POLL: The Deity of Christ
- Thread starter p_rehbein
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
P
Hi Elin.
I need to go offline for a bit, but allow me to quickly address what you claimed twice in relation to the promise:
Acts chapter 13 verses 32 and 33
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.
How can you possibly assert that I have changed the meaning of the promise?
Paul clearly stated that the promise was fulfilled IN THAT He has raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
Where do you see Genesis 12:3 in that?
It's simply not there.
I'll get to more of your post later. Thank you.
I need to go offline for a bit, but allow me to quickly address what you claimed twice in relation to the promise:
Acts chapter 13 verses 32 and 33
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.
How can you possibly assert that I have changed the meaning of the promise?
Paul clearly stated that the promise was fulfilled IN THAT He has raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
Where do you see Genesis 12:3 in that?
It's simply not there.
I'll get to more of your post later. Thank you.
Because of what the promise is in Ge 12:3.
So God had raised up Jesus to be a prophet (at his baptism),
had raised up Jesus to be a priest to make atonement (at his death),
had raised up Jesus to be a king to rule over all (at his ascension),
and raised him again from the dead as proof of the above.
I see Ge 12:3 in the general usage of "promise to the fathers."
Got any NT examples of gennao being used to mean "raisedup"?
I find "begotten" being used of what Mary conceived (Mt 1:20).
So God had raised up Jesus to be a prophet (at his baptism),
had raised up Jesus to be a priest to make atonement (at his death),
had raised up Jesus to be a king to rule over all (at his ascension),
and raised him again from the dead as proof of the above.
I see Ge 12:3 in the general usage of "promise to the fathers."
Got any NT examples of gennao being used to mean "raisedup"?
I find "begotten" being used of what Mary conceived (Mt 1:20).
Last edited:
Hi Elin, sorry to jump in here like this but.. needing to clear something up..
When God appeared to men in the Old Testament.. that was not Jesus?
Doesn't even the name Jesus trace back to Jehovah and Yahweh, being another way of saying those names? (I know there were a whole lot of people called Jesus, but I am referring to Jesus being the same as Jehovah and Yahweh, which are in the OT)
So I am not sure what you mean by Jesus as a man not existing before his conception.. surely when God visited people in the OT as a being.. that WAS Jesus?
be great to hear back
When God appeared to men in the Old Testament.. that was not Jesus?
Doesn't even the name Jesus trace back to Jehovah and Yahweh, being another way of saying those names? (I know there were a whole lot of people called Jesus, but I am referring to Jesus being the same as Jehovah and Yahweh, which are in the OT)
So I am not sure what you mean by Jesus as a man not existing before his conception.. surely when God visited people in the OT as a being.. that WAS Jesus?
be great to hear back
P
What of it?
Here's the text:
Matthew chapter 1 verses 20 thru 23
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, 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 Ghost.
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Jesus was conceived, gennao, of the Holy Spirit in relation to His earthly birth, but what does this have to do with Jesus allegedly being eternally begotten? Why would you even mention this verse in response to my objection? It does nothing at all to even address what I've said. Again, eternally begotten is a self-refuting lie. Just because gennao can be used in relation to conception, this does not give you or anybody else the right to teach some sort of eternal conception which, again, is a self-refuting lie.
The context of every usage in scripture in relation to Psalm 2:7 is the context of Jesus being raised from the dead. I've already shown as much. I'd rather not go the route of somehow shaming you or your beliefs by addressing the same exact verses and applying your eternally begotten meaning to the same. It would look utterly ridiculous because it is utterly ridiculous, but I will go that route, simply to uphold the truth of scripture, if need be. Please go back on your own and examine all of the instances where Psalm 2:7 is cited in the New Testament and then also apply your presently held beliefs to those passages and see if they make any sense whatsoever. Again, I'd really rather not go the route of publicly shaming any one's beliefs. I'm honestly trying to be as polite as possible, but I'm not going to allow God's Word to be twisted without defending it and its actual meaning and intent.
