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
In my estimation, that is precisely why they insist upon the same. In other words, if somebody believes in God the Son or that Jesus was always the Son of God, then they're immediately confronted with the problem of how could God eternally have a Son? Hence, this eternally begotten, self-refuting nonsense. I personally don't believe that Jesus was always the Son of God and I'm definitely opposed to the terminology of God the Son. Do I believe that Jesus was always God? Absolutely. Always the Son of God? I highly, highly doubt it. I personally lean very strongly in the direction of Incarnational Sonship or that Jesus became the Son of God at the time of His incarnation. Either way, Psalm 2:7 and all of the references to the same in the New Testament definitely point to the distinct day in linear history when Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. Not because I say so, but because the Bible says so and I hopefully just presented a good representation of the same by the grace of God.
LOl. νήπιος () and παιδίον () both refer to an infant or a child irrespective of age. Metaphorically it refers to one who is unlearned or unenlightened. Even when Jesus was a child he was never referred to as thenapios or paidion - child of God.
τέκνον (teknon) refers to one who is a child as one who is a descendent. Jesus is never referred to as a descendent of God.
υἱὸν (huion) can imply descendancy as in one who is an offspring but more appropriately it emphasizes likeness of character, nature, form or behavior. It also signifies one who has the legal right to the Father's inheritance.We can see examples of υἱὸν used to define the nature, actions, form, or character of a person such as Mark 3:17 where Jesus calls James and John “sons - υἱοὶ - of thunder;” Not because they were literally the offsprings of a natural phenomenon but, because of their violent and explosive nature. In Matthew 23:15, Jesus calls the Pharisees the υἱοὶ of hell because their character reflected the nature of darkness. Since we have so many passages that represent Jesus as eternal we know that υἱὸν cannot then refer to descendancy because as God he has none. Only as a man do we see him as with a linage as a descentant of the human race. Jesus, who is the υἱὸν θεοῦ – Son of God, is so because he bears the same nature, form, and and moral character of God. Christians are also called υἱοί Θεοῦ - sons of God for the same reason. As Christians we take on the character and nature of God. We are also called the τέκνα - children of God because we are his children by adoption, a term that is never used in scripture to refer to Christ. Jesus is NEVER called the child of God, always the υἱὸν - the one who bears the image of God. This is Phil 2 and Heb 1.
τέκνον (teknon) refers to one who is a child as one who is a descendent. Jesus is never referred to as a descendent of God.
υἱὸν (huion) can imply descendancy as in one who is an offspring but more appropriately it emphasizes likeness of character, nature, form or behavior. It also signifies one who has the legal right to the Father's inheritance.We can see examples of υἱὸν used to define the nature, actions, form, or character of a person such as Mark 3:17 where Jesus calls James and John “sons - υἱοὶ - of thunder;” Not because they were literally the offsprings of a natural phenomenon but, because of their violent and explosive nature. In Matthew 23:15, Jesus calls the Pharisees the υἱοὶ of hell because their character reflected the nature of darkness. Since we have so many passages that represent Jesus as eternal we know that υἱὸν cannot then refer to descendancy because as God he has none. Only as a man do we see him as with a linage as a descentant of the human race. Jesus, who is the υἱὸν θεοῦ – Son of God, is so because he bears the same nature, form, and and moral character of God. Christians are also called υἱοί Θεοῦ - sons of God for the same reason. As Christians we take on the character and nature of God. We are also called the τέκνα - children of God because we are his children by adoption, a term that is never used in scripture to refer to Christ. Jesus is NEVER called the child of God, always the υἱὸν - the one who bears the image of God. This is Phil 2 and Heb 1.
Last edited:
Just for a point of clarification I noticed that for some reason some of the anglicized terms did not post and a couple of words ran together. Here is how that first paragraph should read.
νήπιος (napios) and παιδίον (paidion) both refer to an infant or a child irrespective of age. Metaphorically it refers to one who is unlearned or unenlightened. Even when Jesus was a child he was never referred to as the napios or paidion - child of God.
