and so are assured of our eternal salvation.

This is far more important than understanding details of the Trinity. It does help to have some understanding of the Trinity, but as I said, it is less critical than experiencing the righteousness that assures us that we are saved for all eternity.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Again, saying the Son of God preexisted in some form is not saying he would be designated as such except with respect to his future role as a man. Before he became a man just what exactly would the "Son of Man" mean? In my view, the term only has meaning with respect to his becoming a human, and thus, becomes a "son" at that point.

Saying that he comes to be designated as the Son of God only after he becomes a man does *not* mean he did not preexist in some form. As I said, his preexistent form, before manhood, was as the Word of God. He was God's revelation, about to emerge in human form.

None of this "confusion" disturbs the experience of most Christians, which is the most critical thing. It is less important to understand the intricacies of the Trinity than to have the *experience* of salvation. When we approach the Son of God as a man who bore our abuses, and recognize that he is God, we are able to not only receive a spiritual life that is given to those who obey God, but we are also able to receive this spiritual life as an eternal gift, since he has chosen to forgive our sins.

When we thus receive an eternal spiritual life, which I call a "new nature," we experience all we need for eternal salvation. It enables us to do more than just do good, but we also *become good.* We assume a nature made just like Jesus' nature, and so are assured of our eternal salvation.

This is far more important than understanding details of the Trinity. It does help to have some understanding of the Trinity, but as I said, it is less critical than experiencing the righteousness that assures us that we are saved for all eternity.

Yes I understood you correctly how you view the phrase, "Only Begotten Son." I just view it differently because at 1john 4: 9 it says that God sent his Only Begotten Son to the world of mankind, so I honestly believe God Only Begotten Son was a spiritual being in heaven who was God Only Begotten Son before he became human. I agree this spiritual being who is God Only Begotten Son is, "The Word" that became human.
However when it comes to the mainstream churches that believe in the Trinity they'll tell you very quickly that if you don't believe in the Trinity you're not a Christian. So since I can see for myself that the scriptures don't speak of no Trinity nor have the scriptures ever said to accept anything blindly, which is what you're doing if you don't even understand what the Trinity doctrine is I don't believe the Trinity to be Biblical. I have found no Biblical evidence of some Trinity doctrine. I have no problem concerning what's written down in scripture, what I have a problem with is people interpreting a Scripture to mean what they want instead of what's written down. When the scriptures say, "God sent his Only Begotten Son to the World," that's what I believe. Not someone's interpretation of whats written down concerning that scripture.

 

[Timtofly]

Yes I understood you correctly how you view the phrase, "Only Begotten Son." I just view it differently because at 1john 4: 9 it says that God sent his Only Begotten Son to the world of mankind, so I honestly believe God Only Begotten Son was a spiritual being in heaven who was God Only Begotten Son before he became human. I agree this spiritual being who is God Only Begotten Son is, "The Word" that became human.
However when it comes to the mainstream churches that believe in the Trinity they'll tell you very quickly that if you don't believe in the Trinity you're not a Christian. So since I can see for myself that the scriptures don't speak of no Trinity nor have the scriptures ever said to accept anything blindly, which is what you're doing if you don't even understand what the Trinity doctrine is I don't believe the Trinity to be Biblical. I have found no Biblical evidence of some Trinity doctrine. I have no problem concerning what's written down in scripture, what I have a problem with is people interpreting a Scripture to mean what they want instead of what's written down. When the scriptures say, "God sent his Only Begotten Son to the World," that's what I believe. Not someone's interpretation of whats written down concerning that scripture.

Jesus was born as a baby by the power of the Holy Spirit and there was a Father. That is your Trinity. Unless Jesus was not born, then a full grown man shows up without any age before 30?

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Jesus was born as a baby by the power of the Holy Spirit and there was a Father. That is your Trinity. Unless Jesus was not born, then a full grown man shows up without any age before 30?

It's not my Trinity because I don't believe in any Trinity doctrine. I know that the scriptures say God sent his Only Begotten Son to the world of mankind. People can disagree all they want but God isn't begotten. The Word begotten implies a beginning and The True God Jehovah who is the Father and God of Jesus has no beginning, so The True God Jehovah isn't begotten. Jehovah does have an Only Begotten Son however who is The Word who became human and was given the name Jesus when born human.

 

[Timtofly]

It's not my Trinity because I don't believe in any Trinity doctrine. I know that the scriptures say God sent his Only Begotten Son to the world of mankind. People can disagree all they want but God isn't begotten. The Word begotten implies a beginning and The True God Jehovah who is the Father and God of Jesus has no beginning, so The True God Jehovah isn't begotten. Jehovah does have an Only Begotten Son however who is The Word who became human and was given the name Jesus when born human.

I did not say your personal trinity. I pointed out a trinity for you to see. You seem not to include the Holy Spirit. God as Jesus was begotten. That means started out as a baby in the womb of a female human. You would have to deny that Jesus was in a womb for 9 months, to claim God was not begotten, or deny that Jesus was God. To deny either means God did not do a physical thing, but ignored the physical all together. Denying the physical takes more mind boggling twist, than to just say God can change and go through the human birth process. Nothing is impossible for God. To make it impossible for a human to comprehend seems a strange way to deny the natural process of childbirth.