POLL: The Deity of Christ

[Pumicestone]

for a sunbeam ? la de da

 

[flob]

For a friend.

 

[Elin]

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?

Nowhere does Scripture state that it was, and the man Jesus did not exist until he was conceived of Mary.

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?

Jesus of Nazareth, the man, did not exist until the Word, who is God, was made flesh (Jn 1:13) in the womb of Mary.

God the Son, who is the Word and is spirit, has always existed.

Jesus of Nazareth was both man and God, fully man and fully God.

be great to hear back

Been outa' pocket for awhile. . .sorry so late in getting back to you.

 

[Elin]

Hi Elin. . .

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?

The one who became flesh in Jesus of Nazareth, the one and only Son of God (Jn 1:14), was God. (Jn 1:1), who was, existed (past tense) before creation (Jn 1:1); i.e., eternity past.

There is one God, and the Son is God because he is continually (eternally) begotten of God the Father before creation (Jn 1:1), in eternity past.
The Holy Spirit is God because he proceeds out of (from within--ekporeuomai) the Father (Jn 15:26)
(as things proceed out of, from within, the mouth, the heart--Mt 15:18; Mk 7:21).
All three are persons in the one God.

In Heb 1:5, as God's Son, Jesus of Nazareth, has inherited the name "Son," which superior name makes him superior to the angels, as well as superior to Moses (Heb 3) and Aaron. (Heb 5).

The Greek word gennao (begotten) has two meanings, according to oldhermit and you,
1) sired, generated, fathered,
2) raised up, elevated.
(although no other usage of gennao as "raised up" has been shown).

1) Ps 2:7 - the Messianic psalm where the Messiah is decreed as (continually eternally) begotten (sired, generated, fathered) of God, which in light of Jn 1:1, 14 must mean before creation, in eternity past. Likewise in

Mt 1:20 - where the man Jesus of Nazareth is sired, generated, fathered (begotten) by God the Holy Spirit, giving him the divine nature and making him fully God.

2) Both meanings are used at the same time:
Mt 3:17 - where the (continually eternally begotten) Son is raised up as, elevated to, prophet to the church (Dt 18:18) at his baptism.

Ac 13:33 - where the (continually eternally) begotten Son is raised up as Savior (Ac 13:34) at his resurrection.

Heb 5:5 - where the (continually eternally) begotten Son is raised up as, elevated to, High Priest at his crucifixion, where he offered himself as the once-for-all atoning sacrifice (Heb 7:12).

And he was also raised up as King ruling over all (Eph 1:10, 22), at his ascension (Eph 1:20).

The Word who is God, continually eternally begotten of God the Father, existed before time in eternity past (Jn 1:1), and in time was made flesh in Jesus of Nazareth (Jn 1: 14).

 

[flob]

My head is kind of spinning. My wife was blasting some ungodly, secular music in the background as I was typing this response, so...

God made the two of you one flesh. 'Mingled,' so to speak. At least in shadow. Compared to the divine reality (Eph 5; 1 Cor 6:17). Blessed you with a wonderful wife.

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.
Again, I ask:
How and when was this child born and how and when was this Son given?

Born through natural childbirth around AD 4, conceived by the Holy Spirit mingling with Mary's egg around AD 4.

This Son was made of a woman and made under the law approximately two thousand years ago

Galatians 4:4 neither reads nor means:
When the fullness of time came, God had a son.
Nor: When the fullness of time came, God's Son began His ministry.
Because (among other reasons) the very clause following: born of a woman, born under law.

and this Son was not eternally begotten which, again, is a self-refuting lie.

God's eternal life is 'flowing.' Like a fountain. Similar to what He says (toward us who have Him)
in John 4: The water that I will give him will become in him a fountain of water gushing up into eternal life.
That is the idea of 'eternally begotten' and 'eternally begetting.'
Since also Son of God refers to His deity: You, being a man, are making Yourself equal with God...Because I said I am the Son of God (Jn 10): just like there never was a time the Word was not, there never was a time the Son was not (the Son).
Meaning that He does not have a starting point before the foundation of the universe. He wasn't begotten one time, before the earth began. Because He has no beginning. Being without father, without mother, without genealogy; having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but likened to the Son of God, abides a priest perpetually,
Hebrews 7:3.
I can try to address more your phrase 'self-refuting lie' in a sec.
But yes, this is what I mean when I say the Son of God is eternally begotten. And is what I'm sure Athanasius meant.
And no, it is no law that anyone must or should use such a phrase.