νήπιος (napios) and παιδίον (paidion) both refer to an infant or a child irrespective of age. Metaphorically it refers to one who is unlearned or unenlightened. Even when Jesus was a child he was never referred to as the napios or paidion - child of God.
P
I just stated that I don't personally believe that Jesus was always the Son of God, but I really should have said that I don't believe that the Word, which is what Jesus was seemingly known as before His incarnation, was always the Son of God, but I definitely believe that the Word was always God. I believe that in the foreknowledge of the Godhead or the Trinity it had been predetermined that the Word would become flesh and come to this earth as a man and become both the Son of God and the Son of man, but I don't personally believe that He always was the Son of God nor do I believe that He was always the Son of man. The prophesied Son of man, yes, but the Son of man from eternity past? No, unless someone is only talking about in the foreknowledge or predetermination of the Godhead.
It might be best if we define some terms in relation to this discussion and that's all that it is at my end:
A discussion.
In other words, I'm not being dogmatic in what I'm about to address. I'm simply offering up some musings of my own on the Bible Discussion Forum that we might actually discuss the Bible and our respective understandings of the same.
That said, I don't even necessarily believe that the Word was always the Christ or the Messiah. Before anybody stones me to death, please allow me to explain what I mean by that. In other words, although He's always existed as God from eternity past, He took on the role of Christ or Messiah at His incarnation. Prior to that time, although I believe that He was fully God, I don't necessarily believe that He was always the Messiah. The One prophesied to become the Messiah, definitely, but not necessarily the Messiah until the time of His incarnation arrived. Do you see the distinction between the two? In other words, He was foreordained before the foundation of the world to be the sacrificial Lamb of God, but such became a reality in real time during His incarnation.
I'm also not so sure that Jesus was always known as Jesus. Again, I believe that He was always God from eternity past, but I'm not so sure that He was always known by the name of Jesus which means Jehovah is salvation. He's referred to as the Word or Logos initially and Jesus may have been the name which was given to Him in relation to His incarnation and the mission which He was sent to accomplish as the Messiah Who came to save us from our sins. Again, I believe that it had been determined before the foundation of the world that He would be given such a name and I believe that Joshua in the Old Testament foreshadows Jesus in certain ways with one of them being a commonality in relation to their names, but I don't necessarily believe that Jesus was known by the name of Jesus prior to His incarnation. Again, do you see the distinction that I'm trying to make in relation to foreknowledge or predetermination and the actual fulfillment of the same?
Here's what I believe in light of the distinctions that I tried to make above:
I believe that the Word had zero births and that He existed from everlasting to everlasting.
I believe that the Word Whom we now refer to as Jesus in hindsight had a birth during His incarnation approximately 2,000 years ago when the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, John 1:14 and I fully believe in the virgin birth or that there was no natural father involved in Jesus' conception.
I believe that after His crucifixion Jesus was begotten or raised from the dead and that He is now seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven and that He will remain there until the time of His second coming. I'm guessing that you're asking me if I believe then that Christ had two births:
One at His incarnation.
Another at His resurrection from the dead.
I don't know that I would call what transpired at His resurrection a second birth. This is where we need to be careful because certain sects, for example, some within the Word of Faith, WOF, movement believe and teach that Jesus was born again in hell or something to that effect. Again, I'm not sure that I would call His resurrection from the dead a second birth, but rather a resurrection from the dead. In my mind, there is a distinction between the two terms.
It might be best if we define some terms in relation to this discussion and that's all that it is at my end:
A discussion.
In other words, I'm not being dogmatic in what I'm about to address. I'm simply offering up some musings of my own on the Bible Discussion Forum that we might actually discuss the Bible and our respective understandings of the same.