Here's the text:
Matthew chapter 1 verses 20 thru 23
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, 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 Ghost.
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Jesus was conceived, gennao, of the Holy Spirit in relation to His earthly birth, but what does this have to do with Jesus allegedly being eternally begotten? Why would you even mention this verse in response to my objection? It does nothing at all to even address what I've said. Again, eternally begotten is a self-refuting lie. Just because gennao can be used in relation to conception, this does not give you or anybody else the right to teach some sort of eternal conception which, again, is a self-refuting lie.
The context of every usage in scripture in relation to Psalm 2:7 is the context of Jesus being raised from the dead. I've already shown as much. I'd rather not go the route of somehow shaming you or your beliefs by addressing the same exact verses and applying your eternally begotten meaning to the same. It would look utterly ridiculous because it is utterly ridiculous, but I will go that route, simply to uphold the truth of scripture, if need be. Please go back on your own and examine all of the instances where Psalm 2:7 is cited in the New Testament and then also apply your presently held beliefs to those passages and see if they make any sense whatsoever. Again, I'd really rather not go the route of publicly shaming any one's beliefs. I'm honestly trying to be as polite as possible, but I'm not going to allow God's Word to be twisted without defending it and its actual meaning and intent.
P
I've repeatedly stated that I do on this very thread, so I'm not sure why you're asking me this question.
Yes, Jesus of Nazareth is a man, but God as well. He is, as He's commonly referred to being, the God-man or Immanuel, God with us, and the Word made flesh. If you honestly believe that He did not exist as a man before His conception, then why do you hold to your erroneous belief in relation to Him allegedly being eternally begotten which, again, is a self-refuting lie? I really didn't want to do this, but let me give you one example of how ridiculous that belief is in relation to your insistence that Jesus being begotten in Psalm 2:7 and its usages in the New Testament supposedly has to do with Him being eternally begotten as opposed to having to do with Him being raised from the dead:
Hebrews chapter 5 verses 1 thru 6
For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Again, the context here is clearly the context of THE MAN Christ Jesus becoming our High Priest or Mediator when He was raised from the dead or begotten and the Levitical priesthood ceased and was replaced by the Priesthood of THE MAN Christ Jesus. Now, let's read the same passage in which I'll insert your meaning and belief in red and see if it makes any sense at all and also see the necessary implication of the same:
Hebrews chapter 5 verses 1 thru 6
For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son and you were eternally begotten or always God the Son.
As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
How does that make any sense whatsoever? By altering the obvious meaning, a meaning which was clearly spelled out for us by the Apostle Paul in the 13th chapter of the book of Acts, you've totally removed the means by which the priesthood changed, Christ's resurrection from the dead, and the timeframe of the change in the priesthood as well. Tell me something, Elin, do you believe that Jesus' Priesthood has always been the same in that He was allegedly eternally begotten? In other words, do you believe that THE MAN Christ Jesus has always existed and has always had the same Priesthood? That's the implication of your belief, Elin. Again, you're missing the significance of THE MAN part of Christ's Priesthood and that could not have possibly gone into effect until after His incarnation. Why then are you forcing a meaning of eternally begotten upon this text and others which would speak of Christ's unchanging eternal condition? The Word has undergone change in that He was made flesh approximately 2,000 years ago so that He might be a Mediator between both God and men and a faithful and merciful High Priest at that in that He is familiar with the human condition by having walked this earth as a man and having been tempted in all ways like we are, yet without sin.
The Word, the Second Person of the Trinity, has always existed, but you've not offered even a single shred of evidence that the Word was always the Son of God.