Why would you want to believe and teach a lie which refutes itself? What good can possibly come of the same?

I wouldn't. Nothing

The relationship of father and son seems to linked to time rather than eternity because of 2Sam 7:14. This would be an interesting think to see in just what perspective these terms apply.
I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
This is one of many portions of scripture in the Old Testament where a dual application exists. In other words, it's partly referring to Solomon, David's son, and it's partly referring to Christ, the ultimate son of David. How can we be sure that this partly refers to Christ? Well, because it's given in that context in the New Testament book of Hebrews:
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?

I like to say 'correct, wonderful!' to everything except the first sentence (if it's meant to be an absolute).
The Son of God was Son of God before He became Son of God.
That is because the Son of God became Son of Man, and the Son of Man became the Son of God.
The Son of God didn't stop being the Son of God when the Son of God became the Son of Man.
Nor did the Son of Man stop being the Son of Man when the Son of Man became the Son of God (in resurrection.)
That is what I enjoy, and appreciate, and worship.

The Father/Son relationship between God the Father and the Son of Man existed after Incarnation and before Resurrection because Jesus Christ's Divinity was mingled with Jesus Christ's Humanity in and as the Person Jesus Christ.
And, yet, Jesus Christ willfully remained mortal (subject to the suffering of death, Heb 2:9), for our sake for His eternal purpose sake, including to die as our Substitute and destroy Satan on the cross.
The Father begot the Son of Man into the Godhead, into 'full' Sonship in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ because then (as similar to Their plan for His believers That which was mortal got swallowed up by Life, Immortality. Jesus Christ's
resurrection wasn't merely natural, like that of Lazarus in John 11. Jesus' resurrection was also transfiguration. Permanent transfiguration and divinization. The mingling of God, the divine life, with His human flesh and bones, His human body.
So that now: there is a Man in the glory. Whose Life is for us. (Song)

Why the futuristic tense of I will be to Him a Father and He shall be to me a Son if Jesus truly was God the Son from eternity past as you, Elin and others allege? In other words, why didn't God say, I am His Father and He is my Son?

Because the Son of David was the Son of Man

I'll tell you exactly why:
Because Jesus Christ didn't become the Son of God until at least the time of His incarnation. Why do I say until at least the time of His incarnation? Because it's quite probable that He couldn't rightly be called the Son of God until after His resurrection from the dead.

I hope you know why I disagree with you (and agree with you, in part!) from above paragraphs.

On what two occasions did God the Father speak from heaven audibly and declare that Jesus was His Son?
Well, He did so at Christ's baptism which signifies being buried and resurrected from the dead and on the Mount of Transfiguration when Moses and Elijah spoke unto Christ of His coming death and Christ's glory basically shown through the veil of His flesh as if He were in His glorified state or risen from the dead.

Correct.......that Jesus was Son of God before His (linear time) resurrection.
To borrow a term of yours

I apologize that my posts have been getting lengthy here, but we really need to examine scripture if we're even going to come to a place of agreement. Thanks for understanding.

Don't apologize for that. Yes.. Thank you.

 

[Elin]

The relationship of father and son seems to linked to time rather than eternity because of 2Sam 7:14. This would be an interesting think to see in just what perspective these terms apply.

Jn 1:18 does not allow that, where the Word is in the bosom of the Father.

 

[Elin]

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.

Nor is it Christian orthodoxy.

I think you misunderstand what is meant by the (continually eternally) begotten Son of God.

Jesus was fully man. His human nature was not God.
Jesus was fully divine because he was conceived (begotten) of the Holy Spirit.
His divine nature was not human.
Jesus was fully man and fully God, with two natures.

Jesus the man was not continually eternally begotten when he was begotten (conceived) of the Holy Spirit.
Begetting (siring, fathering, generating) of the man Jesus of Nazareth by the Holy Spirit makes Jesus to be divine as well as human.

Only the Word who was God (and became the man Jesus of Nazareth--Jn 1:14) was continually eternally begotten.

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,

Yes, your misunderstanding of it is an utterly ridiculous notion.

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.

 

[Elin]

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.

No, I am using what "promises to the fathers" means throughout the Scriptures.

You, on the other hand, are relying simply on linguistics of a text only.

 

[Elin]

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

Previously addressed. . .