That said, I don't even necessarily believe that the Word was always the Christ or the Messiah. Before anybody stones me to death, please allow me to explain what I mean by that. In other words, although He's always existed as God from eternity past, He took on the role of Christ or Messiah at His incarnation. Prior to that time, although I believe that He was fully God, I don't necessarily believe that He was always the Messiah. The One prophesied to become the Messiah, definitely, but not necessarily the Messiah until the time of His incarnation arrived. Do you see the distinction between the two? In other words, He was foreordained before the foundation of the world to be the sacrificial Lamb of God, but such became a reality in real time during His incarnation.
I'm also not so sure that Jesus was always known as Jesus. Again, I believe that He was always God from eternity past, but I'm not so sure that He was always known by the name of Jesus which means Jehovah is salvation. He's referred to as the Word or Logos initially and Jesus may have been the name which was given to Him in relation to His incarnation and the mission which He was sent to accomplish as the Messiah Who came to save us from our sins. Again, I believe that it had been determined before the foundation of the world that He would be given such a name and I believe that Joshua in the Old Testament foreshadows Jesus in certain ways with one of them being a commonality in relation to their names, but I don't necessarily believe that Jesus was known by the name of Jesus prior to His incarnation. Again, do you see the distinction that I'm trying to make in relation to foreknowledge or predetermination and the actual fulfillment of the same?
Here's what I believe in light of the distinctions that I tried to make above:
I believe that the Word had zero births and that He existed from everlasting to everlasting.
I believe that the Word Whom we now refer to as Jesus in hindsight had a birth during His incarnation approximately 2,000 years ago when the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, John 1:14 and I fully believe in the virgin birth or that there was no natural father involved in Jesus' conception.
I believe that after His crucifixion Jesus was begotten or raised from the dead and that He is now seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven and that He will remain there until the time of His second coming. I'm guessing that you're asking me if I believe then that Christ had two births:
One at His incarnation.
Another at His resurrection from the dead.
I don't know that I would call what transpired at His resurrection a second birth. This is where we need to be careful because certain sects, for example, some within the Word of Faith, WOF, movement believe and teach that Jesus was born again in hell or something to that effect. Again, I'm not sure that I would call His resurrection from the dead a second birth, but rather a resurrection from the dead. In my mind, there is a distinction between the two terms.
P
Thanks for the clarification and I definitely will look more into the usages of the different words which you mentioned in my own time of private study. Right now, I'm discussing a little, but I'm hoping to look into that in the not too distant future. Possibly as early as tomorrow morning, Lord willing.
F
Thank you for not being dogmatic on this.
What do you feel the beginning, in Jn 1:1, is?
And (maybe you already tried to answer this somewhere), do you think the title Father is eternal?
And, if you have the time dear sir, do you have a reason to dislike or be troubled, either within the Bible, or out, by the notion of the eternal Son of God? I mean, to the point of it being dogmatically 'out of the question' to you?
yes
What do you feel the beginning, in Jn 1:1, is?
And (maybe you already tried to answer this somewhere), do you think the title Father is eternal?
And, if you have the time dear sir, do you have a reason to dislike or be troubled, either within the Bible, or out, by the notion of the eternal Son of God? I mean, to the point of it being dogmatically 'out of the question' to you?
yes
Last edited by a moderator:
What do you think Scripture's answer is to that?
That is also my answer.
Jesus made clear what laws God desires his people to keep in Mt 22:37-39, which covers all the law of God (Mt 22:40).
Sorry, that (Jer 31:31-32) is a the promise of the new covenant, and it is the new covenant (Lk 22:20) law (Mt 22:37-39), that is the law written on the mind and in the heart (Mt 22:40).
The law of Christ, which is the law of God (1Co 9:21) remains (Mt 22:37-40; Ro 13:8, 9, 10),
for which there is no condemnation for failure to keep it perfectly.
Yes, in the new covenant, we uphold the law, setting it on its right basis,
subject to the law of grace, and not as a means of righteousness/justification as in the old covenant.
In the new covenant, God's law for holy living is Mt 22:37-40.
That is also my answer.
Jesus made clear what laws God desires his people to keep in Mt 22:37-39, which covers all the law of God (Mt 22:40).
