Does God foreknow future choices that we make?

[_Jesusfollower]

Begotten means created.. I disagree as to the when of Jesus. I think you are speaking of Colossians Paridion, when you go into that whole thing. I think Colossians is talking about the new creation the whole book is dealing with such.

Colossians 1:15-20
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/module ... ge&pid=128

[Guest]

Begotten mean created.. I disagree as to the when of Jesus. I think you are speaking of Colossians Paridion, when you go into that whole thing. I think Colossians is talking about the new creation the whole book is dealing with such.

Colossians 1:15-20
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/module ... ge&pid=128

Jesusfollower,

Is it possible for you to make a post without linking it to truthortradition.com?

The term that me and Paidion were talking about is "begotten". The bible uses the phrase "only begotten" in reference to Jesus. "Only begotten" is from the Greek monogenes. This word is used nine times in the Greek New Testament. The word is a compound word, mono, meaning only, and gennesis, meaning birth. "Only begotten" (monogenes) is used five times by John, three by Luke, and once by the writer of Hebrews. Luke used the word to describe the widow's son, "only son of his mother" (Lk. 7: 12, see 8: 42, 9: 38). The writer of Hebrews said Abraham "offered up his only begotten son" (Heb. 11: 17).

Only begotten as applied to Jesus. The scriptures teach that God's people are "sons of God" (Rom. 8: 14). Modernists contend that Jesus was simply another son of God. Not so! Jesus' Sonship was understood as indicative of deity (Jn. 10: 36, 38). Monogenes is used of Jesus' Sonship. Jesus is the "only begotten Son" (I Jn. 4: 9). "Single of its kind," comments Thayer, "…used of Christ, denotes the only Son of God or who in the sense in which he himself is the Son of God has no brethren…he is of nature or essentially Son of God, and so in a very different sense from that in which men are made by him children of God" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, pgs. 417, 418). Beloved, God's people are adopted "sons of God," Jesus is the only Son of God by nature (cp. Rom. 8: 14-16).

[_Jesusfollower]

brody, I have no problem with the scripture, and Jesus was most certainly a unique, one of a kind man. Starting with the prophecies of him and his life, and his life itself. No man ever walked with as much commanding presence and authority, nor did as many miracles. No man walked with such moral perfection, nor was treated more unjustly. No Man ever risked he life or reputation for his fellow man, for the sake of the downcast and troubled. No man represented God more perfectly. Ya, I would say that make him unique all right.

[Guest]

JesusFollower, Jesus was unique in a way much more significant than the ways in which you mentioned. Jesus was the unique Son of God, the only true Son which the Father begat.

Jesus is Deity, just as much so as the Father is Deity, and yet a distinct divine Individual. So anyone who has seen Him has seen the Father, since He is Another exactly like the Father in every respect.

It may be surprising to some, but I agree with every word of Brody's last post.

[Guest]

Jesus is God

[Guest]

JesusFollower, Jesus was unique in a way much more significant than the ways in which you mentioned. Jesus was the unique Son of God, the only true Son which the Father begat.

Jesus is Deity, just as much so as the Father is Deity, and yet a distinct divine Individual. So anyone who has seen Him has seen the Father, since He is Another exactly like the Father in every respect.

It may be surprising to some, but I agree with every word of Brody's last post.

God bless Paidion. God bless Allyn.

"In the beggining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1)

Case closed.

[Guest]

Hi all,
Maybe there are some obvious verses that aren't coming to mind, but I am not sure Jesus is ever called "begotten" prior to His incarnation.

Prior to the incarnation He is refered to as "the Word" not the Son (that I am aware of), and it says that in the begining He was with God. (Jn1). I understand that to teach that He was always (eternally) with the Father.

I have understood the word (begotten) to refer to the incarnation. People seem to go to great lengths to explain how Christ can be both begotten and eternal, (C.S. Lewis in Mere Christinity for instance), but wouldn't it be more simple to apply it to the incarnation?

Again, this isn't really something I have thought through so please enlighten me to any scriptures that would explain the matter.