 

[Elin]

I know what it is NOT !

Not good enough. . .

 

[Elin]

It is crystal clear that all 'scriptures' have been penned by men.
It is up to you to establish that they were guided by some holy spirit.


And take care - you cannot prove a book from within that book!

Absolutely. . .the Bible cannot be proven to be true. . .and that by the design of God.

Only the powerful witness of the Holy Spirit to the spirit of the believer can prove the Bible is true.

The Bible is a closed book to all who are not born again.

 

[psychomom]

i just popped in to say hello to Elin.

because i miss you.

 

[Elin]

i just popped in to say hello to Elin.

because i miss you.

Hi, sis. . .where ya' been?

I've been outa' pocket for a while.

 

[psychomom]

Hi, sis. . .where ya' been?

I've been outa' pocket for a while.

ditto.

a little ill, arguing with doctors.

you okay?

(with interruption apologies for family matters )

 

[senzi]

Previously addressed. . .

No! Apart from a couple of scriptures that you have misapplied. You keep quoting Matt22:37-40. Jesus stated:
All the law hangs(not will hang) on these two commandments(love God and love your neighbour)

Which covenant was in place when Jesus walked this earth? The old one, the new hadn't started yet. Jesus is speaking of the law hanging on those two commands in the present tense.
Did the law exist/was it therefore in place when Jesus made that statement? Yes it was. So when Jesus states the law hangs on two commandments he is speaking of this being the case when the law is in place.

You prove my point well with those scriptures

 

[Elin]

No! Apart from a couple of scriptures that you have misapplied. You keep quoting Matt22:37-40. Jesus stated:
All the law hangs(not will hang) on these two commandments(love God and love your neighbour)

Which covenant was in place when Jesus walked this earth? The old one, the new hadn't started yet. Jesus is speaking of the law hanging on those two commands in the present tense.
Did the law exist/was it therefore in place when Jesus made that statement? Yes it was. So when Jesus states the law hangs on two commandments he is speaking of this being the case when the law is in place.

You prove my point well with those scriptures

The Mosaic regulations are no longer in place.

The new covenant (Lk 22:20) is under the law of Christ (Mt 22:37-39; 2Co 9:21; Ro 13:8, 9, 10; Gal 6:2).

 

[senzi]

The Mosaic regulations are no longer in place.

The new covenant (Lk 22:20) is under the law of Christ (Mt 22:37-39; 2Co 9:21; Ro 13:8, 9, 10; Gal 6:2).

Non responsive to the points made, which is hardly suprising

 

[senzi]

The Mosaic regulations are no longer in place.

The new covenant (Lk 22:20) is under the law of Christ (Mt 22:37-39; 2Co 9:21; Ro 13:8, 9, 10; Gal 6:2).

I would be interested to know if old hermit shares your view that only two laws are written on the mind and placed on the heart of the christian under the new covenant. Hopefully his understanding of the grammatical structure of words has helped him with his conclusions

 

[Elin]

No! Apart from a couple of scriptures that you have misapplied. You keep quoting Matt22:37-40. Jesus stated:
All the law hangs(not will hang) on these two commandments(love God and love your neighbor)

The Mosaic regulations are no longer in place.

Which covenant was in place when Jesus walked this earth? The old one, the new hadn't started yet. Jesus is speaking of the law hanging on those two commands in the present tense.
Did the law exist/was it therefore in place when Jesus made that statement? Yes it was. So
when Jesus states the law hangs on two commandments he is speaking of this being the case when the law is in place.

Which it is not. . .moot point.

The new covenant (Lk 22:20) is under the law of Christ (Mt 22:37-39; 2Co 9:21; Ro 13:8, 9, 10; Gal 6:2), not the law of Moses.

Non responsive to the points made, which is hardly suprising

Read it again.

The OT promise of Jer 31:31-34 was of the new covenant where the law would be written on the heart.
In the new covenant, it is the new covenant law of Christ, not of Moses, that is written on the heart (Mt 22:37-39; 2Co 9:21; Ro 13: 8, 9, 10; Gal 6:2), which two laws of Christ fulfill (accomplish) the OT law (Ro 13:8, 9, 10; Mt 22:40).

 

[Elin]

ditto.

a little ill, arguing with doctors.

you okay?

(with interruption apologies for family matters )

Been working with the doctor on an issue for about a year, which I think we may have resolved now.
I should know in a couple of months.