Sorry, that (Jer 31:31-32) is a the promise of the new covenant, and it is the new covenant (Lk 22:20) law (Mt 22:37-39), that is the law written on the mind and in the heart (Mt 22:40).
The law of Christ, which is the law of God (1Co 9:21) remains (Mt 22:37-40; Ro 13:8, 9, 10),
for which there is no condemnation for failure to keep it perfectly.
Yes, in the new covenant, we uphold the law, setting it on its right basis,
subject to the law of grace, and not as a means of righteousness/justification as in the old covenant.
In the new covenant, God's law for holy living is Mt 22:37-40.
S
I am afraid your knowledge of this subject is rather limited elin. I could put much scripture before you but to no avail, you could not admit your error sadly. A christian is conscious of their sin. That can only happen through the law rom 3:20.
Under the new covenant the law is written on your mind and placed on your heart
The Nt church would have disagreed with you plainly. They gave specific laws to follow and differentiated between jew and gentile in this regard.
But sadly I must leave it there. It would be too much for you to admit to error on this methinks
Under the new covenant the law is written on your mind and placed on your heart
The Nt church would have disagreed with you plainly. They gave specific laws to follow and differentiated between jew and gentile in this regard.
But sadly I must leave it there. It would be too much for you to admit to error on this methinks
P
You're welcome.
Do you know what? As many times as I've read the Bible, I've never really asked myself that question nor studied it out. My initial thoughts are that it's referring to the beginning of the creation because that is how it is used elsewhere by Jesus Himself and also because that which is eternal really has no beginning. In other words, it seems as if it has to be the beginning of that which actually has a beginning and God has none.
Again, with as many times as I've read the Bible, I've never really considered that either. Once more, my initial response, in line with some of my previously stated beliefs, would be that I cannot see how God could have always been the Father in real time. By that I mean to say that before the creation of the world I don't see how He was a Father unless Jesus truly was eternally begotten in the manner in which multitudes believe that He was, but I'm not listed among that number. Again, it is a self-refuting concept in that that which is eternal can never be generated or begotten in the manner in which some wrongly, in my estimation, use that term in relation to Christ. That said, again, in the foreknowledge and predetermination of God I can easily allow for the title of Father in that angels are called sons of God, Adam was initially called the son of God, Christ became the Son of God and Christians are called sons and daughters of God. Was God however eternally a Father? I'd have to say no at this point in time. What do you think?
For reasons which I've already stated and in light of a whole host of scriptures which have yet to be addressed here, I'd have to say that at this point in time Jesus eternally being the Son of God is pretty much out of the question. Don't get me wrong. I'll listen to opposing viewpoints, but they'd better be backed up by in context scriptures. As far as being either disliked or troubled, anything that I believe to be contrary to scripture is disliked by me and troubling to me in general.
Do you know what? As many times as I've read the Bible, I've never really asked myself that question nor studied it out. My initial thoughts are that it's referring to the beginning of the creation because that is how it is used elsewhere by Jesus Himself and also because that which is eternal really has no beginning. In other words, it seems as if it has to be the beginning of that which actually has a beginning and God has none.
Again, with as many times as I've read the Bible, I've never really considered that either. Once more, my initial response, in line with some of my previously stated beliefs, would be that I cannot see how God could have always been the Father in real time. By that I mean to say that before the creation of the world I don't see how He was a Father unless Jesus truly was eternally begotten in the manner in which multitudes believe that He was, but I'm not listed among that number. Again, it is a self-refuting concept in that that which is eternal can never be generated or begotten in the manner in which some wrongly, in my estimation, use that term in relation to Christ. That said, again, in the foreknowledge and predetermination of God I can easily allow for the title of Father in that angels are called sons of God, Adam was initially called the son of God, Christ became the Son of God and Christians are called sons and daughters of God. Was God however eternally a Father? I'd have to say no at this point in time. What do you think?
