POLL: The Deity of Christ

[senzi]

Rev 11:15; Lk 1:33, Da 7:14 present Jesus as reigning forever over the Kingdom (glorified church and body of Christ).

Christ has all power and authority in heaven and on earth, given to him by the father (matt28:18)
Christ is over all now. But when all is defeated he will hand over the kingdom to the father and be made subject to him. The father will then reign as the quote in revelation confirms. It is all very plainly written. A child could understand it, but the wise and learned.... Luke 10:21

 

[oldhermit]

Does John's description define the term in Jn 8:42, 16:27, 28, 17:8,
which is also a description of begetting?

These verses and a number of others like them demonstrate the fact that he was already "Son" before God declares him to be begotten. "You ARE my Son. Today have I begotten you." His sonship precedes his being begotten.

Paul does not exclude begetting.
His emphasis is on proof of sonship and kingship presented with power on the day of the resurrection.

Yes, I think this is a very valid point. He is not the Son because he is begotten, he is begotten because he is Son.

 

[valiant]

Christ has all power and authority in heaven and on earth, given to him by the father (matt28:18)
Christ is over all now. But when all is defeated he will hand over the kingdom to the father and be made subject to him. The father will then reign as the quote in revelation confirms. It is all very plainly written. A child could understand it, but the wise and learned.... Luke 10:21

But that is not what it finally says. It does not say that the Father will be all in all. It says GOD will be all in all. Father, Son and Holy Spirit will be all in all.

 

[senzi]

But that is not what it finally says. It does not say that the Father will be all in all. It says GOD will be all in all. Father, Son and Holy Spirit will be all in all.

For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
For he has put everything under his feet. Now when it says that everything has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself who put everything under Christ.
When he has done this, then the son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him so that God may be all in all
1cor 15:25-28

 

[Elin]

These verses and a number of others like them demonstrate the fact that he was already "Son" before God declares him to be begotten. "You ARE my Son. Today have I begotten you." His sonship precedes his being begotten.



Yes, I think this is a very valid point. He is not the Son because he is begotten, he is begotten because he is Son.

So what is your definition of "begotten?"

It is the same as the word is used in the OT begats?

If not, why not?

 

[oldhermit]

So what is your definition of "begotten?"

It is the same as the word is used in the OT begats?

If not, why not?

No. As the term applies to those begotten of men, these were brought into existence by virtue of human conception. Since Jesus was not brought into existence by an act of human conception we know this definition cannot apply to him. I think what Paul tells us in Col 1:13-20 offers us a little better insight into what this implies in the concept of Firstborn. What is it that makes him the Firstborn?

 

[Elin]

Rev 11:15; Lk 1:33, Da 7:14 present Jesus as reigning forever over the Kingdom (glorified church and body of Christ).

Christ has all power and authority in heaven and on earth, given to him by the father (matt28:18)
Christ is over all now. But when all is defeated he will hand over the kingdom to the father and be made subject to him.

Which does not mean Jesus does not reign as a subject king of the Father,
as Solomon was subject king of God (2Sa 7:13-14).

The father will then reign as the quote in revelation confirms. It is all very plainly written. A child could understand it,

Non-responsive. . .

 

[Elin]

No. As the term applies to those begotten of men, these were brought into existence by virtue of human conception. Since Jesus was not brought into existence by an act of human conception

He was conceived from the seed of Mary. Can he be fully man without a human conception?

we know this definition cannot apply to him. I think what Paul tells us in Col 1:13-20 offers us a little better insight into what this implies in the concept of Firstborn. What is it that makes him the Firstborn?

He is the "firstborn over all creation"--privileges and rights in relation to creation (vv. 16-18),
priority, pre-eminence, sovereignty.

How is that begetting?

 

[Pumicestone]

Originally Posted by Pumicestone

But Old Hermit, Iggy is for wimps who cannot abide any view other than their own
nor any suggestion that they might lack humility.

Who made that rule?

I did


Nahhhhh - just expressing a personal opinion, Elin. Is that permitted ?

 

[oldhermit]

He was conceived from the seed of Mary. Can he be fully man without a human conception?

Of course God could have accomplished this any way he chose and this was simply the way God chose to do it.

He is the "firstborn over all creation"--privileges and rights in relation to creation (vv. 16-18),
priority, pre-eminence, sovereignty.

How is that begetting?

Let me see if I can put this concept into one solid framewhrok for you. Jesus is the prototype for redeemed humanity. “I shall be a Father to him and he shall be a Son to me. And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, 'And let all the angels of God worship him.'”

1. “A Father” - πατέρα – This signifies authorship, a progenitor, usually with regard to a family line. It also describes the beginning of a society whose members possess the same spirit as its author. This idea is embodied in role of Abraham. Physically, he is the progenitor of an entire race – the Jews. Paul also reveals him as the “father” of the circumcised of heart who possess the same faith or spirit as that of Abraham, Romans 4. Through Jesus, God has brought forth a new society of people who are animated by the same Spirit of God. This idea is further illustrated in the concept of “First-born” as we will see in chapter six.
2. “A Son” - This implies a relationship of submission in his redemptive and mediatorial role. “Will be” suggests a change in status. If the implication is one of subjection, it then follows that Jesus, prior to his incarnation, was not in subjection to the Father as a subordinate being or even as a lesser member of the Godhead. Philippians 2:5-11 explains very well the idea subjection and subordination as a change of status that is outside the norm. What Jesus surrendered in becoming man was not IN-equality but equality. It is impossible to surrender that which one does not possess.
3. “First-born” – πρωτότοκον – This defines the first of anything that is born of flock, heard, or even men. Jesus becomes the first, the προς τον τυρον – the one for the pattern. He is the prototype of a new society of those who by faith become children of God, Romans 8:29; those of whom John says, “are born not of flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the God,” John 1:12-13. Jesus becomes the forerunner of the sons of God through his resurrection,“You are my Son; Today I have begotten you.” Firstborn also implies that others are to follow.
The significance of firstborn has its roots in the Old Testament. Being the firstborn son carried prestige, honor, privilege, blessing, authority, and double portion inheritance. Being the firstborn was also a matter of consecration to God, Exodus 13:3,11-16.

In the New Testament, Jesus is called “firstborn” eight times and always with the same implications.
a. He was the first-born of Mary, Luke 2:7, Matthew 1:25. We know Mary had other children whose names are recorded in Matthew 13:55-56 but, Jesus was her firstborn. He was the first in the order of others that followed.
b. He is called the firstborn among many brethren, Romans 8:29. He is the prototype -the first, into whose image Christians are to conform.
c. He is called the firstborn in Hebrews12:23 to whom the church belongs.
d. He is called the firstborn of every creature, Colossians 1:15-17. He is not firstborn because he was created first. He is first-born because:

* All things were created by him. He is the active cause of all things that exist and the one to whom all things belong.
* He is before all things – this establishes divine preeminence.
* He holds all things together. This illustrates divine power

e. He is called firstborn from among the dead, Colossians 1:18. This does not means that he was the first one ever resurrected from the dead. It does not even mean that he is the first one resurrected from the dead never to die again. What it means is that he holds preeminent status because:

* He is the head of the body.
* He is the ἀρχή – the beginning as in the active cause, the one through whose power all things had their beginning.
* He is the first one of a new society of sons of God.

f. In Hebrews 1:6 he is called the first-born of the Father.

 

[senzi]

Christ is the firstborn who rose from the dead never to die a physical death again.
If Christ is not first born over all creation is it believed God has existed for infinitum as a trinity-as three persons, never one?
The biblical begining is creation

 

[Elin]

Originally Posted by Pumicestone

But Old Hermit, Iggy is for wimps who cannot abide any view other than their own
nor any suggestion that they might lack humility.

I did


Nahhhhh - just expressing a personal opinion, Elin. Is that permitted ?

Informed opinions are preferred. . .

 

[Elin]

I prefer to rely on the inner conviction of the holy spirit, rather than much theological study of the academic mind. That mind is fallible. Paul is clear, Christ WILL reign UNTIL all is defeated including the last enemy death. The person led of the spirit accepts that, the

Person led of the academic mind comes up with all kinds of theologising and refutes it

So academic minds cannot have true spiritual knowledge. . .

How thoughtless of God.

 

[Pumicestone]

Very clearly the Old Hermit is a man of learning. Albeit with an obvious penchant for cut-and-paste.

Perhaps he can explain for this poor humble Aussie .....

If the Messiah was to be born in the Tribe of Judah "according to the flesh" - and Mary was a Levite -
how can Yeshua be the Davidic messiah ...... without an earthly father ?

Sources will be cited if asked - but I'm sure you know them already.

 

[oldhermit]

Very clearly the Old Hermit is a man of learning. Albeit with an obvious penchant for cut-and-paste.

Perhaps he can explain for this poor humble Aussie .....

If the Messiah was to be born in the Tribe of Judah "according to the flesh" - and Mary was a Levite -
how can Yeshua be the Davidic messiah ...... without an earthly father ?

Sources will be cited if asked - but I'm sure you know them already.

It is not cut and paste. The material is mine. Every post I have made is my own material and published in my name.

 

[Elin]

These verses and a number of others like them demonstrate the fact that he was already "Son" before God declares him to be begotten. "You ARE my Son. Today have I begotten you." His sonship precedes his being begotten.

Spoken in a time frame, which does not exclude being made son in the same day as begotten.

 

[oldhermit]

Spoken in a time frame, which does not exclude being made son in the same day as begotten.

He has already spoken of himself as the Son of God many time is the gospels. It was in his resurrection where the term begotten is applied.

 

[Pumicestone]

It is not cut and paste. The material is mine. Every post I have made is my own material and published in my name.

In which case, I grovel. It just had the sniff of "un-originality" .
When you say "published", do you mean just here - or more broadly ?

In any case, I patiently await your response to my query.

 

[oldhermit]

In which case, I grovel. It just had the sniff of "un-originality" .
When you say "published", do you mean just here - or more broadly ?

In any case, I patiently await your response to my query.

It was published on a website called My Life in the Son on mylifeintheson.org.

 

[senzi]

So academic minds cannot have true spiritual knowledge. . .

How thoughtless of God.

That is a rather silly comment. Those who look to learn of the spiritual through the academic mind-leaning on it to learn of spiritual truth will not learn much. The Holy spirit is called the spirit of truth for a reason.