Yes, Jesus of Nazareth is a man, but God as well. He is, as He's commonly referred to being, the God-man or Immanuel, God with us, and the Word made flesh. If you honestly believe that He did not exist as a man before His conception, then why do you hold to your erroneous belief in relation to Him allegedly being eternally begotten which, again, is a self-refuting lie? I really didn't want to do this, but let me give you one example of how ridiculous that belief is in relation to your insistence that Jesus being begotten in Psalm 2:7 and its usages in the New Testament supposedly has to do with Him being eternally begotten as opposed to having to do with Him being raised from the dead:
Hebrews chapter 5 verses 1 thru 6
For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Again, the context here is clearly the context of THE MAN Christ Jesus becoming our High Priest or Mediator when He was raised from the dead or begotten and the Levitical priesthood ceased and was replaced by the Priesthood of THE MAN Christ Jesus. Now, let's read the same passage in which I'll insert your meaning and belief in red and see if it makes any sense at all and also see the necessary implication of the same:
Hebrews chapter 5 verses 1 thru 6
For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son and you were eternally begotten or always God the Son.
As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
How does that make any sense whatsoever? By altering the obvious meaning, a meaning which was clearly spelled out for us by the Apostle Paul in the 13th chapter of the book of Acts, you've totally removed the means by which the priesthood changed, Christ's resurrection from the dead, and the timeframe of the change in the priesthood as well. Tell me something, Elin, do you believe that Jesus' Priesthood has always been the same in that He was allegedly eternally begotten? In other words, do you believe that THE MAN Christ Jesus has always existed and has always had the same Priesthood? That's the implication of your belief, Elin. Again, you're missing the significance of THE MAN part of Christ's Priesthood and that could not have possibly gone into effect until after His incarnation. Why then are you forcing a meaning of eternally begotten upon this text and others which would speak of Christ's unchanging eternal condition? The Word has undergone change in that He was made flesh approximately 2,000 years ago so that He might be a Mediator between both God and men and a faithful and merciful High Priest at that in that He is familiar with the human condition by having walked this earth as a man and having been tempted in all ways like we are, yet without sin.
The Word, the Second Person of the Trinity, has always existed, but you've not offered even a single shred of evidence that the Word was always the Son of God.
P
Yes, that's how I see it as well. Thanks for sharing that.
Yes, I'm very familiar with 2 Samuel chapter 7 verse 14 and the implications of the same. Here is how the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews understood it and its intended meaning:
Hebrews chapter 1 verses 1 thru 5
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Being 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?
For those following this discussion who may not already be aware of the same, the bold-faced part above is a direct quote from 2 Samuel chapter 7 verse 14 and I personally believe that there is great significance in how this writer equated it with what was written in Psalm 2 verse 7 in relation to the day in which Jesus was begotten or raised from the dead.
P
So, basically, you're employing eisegesis by injecting your own biases into the text while refraining from exegesis or letting the passage itself lead out in what is actually meant? That's not a wise decision on your part, Elin.
I've already supplied you with both Old Testament and New Testament examples of the same. I'm not going to repeat myself.
This has already been addressed. Again, Matthew chapter 1 verse 20 has absolutely nothing at all to do with Jesus allegedly being eternally begotten, a self-refuting lie, so you're merely grasping at straws here. I'm honestly starting to question your motives. I simply cannot believe that somebody cannot actually see what is right before their very eyes. I don't know why you insist on exalting your own beliefs above the Word of God, but that's a road that heads straight to destruction in my estimation. As such, I'd solemnly advise you to depart from it, but the choice is ultimately yours to make.
I've already supplied you with both Old Testament and New Testament examples of the same. I'm not going to repeat myself.
This has already been addressed. Again, Matthew chapter 1 verse 20 has absolutely nothing at all to do with Jesus allegedly being eternally begotten, a self-refuting lie, so you're merely grasping at straws here. I'm honestly starting to question your motives. I simply cannot believe that somebody cannot actually see what is right before their very eyes. I don't know why you insist on exalting your own beliefs above the Word of God, but that's a road that heads straight to destruction in my estimation. As such, I'd solemnly advise you to depart from it, but the choice is ultimately yours to make.
F
The Son of God has come and has given us an understanding that we might know Him who is true; and we're in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life,
1 Jn 5:20.
The Son of God came. When? At His Incarnation. In other words: The Son of God incarnated
Amen! While that's true, it's also incomplete. In that His Father who showed Him and told Him stuff, lived within Him.