For reasons which I've already stated and in light of a whole host of scriptures which have yet to be addressed here, I'd have to say that at this point in time Jesus eternally being the Son of God is pretty much out of the question. Don't get me wrong. I'll listen to opposing viewpoints, but they'd better be backed up by in context scriptures. As far as being either disliked or troubled, anything that I believe to be contrary to scripture is disliked by me and troubling to me in general.
S
Scripture states Christ died for our sins. It does not state he died to annul the law. Therefore Christ died to pay the penalty of our transgressions of the law, but the law we are required to keep remains intact on our hearts and minds. Therefore Christ is the end of the law UNTO RIGHTEOUSNESS not full stop. We know from rom 10:4 that when Paul states we are not under the law-we die to the law, he means a law of righteousness with the penalty of sin removed from us
Paul also states:
The power of sin is the law 1cor15:56
Does the true power of sin remain for the christian?
For sin shall not be your master for you are not under law(a law of righteousness) but under grace(through faith in Christ)
Under grace the penalty of sin is removed for the christian, under law it is not.
So what us the true power of sin?
A child could work it out, but someone relying on the academic mind to learn?
Paul also states:
The power of sin is the law 1cor15:56
Does the true power of sin remain for the christian?
For sin shall not be your master for you are not under law(a law of righteousness) but under grace(through faith in Christ)
Under grace the penalty of sin is removed for the christian, under law it is not.
So what us the true power of sin?
A child could work it out, but someone relying on the academic mind to learn?
F
what a kind thoughtful open response.
I'm thinking of the phrase Eternal Father in Isaiah 9:6.
And I'm out the door to go swimming in the lake, so I apologize for
not 'bombarding' you initially.
So then you have heard the phrase: Always a Father, Always a Son?
On the part of Athanasius and others to combat the heresy of Arius:
that Christ (the Son, the Word) is not God. Not the only, true, one God.
But rather some lesser, inferior, nonequal, character.
Hence also Eternally Begotten. Meaning, that in terms of the Triune,
The Father Son Relationship is Eternal. Without beginning. And, unlike
human births, for example, not a one time occurrence.
This maybe, maybe, Lord help me, as I take my kind leave of you for the while:
is also in the Lord's phrase that He Is. (He Is the I Am). The Son of God is Eternally
the I Am, and one with the I Am, as the I Am's Outflow. In particular.
He said I Am Resurrection. I Am the Resurrection
thanks for your further thought, and time
I'm thinking of the phrase Eternal Father in Isaiah 9:6.
And I'm out the door to go swimming in the lake, so I apologize for
not 'bombarding' you initially.
So then you have heard the phrase: Always a Father, Always a Son?
On the part of Athanasius and others to combat the heresy of Arius:
that Christ (the Son, the Word) is not God. Not the only, true, one God.
But rather some lesser, inferior, nonequal, character.
Hence also Eternally Begotten. Meaning, that in terms of the Triune,
The Father Son Relationship is Eternal. Without beginning. And, unlike
human births, for example, not a one time occurrence.
This maybe, maybe, Lord help me, as I take my kind leave of you for the while:
is also in the Lord's phrase that He Is. (He Is the I Am). The Son of God is Eternally
the I Am, and one with the I Am, as the I Am's Outflow. In particular.
He said I Am Resurrection. I Am the Resurrection
thanks for your further thought, and time
P
I kind of figured that you were. Here's the verse:
Isaiah chapter 9 verse 6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Ironically, this verse is one of the primary texts used by those who believe in Incarnational Sonship to support the same. In other words, unto us a child is born and unto a son is given. When? At His incarnation and not before.
Regarding the everlasting Father part, is Jesus really the everlasting Father? I mean, the text is referring to the Messiah or to the Christ and Jesus repeatedly referred to God as His Father during His incarnation. How then is Jesus the everlasting Father? Well, it seems to me that the simple answer is found in that Jesus never did or spoke anything without first hearing it from or seeing it in His Father, so He could rightly tell Philip that if he had seen Him, then He had seen the Father. In other words, if you had a son who never did or said anything apart from you and I asked him to show me you, then he could rightly say, Hey, if you've seen me, you've seen my father because I and my father are one as in united in everything that we do and speak.