God bless!
Derek

[Guest]

Prior to the incarnation He is refered to as "the Word" not the Son (that I am aware of), and it says that in the begining He was with God. (Jn1). I understand that to teach that He was always (eternally) with the Father.

Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name and what is His Son's name? If you know? Proverbs 30.4

[_Jesusfollower]

I thought the topic was foreknowlege. All tradition not truth from the above posts.
Although the “Incarnation” is assumed to be a basic tenet of Christianity, the term is used nowhere in Scripture. This is even admitted by Trinitarian scholars: “Incarnation, in its full and proper sense, is not something directly presented in Scripture.” [1] The doctrine of the Incarnation was actually formulated during the next several centuries. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church verifies this fact:

The doctrine, which took classical shape under the influence of the controversies of the 4th-5th centuries, was formally defined at the Council of Chalcedon of 451. It was largely molded by the diversity of tradition in the schools of Antioch and Alexandria…further refinements were added in the later Patristic and Medieval periods. [2]
The Jews would have understood it to mean “plan” or “purpose,” that which was clearly and specifically declared in Genesis 3:15—a “seed” of a woman who would destroy the works of the Devil. This plan of God for the salvation of man finally “became flesh” in Jesus Christ. This verse is not establishing a doctrine of Incarnation contrary to all prophetic expectations, nor a teaching of pre-existence. It is a teaching of God’s great love in bringing into existence His plan to save mankind from their sin.

Before proceeding, we must define what is traditionally understood by the “incarnation” of Christ. Keep in mind that we strongly affirm the reality and necessity of the virgin birth of Christ as the only way he could have been born without the inherent sin of mankind that would have disqualified him from becoming the Lamb of God. But the traditional “formula which enshrines the Incarnation …is that in some sense God, without ceasing to be God, was made man.” [3]

We will quote the New Bible Dictionary, a Trinitarian source, for a working definition and explanation of this doctrine:

It appears to mean that the divine Maker became one of His own creatures, which is a prima facie contradiction in theological terms. [4]

When the Word “became flesh,” His deity was not abandoned or reduced or contracted, nor did He cease to exercise the divine functions which had been His before…The Incarnation of the Son of God, then, was not a diminishing of deity, but an acquiring of manhood. [5]

One wonders how a pre-existent “God the Son” can become a man without any “diminishing of deity,” or that he could live a “fully human” life without ceasing to exercise the divine functions he had been exercising since eternity began. Trinitarians say this is part of the “mystery” of the Incarnation. The New Bible Dictionary admits that the concept is not developed or discussed in the New Testament:

The only sense in which the New Testament writers ever attempt to explain the incarnation is by showing how it fits into God’s overall plan for redeeming mankind…This evangelical interest throws light on the otherwise puzzling fact that the New Testament nowhere reflects on the virgin birth of Jesus as witnessing to the conjunction of deity and manhood in His person—a line of thought much canvassed by later theology. [6]

If the deity of Jesus was not at first clearly stated in words (and Acts gives no hint that it was), it was nevertheless part of the faith by which the first Christians lived and prayed…The theological formulation of belief in the Incarnation came later, but the belief itself, however incoherently expressed, was there in the Church from the beginning. [7]

We disagree with the assertion that the doctrine of the Incarnation was “in the Church from the beginning.” Since the doctrine is clearly not in Scripture, how can it possibly be considered a part of “the Apostles’ doctrine”? Because scholars admit that this doctrine is biblically tenuous, we must examine why Christian theologians of the third century and later became so preoccupied with establishing it as the cornerstone of a Trinitarian Christian faith. In doing so, we will see some of the changing assumptions and beliefs that led to the development of this doctrine. We must first establish the fact that the very process of turning from historical truth to mythology was clearly prophesied by the Apostle Paul at the end of his life. This is amazing but not surprising, in light of the many times in Scripture that God has warned His people about being influenced by pagan culture.

[Guest]

Nice try Jesusfollower,


You convenietly forgot to post the link to the article you copied and pasted.

Can anyone here guess what website Jesus follower copied his above article from????


That website should pay you for the many hours you spend advertising it. Seriously Bro, give it a rest.