Come to know that the Father is in Me and I am in the Father, Jn 10:38.
I am not alone, but I and the Father who sent Me, 8:16.
The Father who abides in Me does His works, 14:10.
Yes, my Isaiah 9:6 translations says 'Eternal Father,' cf Rv 1:4.
When God the Son became Man (flesh)
Christ's Incarnation, Mt 1:1
To me it looks like Heb 1:8 refers to Romans 1:4, when the Lord Jesus became the Son of God (His humanity was designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness out of the resurrection of the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord. See also You are My Son, this day I've begotten You)
Right. Like His births, He has at least 2; so also His anointing.
In any case to your kind question: neither. Rather in Resurrection and Ascension.
I think so. 1st: When God formed His eternal purpose.
And 2nd: Some 'time' in eternity past........which may be another way of saying in eternity.
But also, at His ascension, Acts 2:36
Yes.
a thing that makes me hesitate there is that God's purpose Paul in Ephesians call His 'eternal purpose'
1 Jn 5:20.
The Son of God came. When? At His Incarnation. In other words: The Son of God incarnated
Amen! While that's true, it's also incomplete. In that His Father who showed Him and told Him stuff, lived within Him.
Come to know that the Father is in Me and I am in the Father, Jn 10:38.
I am not alone, but I and the Father who sent Me, 8:16.
The Father who abides in Me does His works, 14:10.
Yes, my Isaiah 9:6 translations says 'Eternal Father,' cf Rv 1:4.
When God the Son became Man (flesh)
Christ's Incarnation, Mt 1:1
To me it looks like Heb 1:8 refers to Romans 1:4, when the Lord Jesus became the Son of God (His humanity was designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness out of the resurrection of the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord. See also You are My Son, this day I've begotten You)
Right. Like His births, He has at least 2; so also His anointing.
In any case to your kind question: neither. Rather in Resurrection and Ascension.
I think so. 1st: When God formed His eternal purpose.
And 2nd: Some 'time' in eternity past........which may be another way of saying in eternity.
But also, at His ascension, Acts 2:36
Yes.
a thing that makes me hesitate there is that God's purpose Paul in Ephesians call His 'eternal purpose'
P
John is looking back in time. For this cause, he says that the Son of God has come, past tense. This does not address, however, when Jesus became the Son of God. You're reading it as if He was the Son of God all along Who then came to this earth, but that is not the necessary understanding of the passage. It could just as easily mean that Jesus became the Son of God when He came. In other words, it could easily mean that Jesus became the Son of God at His incarnation and not that He was always the Son of God Who was later incarnated as you're describing it here.
It is written of Christ that in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, Colossians chapter 2 verse 9, so that would include all Three Persons of the Godhead, would it not? My understanding of this is again simple in that this just speaks to me of how the Three Persons never work independent of each other, but always in perfect unison or unity. That said, Jesus is neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit. They are Three, yet they work together as One.
Again, Christ is not actually the eternal Father though. They are Two, but they act in such unison or unity that to see the One is to see the other. On this point, I think that we agree.
Both you and others use the terminology of God the Son as if it's Biblical. I don't believe that it is. Can you prove the same from scripture? I doubt that you can, but I'll consider any attempts by you or others to do the same, again, from scripture. Jesus is the Son of God. I do not see where He is God the Son and there is a world of difference between the two.
Yes, God the Father became Jesus' God at His incarnation. If it was before His incarnation, then Jesus would be a begotten God which is what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach and which is what this whole eternally begotten thing reminds me of if I'm to be straightforward.
?
You lost me there.
Are you saying that Jesus became the Son of God at His resurrection?
I thought that you believe that Jesus was eternally God the Son?
Do you make a distinction between the Son of God and God the Son, a designation which I find nowhere in scripture, and if so, then what exactly is that distinction?
Here's what I find interesting:
Matthew chapter 3 verses 13 thru 17
Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
To me, it is interesting to note that God the Father spoke from heaven in relation to Jesus being His Son at Christ's baptism which signifies a death, burial and resurrection from the dead. I personally don't believe that the timing of such a proclamation is coincidental and I do personally see a correlation between this and what you mentioned in Romans chapter 1 verse 4.
What births, plural? Please describe for me exactly what you believe these two births to be. Thank you. While you're at it, please describe for me exactly what you believe these two anointings to be. I'm guessing that you believe that Christ was anointed once at some point during His incarnation and yet again after His resurrection from the dead, but I'd like to hear your own explanation so that I'm sure as to what it is that you're actually saying. Thanks.
As far as my question and your answer is concerned, I deliberately gave or after His resurrection as an option because I personally believe that Jesus was anointed with oil of gladness above His fellows after He was raised from the dead and after He by inheritance received a more excellent name than the angels which seems to be the contextual meaning.
So, you believe that Jesus was the Christ in real time in eternity past before the creation of either the world or man and before the fall of man? I personally believe that in the foreknowledge of the Godhead which looked into the future it was predetermined that the Word, Whom we now know as Jesus, would one day come into this world and fulfill the role and mission of the Christ or Messiah, but I don't necessarily believe that the Word was always the Christ...if that makes sense. We might just be splitting hairs here. I think that we both believe that Jesus is the Christ, but we might not believe that He stepped into that office at the same point in time. You seem to believe that He was always the Christ whereas I believe that He became the Christ, in fulfillment of that which had long before been determined in the foreknowledge of the Godhead, at a specific point in time at His incarnation. Again, Christ means anointed, right? When was the Word anointed? Prior to His incarnation or after His incarnation? Was the Word Who already was God anointed? If so, then by Whom? Did God the Father anoint the Word prior to Him taking upon flesh? In other words, did God anoint God? That just doesn't gel with me. It seems to me that the Word was anointed by God in His humanity or when the Word was made flesh.
Okay.
We agree on this.
Why would that make you hesitate?
Doesn't God's eternal purpose as described by Paul in Ephesians have to do with that which He predetermined in His foreknowledge as opposed to that which was then a reality in real time?
My head is kind of spinning. My wife was blasting some ungodly, secular music in the background as I was typing this response, so if I said anything stupid, then there's my built in excuse.
haha.
I'm probably done with this conversation for the night. I need to give my brain a bit of a rest.
It's been good chatting with you.
Good night.
It is written of Christ that in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, Colossians chapter 2 verse 9, so that would include all Three Persons of the Godhead, would it not? My understanding of this is again simple in that this just speaks to me of how the Three Persons never work independent of each other, but always in perfect unison or unity. That said, Jesus is neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit. They are Three, yet they work together as One.
Again, Christ is not actually the eternal Father though. They are Two, but they act in such unison or unity that to see the One is to see the other. On this point, I think that we agree.
Both you and others use the terminology of God the Son as if it's Biblical. I don't believe that it is. Can you prove the same from scripture? I doubt that you can, but I'll consider any attempts by you or others to do the same, again, from scripture. Jesus is the Son of God. I do not see where He is God the Son and there is a world of difference between the two.
Yes, God the Father became Jesus' God at His incarnation. If it was before His incarnation, then Jesus would be a begotten God which is what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach and which is what this whole eternally begotten thing reminds me of if I'm to be straightforward.
?
You lost me there.
Are you saying that Jesus became the Son of God at His resurrection?
I thought that you believe that Jesus was eternally God the Son?
Do you make a distinction between the Son of God and God the Son, a designation which I find nowhere in scripture, and if so, then what exactly is that distinction?
Here's what I find interesting:
Matthew chapter 3 verses 13 thru 17
Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
To me, it is interesting to note that God the Father spoke from heaven in relation to Jesus being His Son at Christ's baptism which signifies a death, burial and resurrection from the dead. I personally don't believe that the timing of such a proclamation is coincidental and I do personally see a correlation between this and what you mentioned in Romans chapter 1 verse 4.
What births, plural? Please describe for me exactly what you believe these two births to be. Thank you. While you're at it, please describe for me exactly what you believe these two anointings to be. I'm guessing that you believe that Christ was anointed once at some point during His incarnation and yet again after His resurrection from the dead, but I'd like to hear your own explanation so that I'm sure as to what it is that you're actually saying. Thanks.
As far as my question and your answer is concerned, I deliberately gave or after His resurrection as an option because I personally believe that Jesus was anointed with oil of gladness above His fellows after He was raised from the dead and after He by inheritance received a more excellent name than the angels which seems to be the contextual meaning.
So, you believe that Jesus was the Christ in real time in eternity past before the creation of either the world or man and before the fall of man? I personally believe that in the foreknowledge of the Godhead which looked into the future it was predetermined that the Word, Whom we now know as Jesus, would one day come into this world and fulfill the role and mission of the Christ or Messiah, but I don't necessarily believe that the Word was always the Christ...if that makes sense. We might just be splitting hairs here. I think that we both believe that Jesus is the Christ, but we might not believe that He stepped into that office at the same point in time. You seem to believe that He was always the Christ whereas I believe that He became the Christ, in fulfillment of that which had long before been determined in the foreknowledge of the Godhead, at a specific point in time at His incarnation. Again, Christ means anointed, right? When was the Word anointed? Prior to His incarnation or after His incarnation? Was the Word Who already was God anointed? If so, then by Whom? Did God the Father anoint the Word prior to Him taking upon flesh? In other words, did God anoint God? That just doesn't gel with me. It seems to me that the Word was anointed by God in His humanity or when the Word was made flesh.
Okay.
We agree on this.
Why would that make you hesitate?
Doesn't God's eternal purpose as described by Paul in Ephesians have to do with that which He predetermined in His foreknowledge as opposed to that which was then a reality in real time?
My head is kind of spinning. My wife was blasting some ungodly, secular music in the background as I was typing this response, so if I said anything stupid, then there's my built in excuse.
haha.
I'm probably done with this conversation for the night. I need to give my brain a bit of a rest.
It's been good chatting with you.
Good night.
Last edited:
S
That is stating the obvious and reiterating what I previously stated to you.
What you fail to grasp is the fact the penalty of sin has been removed from the christian but thou shalt not covet, steal, bear false witness, murder etc has not been removed. It has been written on the mind and placed on the heart of every christian so they in their heart want to obey those commandments.
Only the penalty for breaking the law got removed, not the law itself.
You can only be conscious you commit sin if you steal, lie, murder, covet etc if those laws are within you, for through the law you become conscious of your sin.
If the penalty for breaking the law has been removed by Christ dying for our sins, he is our righteousness, but the good and holy law of God he desires us to keep remains intact in our hearts and minds. That law is fulfilled by faith working through love
What you fail to grasp is the fact the penalty of sin has been removed from the christian but thou shalt not covet, steal, bear false witness, murder etc has not been removed. It has been written on the mind and placed on the heart of every christian so they in their heart want to obey those commandments.
Only the penalty for breaking the law got removed, not the law itself.
You can only be conscious you commit sin if you steal, lie, murder, covet etc if those laws are within you, for through the law you become conscious of your sin.
If the penalty for breaking the law has been removed by Christ dying for our sins, he is our righteousness, but the good and holy law of God he desires us to keep remains intact in our hearts and minds. That law is fulfilled by faith working through love
F
To the contrary, dear sir, Coming implies Preexistence, The Son of God has come, 1 Jn 5:20; Gal 4:4; 1 Jn 3:8. Not coming into existence. Mt 2:2; 6:10
Yes, Amen
I understand. This speaks to me of a lot more. Namely how the Three Persons do not live independent of each other, but always inside One Another
They are Three, however Paul (and Isaiah) use different terminology:
The Lord is the Spirit, 2 Cor 3:17, The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit, 1 Cor 15:45,
A son is given...His name shall be called...Eternal Father, Isa 9:6
Because of the 3 verses quoted above, I am forced to phrase it that Christ is the Eternal Father. Though They are Two, They are also One to the Point of Identification. To me this is a mystery. Col 2:2
Thank you for your kindness to consider this. That is magnanimous, friendly, and open. But before I try----and so as to be able to get the best possible perspective of you, of your thought----Do you say that the Son of God is God?
Fantastic, I appreciate that. That straightforwardness too! Except, as I understand (please correct me if I'm incorrect), the 'Jehovah Witnesses' (Arians) teach that a) Jesus and God are separate (only 'one' in purpose, or work, or agreement),
and that b) since He's begotten, He's a lesser god.
You are more interesting to me now for being the first one I've heard say what you say. I thought Athanasius et. al. used 'Eternally Begotten' to Combat Arianism's teaching of 'once-begotten,' as a once-for-all occurrence sometime before creation
Yes to both. Although with a little care: Namely that the name 'Jesus' emphasizes and refers to His humanity.
As does the title 'Son of Man.' The titles 'Son of God' and 'Christ' refer to His Deity, His divinity. The kicker being that in Scripture like Rom 1:4 and Heb 1:8, His humanity officially and fully becomes Deity.
Namely: in Resurrection
As an aside, do you likewise avoid the words 'Triune' or 'Trinity' because they aren't verbatim in Scripture?
I don't have much occasion, in daily life, to use the expression God the Son; but I think the distinction is that 'God the Son' emphasizes (or refers to) the Son before Incarnation, while 'Son of God' refers to Him at any point. But I don't think that's a 'legal' or strict rule necessarily. As far as Scripture............I will force myself to wait (per above) for a little more understanding of your thought
For space' sake, I'll save my humble, meager answers to this (and your post's end), also, if I may please.
(And yes, I didn't notice your word 'after' when I wrote 'neither,' but I think you got the gist of that one)
Yes, Amen
I understand. This speaks to me of a lot more. Namely how the Three Persons do not live independent of each other, but always inside One Another
They are Three, however Paul (and Isaiah) use different terminology:
The Lord is the Spirit, 2 Cor 3:17, The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit, 1 Cor 15:45,
A son is given...His name shall be called...Eternal Father, Isa 9:6
Because of the 3 verses quoted above, I am forced to phrase it that Christ is the Eternal Father. Though They are Two, They are also One to the Point of Identification. To me this is a mystery. Col 2:2
Thank you for your kindness to consider this. That is magnanimous, friendly, and open. But before I try----and so as to be able to get the best possible perspective of you, of your thought----Do you say that the Son of God is God?
Fantastic, I appreciate that. That straightforwardness too! Except, as I understand (please correct me if I'm incorrect), the 'Jehovah Witnesses' (Arians) teach that a) Jesus and God are separate (only 'one' in purpose, or work, or agreement),
and that b) since He's begotten, He's a lesser god.
You are more interesting to me now for being the first one I've heard say what you say. I thought Athanasius et. al. used 'Eternally Begotten' to Combat Arianism's teaching of 'once-begotten,' as a once-for-all occurrence sometime before creation
Yes to both. Although with a little care: Namely that the name 'Jesus' emphasizes and refers to His humanity.
As does the title 'Son of Man.' The titles 'Son of God' and 'Christ' refer to His Deity, His divinity. The kicker being that in Scripture like Rom 1:4 and Heb 1:8, His humanity officially and fully becomes Deity.
Namely: in Resurrection
As an aside, do you likewise avoid the words 'Triune' or 'Trinity' because they aren't verbatim in Scripture?
I don't have much occasion, in daily life, to use the expression God the Son; but I think the distinction is that 'God the Son' emphasizes (or refers to) the Son before Incarnation, while 'Son of God' refers to Him at any point. But I don't think that's a 'legal' or strict rule necessarily. As far as Scripture............I will force myself to wait (per above) for a little more understanding of your thought
For space' sake, I'll save my humble, meager answers to this (and your post's end), also, if I may please.
(And yes, I didn't notice your word 'after' when I wrote 'neither,' but I think you got the gist of that one)
Last edited by a moderator:
P
Hi flob.
I'm surprised that you would seek to use the above verses as some sort of proof texts in that I believe that they actually refute your own position as opposed to defending it. Let's examine them:
I John chapter 5 verse 20
And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
Have you ever bothered to consider how John began his epistle? He began it in this manner:
I John chapter 1 verses 1 thru 3
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us);
That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
John began his first epistle in precisely the same manner in which he began his gospel by referring to the pre-incarnate Christ as the Word of life or the Word:
John chapter 1 verses 1 thru 3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In both instances, John refers to the Word Who was in the beginning and not to the Son Who was allegedly in the beginning. In his first epistle it isn't until after he mentions how the life was manifested that he mentions Jesus as being God's Son and in his gospel it isn't until after he mentions that the Word was made flesh that he begins to refer to Jesus as the Son of God. In other words, John doesn't refer to Jesus as being God's Son until after His incarnation. What you're doing is putting the proverbial cart before the horse. Show me any place in scripture where John spoke of God the Son from eternity past. I doubt that you'll be able to do so.
The same order applies in relation to I John chapter 3 verse 8:
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
When was the Son of God manifested or made known? From eternity past or at Christ's incarnation? Of course, John was speaking of the timeframe of Christ's incarnation and not from eternity past as you and others assert and he explained as much in the opening verses of both his gospel and his first epistle.
Your Galatians chapter 4 verse 4 citation is even more damaging to your own position. It reads:
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Paul explicitly stated that God's Son was made of a woman and made under the law, but you and others would have us to believe that God's Son was somehow eternally begotten, a self-refuting lie, long before there was ever a woman upon the face of the earth and long before God's law was ever formally given at Mt. Sinai. Can't you see the folly of this position? I'm sorry, flob, but it's error and grievous error at that. In my estimation, this verse alone, and there are many more just like it, single-handedly destroys your position.
I'll address more of your post later.
I'm surprised that you would seek to use the above verses as some sort of proof texts in that I believe that they actually refute your own position as opposed to defending it. Let's examine them:
I John chapter 5 verse 20
And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
Have you ever bothered to consider how John began his epistle? He began it in this manner:
I John chapter 1 verses 1 thru 3
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us);
That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
John began his first epistle in precisely the same manner in which he began his gospel by referring to the pre-incarnate Christ as the Word of life or the Word:
John chapter 1 verses 1 thru 3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In both instances, John refers to the Word Who was in the beginning and not to the Son Who was allegedly in the beginning. In his first epistle it isn't until after he mentions how the life was manifested that he mentions Jesus as being God's Son and in his gospel it isn't until after he mentions that the Word was made flesh that he begins to refer to Jesus as the Son of God. In other words, John doesn't refer to Jesus as being God's Son until after His incarnation. What you're doing is putting the proverbial cart before the horse. Show me any place in scripture where John spoke of God the Son from eternity past. I doubt that you'll be able to do so.
The same order applies in relation to I John chapter 3 verse 8:
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
When was the Son of God manifested or made known? From eternity past or at Christ's incarnation? Of course, John was speaking of the timeframe of Christ's incarnation and not from eternity past as you and others assert and he explained as much in the opening verses of both his gospel and his first epistle.
Your Galatians chapter 4 verse 4 citation is even more damaging to your own position. It reads:
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Paul explicitly stated that God's Son was made of a woman and made under the law, but you and others would have us to believe that God's Son was somehow eternally begotten, a self-refuting lie, long before there was ever a woman upon the face of the earth and long before God's law was ever formally given at Mt. Sinai. Can't you see the folly of this position? I'm sorry, flob, but it's error and grievous error at that. In my estimation, this verse alone, and there are many more just like it, single-handedly destroys your position.
I'll address more of your post later.