That said, there is much controversy regarding the usages of such words as everlasting and eternal in scripture and their underlying Hebrew and Greek meanings. Everlasting and eternal don't always mean just that. For example, the same word which is translated in Isaiah chapter 9 verse 6 as everlasting is translated as for ever and ever in Psalm 45 verse 6:
Psalm 45 verses 6 and 7
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
This verse is attributed to Jesus in Hebrews chapter 1 verses 8 and 9:
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Here are my questions for you:
When did God the Father become Jesus' God because that is the context here in that God is called the Messiah's God or thy God?
From eternity past or at Christ's incarnation?
To me, the answer must be at Christ's incarnation, so how then can this for ever and ever literally mean eternal or everlasting in that it has a starting point in time?
Also, when did God the Father anoint Jesus with the oil of gladness?
Prior to His incarnation when He was already fully God Himself or at, during or after His incarnation?
Christ means anointed, right?
Again, when did Jesus become the Christ?
In eternity past or at His incarnation?
Do you understand my questions?
In my present understanding, the context of Hebrews chapter 1 seems to be speaking of the time of Christ's resurrection from the dead when He was anointed with the oil of gladness above His fellows. In other words, the immediate context, some of which I covered in a previous response to Elin, is that of Him obtaining by inheritance a more excellent name than the angels. To me, this seems to coincide with Him being anointed above His fellows or above all. If such is the case, then, again, for ever and ever or everlasting doesn't necessarily mean what we think that it means in our own mindsets. There are several things which were said to be everlasting in scripture which not only had beginning points, but ending points as well. Parts of the Old Covenant would be one primary example of that.
Like I said, I believe that the Word was always God, but not necessarily that the Word was always the Christ or the Messiah. In the foreknowledge and predetermination of the Godhead, yes, but in real time, no.
Enjoy your time at the lake. I've got to see to some things for a bit myself.
Isaiah chapter 9 verse 6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Ironically, this verse is one of the primary texts used by those who believe in Incarnational Sonship to support the same. In other words, unto us a child is born and unto a son is given. When? At His incarnation and not before.
Regarding the everlasting Father part, is Jesus really the everlasting Father? I mean, the text is referring to the Messiah or to the Christ and Jesus repeatedly referred to God as His Father during His incarnation. How then is Jesus the everlasting Father? Well, it seems to me that the simple answer is found in that Jesus never did or spoke anything without first hearing it from or seeing it in His Father, so He could rightly tell Philip that if he had seen Him, then He had seen the Father. In other words, if you had a son who never did or said anything apart from you and I asked him to show me you, then he could rightly say, Hey, if you've seen me, you've seen my father because I and my father are one as in united in everything that we do and speak.
That said, there is much controversy regarding the usages of such words as everlasting and eternal in scripture and their underlying Hebrew and Greek meanings. Everlasting and eternal don't always mean just that. For example, the same word which is translated in Isaiah chapter 9 verse 6 as everlasting is translated as for ever and ever in Psalm 45 verse 6:
Psalm 45 verses 6 and 7
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
This verse is attributed to Jesus in Hebrews chapter 1 verses 8 and 9:
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Here are my questions for you:
When did God the Father become Jesus' God because that is the context here in that God is called the Messiah's God or thy God?
From eternity past or at Christ's incarnation?
To me, the answer must be at Christ's incarnation, so how then can this for ever and ever literally mean eternal or everlasting in that it has a starting point in time?
Also, when did God the Father anoint Jesus with the oil of gladness?
Prior to His incarnation when He was already fully God Himself or at, during or after His incarnation?
Christ means anointed, right?
Again, when did Jesus become the Christ?
In eternity past or at His incarnation?
Do you understand my questions?
In my present understanding, the context of Hebrews chapter 1 seems to be speaking of the time of Christ's resurrection from the dead when He was anointed with the oil of gladness above His fellows. In other words, the immediate context, some of which I covered in a previous response to Elin, is that of Him obtaining by inheritance a more excellent name than the angels. To me, this seems to coincide with Him being anointed above His fellows or above all. If such is the case, then, again, for ever and ever or everlasting doesn't necessarily mean what we think that it means in our own mindsets. There are several things which were said to be everlasting in scripture which not only had beginning points, but ending points as well. Parts of the Old Covenant would be one primary example of that.
Like I said, I believe that the Word was always God, but not necessarily that the Word was always the Christ or the Messiah. In the foreknowledge and predetermination of the Godhead, yes, but in real time, no.
Enjoy your time at the lake. I've got to see to some things for a bit myself.
Prophecy is often multi-level, not always referring to the same event.
I'm not convinced the prophets always understood the full significance of their prophecies (1Pe 1:10-11) as you assume David did here.
I don't see this as an answer to a question.
I see this as a declaration (irrevocable decree) regarding his King of v. 6,
as begotten of God (in the everlasting now--today--of eternity) and proved with power by the resurrection (Ro 1:4).
So not seeing it as an answer to a question, my understanding of v. 7 does not go in the same direction as your understanding.
It would be helpful if you could give some NT examples of gennao being used to mean "to raise up."
My understanding does not go in the same direction as your understanding because I do not see v. 7 as the answer to a question.
I see the question of what "begotten" is referring to here as settled by Paul in Ro 1:4:
"Jesus was declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead."
I do not think Paul is using "today" in the sense of linear time, but is simply quoting the decree
which is proven by the power of Jesus' resurrection.
The promise made to the fathers was not a promise of Christ's resurrection,
it was the promise of Ge 12:3, of the Messiah, through whom all the nations would be blessed.
You have changed the meaning of the promise.
God the Son is God from eternity past.
Jesus the man, God the Son in the flesh, is not from eternity past, and did not exist until his conception in time.
Jesus the man did not exist in eternity past, God the Son did.
I understand what you are saying. . .the issue is agreement.
Yes, everything regarding Jesus of Nazareth was fulfilled in linear time.
Well, I can see your reasoning. . .very well done. . .thanks so much.
But I'm not there yet. . .if I will ever be.
You changed the meaning of the promise to the fathers in Ge 12:3.
So do you have other NT examples of gennao being used to mean "to raise up" to support your use of the word in this way?
I'm not convinced the prophets always understood the full significance of their prophecies (1Pe 1:10-11) as you assume David did here.
I don't see this as an answer to a question.
I see this as a declaration (irrevocable decree) regarding his King of v. 6,
as begotten of God (in the everlasting now--today--of eternity) and proved with power by the resurrection (Ro 1:4).
So not seeing it as an answer to a question, my understanding of v. 7 does not go in the same direction as your understanding.
It would be helpful if you could give some NT examples of gennao being used to mean "to raise up."
My understanding does not go in the same direction as your understanding because I do not see v. 7 as the answer to a question.
I see the question of what "begotten" is referring to here as settled by Paul in Ro 1:4:
"Jesus was declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead."
I do not think Paul is using "today" in the sense of linear time, but is simply quoting the decree
which is proven by the power of Jesus' resurrection.
The promise made to the fathers was not a promise of Christ's resurrection,
it was the promise of Ge 12:3, of the Messiah, through whom all the nations would be blessed.
You have changed the meaning of the promise.
God the Son is God from eternity past.
Jesus the man, God the Son in the flesh, is not from eternity past, and did not exist until his conception in time.
Jesus the man did not exist in eternity past, God the Son did.
I understand what you are saying. . .the issue is agreement.
Yes, everything regarding Jesus of Nazareth was fulfilled in linear time.
Well, I can see your reasoning. . .very well done. . .thanks so much.
But I'm not there yet. . .if I will ever be.
You changed the meaning of the promise to the fathers in Ge 12:3.
So do you have other NT examples of gennao being used to mean "to raise up" to support your use of the word in this way?
Last edited: