POLL: The Deity of Christ

[SolidGround]

Oldhermit, I know we got sidetracked with the "begotten" discussion, but I'm still interested in the hermeneutic study (or rather, the theological construction from the ground up).

 

[oldhermit]

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.

I started not to even bother to answer this question because you really do not seem interested in learning anything or seriously looking for information but, for others who may be interested in the answer to this question both Joseph and Mary are descended from David but Joseph's linage, unlike that of Mary's, follows the line of kings while that of Mary is split in the sons of David. Neither Mary not Joseph are descended from Levi the father of the priestly tribe. Both are descended through the tribe of Judah the kingly tribe.

 

[oldhermit]

Oldhermit, I know we got sidetracked with the "begotten" discussion, but I'm still interested in the hermeneutic study (or rather, the theological construction from the ground up).

The last thing I posted for you on this was THE RELATIONSHIP OF MAN TO THE DIVINE TRIAD
THE UNIQUENESS OF MAN on page 25. Do you have any questions or comments on that material before we continue?

 

[Elin]

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?

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

I am asking must it not be human conception for the Son to be fully human?

The God-man must be fully God and fully human, with two natures.

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.

And the Edomites?

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.

Is there any reason that the text is not referring to the complete authority given him regarding the Kingdom in time (Mt 26:64, 28:18; Lk 10:22; Jn 13;3, 13), which is the change of authority which will occur when the Kingdom is delivered up to the Father, and Jesus reigns as the Son (Rev 11:5; Da 7:14, 27) and subject king in authority, as prefigured by Solomon in 2Sam 2:13-14?

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.

Not as a subordinate being, but subject in authority and function.

Philippians 2:5-11 explains very well the idea
subjection and subordination as a change of status that is outside the norm.

Is there any reason giving up his infinite glory (Jn 17:5) and submitting to finite limited manhood (2Co 8:9) would not qualify as a change of status that is outside the norm for the Trinity?

What Jesus surrendered in becoming man was not IN-equality but equality. It is impossible to surrender that which one does not possess.

But could he surrender his deity and remain the God-man?
Is there any reason it cannot mean a surrender of his equality in glory (Jn 17:5) only?

For though equal in deity, the Son proceeds from the Father,
and is subject to the Father in authority and function in the Trinity.

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.

Does that also include following in his priority, preeminence and sovereignty as firstborn over all creation (Col 1:6-18)?

Is there any reason it does not also mean actually born first?

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.

"Firstborn" (plural) in Heb 12:23 is referring to believers, to the church,
prefigured in the firstborn consecrated to the Lord (Ex 13:2),
who have been delivered from the destroying angel (Ex 12:21-29), Satan (1Pe 5:8; Jn 10:10), and
bought back (redeemed) from eternal death, by Christ our priest (Levite),
who was substituted for us (Nu 3:9-13, 41, 44-51, 8:15-19),
to whom God has exclusive right by purchase (Nu 18:14-15; 1Co 6:20, 7:2; Ac 20:28b; 1Pe 2:9; Rev 5:9, 14:4)
and who are, therefore, consecrated to the Lord (Ex 13:2; Ro 6:13; 2Co 5:15).

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.

How do we know that?
Is there any reason it cannot mean that?

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.

 

[Elin]

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

No, the Biblical beginning is of time, where God already existed.

 

[oldhermit]

I am asking must it not be human conception for the Son to be fully human?

The God-man must be fully God and fully human, with two natures.

And the Edomites?

Is there any reason that the text is not referring to the complete authority given him regarding the Kingdom in time (Mt 26:64, 28:18; Lk 10:22; Jn 13;3, 13), which is the change of authority which will occur when the Kingdom is delivered up to the Father, and Jesus reigns as the Son (Rev 11:5; Da 7:14, 27) and subject king in authority, as prefigured by Solomon in 2Sam 2:13-14?


Not as a subordinate being, but subject in authority and function.


Is there any reason giving up his infinite glory (Jn 17:5) and submitting to finite limited manhood (2Co 8:9) would not qualify as a change of status that is outside the norm for the Trinity?


But could he surrender his deity and remain the God-man?
Is there any reason it cannot mean a surrender of his equality in glory (Jn 17:5) only?

For though equal in deity, the Son proceeds from the Father,
and is subject to the Father in authority and function in the Trinity.


Does that also include following in his priority, preeminence and sovereignty as firstborn over all creation (Col 1:6-18)?

Is there any reason it does not also mean actually born first?

"Firstborn" (plural) in Heb 12:23 is referring to believers, to the church,
prefigured in the firstborn consecrated to the Lord (Ex 13:2),
who have been delivered from the destroying angel (Ex 12:21-29), Satan (1Pe 5:8; Jn 10:10), and
bought back (redeemed) from eternal death, by Christ our priest (Levite),
who was substituted for us (Nu 3:9-13, 41, 44-51, 8:15-19),
to whom God has exclusive right by purchase (Nu 18:14-15; 1Co 6:20, 7:2; Ac 20:28b; 1Pe 2:9; Rev 5:9, 14:4)
and who are, therefore, consecrated to the Lord (Ex 13:2; Ro 6:13; 2Co 5:15).

How do we know that?
Is there any reason it cannot mean that?

You need to break these down into priorities. I am not even going to attempt to address all of these at once. Which would you like addressed first? And you are right about Heb 12:23.

 

[Elin]

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.

Mary was from the line of Nathan, David's son.

Joseph, his legal father and, therefore, father-of-record was from the line of Solomon, the kingly line.

 

[Elin]

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.

Is there any reason Ro 1:4 cannot mean Jesus was the Son of God since his conception, but was declared (marked out) with (special resurrection) power the day of the resurrection, emphasis being on the power and, therefore, proof of that declaration as distinct, say, from the declaration at his baptism?

 

[Elin]

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.

Straw man. . .in regard to oldhermit.

 

[oldhermit]

Is there any reason Ro 1:4 cannot mean Jesus was the Son of God since his conception, but was declared (marked out) with (special resurrection) power the day of the resurrection, emphasis being on the power and, therefore, proof of that declaration as distinct, say, from the declaration at his baptism?

I think you are not really understanding what it means when he is spoken of as Son. He is not Son by declaration but by divine nature. He is however, begotten by divine declaration.

 

[Elin]

Is there any reason Ro 1:4 cannot mean
Jesus was the Son of God since his conception, but was declared (marked out) with (special resurrection) power the day of the resurrection, emphasis being on the power and, therefore, proof of that declaration as distinct, say, from the declaration at his baptism?

I think you are not really understanding what it means when he is spoken of as Son. He is not Son by declaration but by divine nature. He is however, begotten by divine declaration.

What is the meaning of "begotten"?

All we have is its usage in the OT, meaning to sire.

Are you saying he is a sired son by divine declaration?

 

[oldhermit]

What is the meaning of "begotten"?

All we have is its usage in the OT, meaning to sire.

Are you saying he is a sired son by divine declaration?

No, that is most certainly not what it means. Go back and read again my last post on Heb 1:6 and this should explain this.

 

[SolidGround]

The last thing I posted for you on this was THE RELATIONSHIP OF MAN TO THE DIVINE TRIAD
THE UNIQUENESS OF MAN on page 25. Do you have any questions or comments on that material before we continue?

No further questions, it was solid.

 

[Elin]

What is the meaning of "begotten"?

All we have is its usage in the OT, meaning to sire.

Are you saying he is a sired son by divine declaration?

No, that is most certainly not what it means. Go back and read again my last post on Heb 1:6 and this should explain this.

Can't find it. . .is there no statement of this meaning of "begotten"?

 

[oldhermit]

No further questions, it was solid.

Very well, let us continue.

THE HUMANITY OF JESUS


Infancy
While the events surrounding his birth were extra-ordinary, there was nothing in the natural process of human growth and development that went beyond the realm of normal human experience. Only the conception was exceptional.
1. He was conceived in a human egg. This was a natural, biological conception, but from a non-natural source – the Holy Spirit, Luke 1:31,35.
2. He underwent the normal human gestation period in the womb, Luke 2:6.
3. His was a normal birth. He was an infant with everything it implied, Luke 2:6-7.
4. Mary underwent the normal, ceremonial sacrificial purification required for women after childbirth according to the Law of Moses, Luke 2:27-32.
5. At the same time, Jesus was presented to the Lord at the temple according to the Law of Moses, which required the firstborn male of both man and beast to be dedicated to the Lord, Luke 2:27-32.
6. At this time, he underwent the normal ritualistic circumcision at eight days old according to the Abrahamic covenant and the Law of Moses, Luke 2:22-27.

Adolescence
1. He experienced the normal growth process of all human children, Luke 2:40-42.
2. He demonstrated normal youthful indiscretions, Luke 2:43-49. This behavior represents normal adolescent reasoning and behavior.
3. He demonstrated the normal inquisitive nature of a pre-teen child, Luke 2:46-50. Listening to the teachers in the temple - He was hungry for knowledge and understanding.- Asking questions, looking for answers (perhaps about the afore-mentioned Passover proceedings). As a part of the human collective, he is not omnipotent. As a child his understanding came by way of instruction in the Law, not inspiration. This speaks well of parental influence. Even his answers astonished the teachers.
4. Submissiveness to his parents, Luke 2:51. He was obedient to them.
5. Normal process of physical and spiritual development - He increased in wisdom.- He grew in favor with God and man. This reflects a conscious effort.

Adult
1. He met all human obligations of the Law, Matthew 3:15.
2. He was attested by the Father and the Spirit to be the bio-representation of God.
3. He received the Holy Spirit as a man. This follows the same pattern as all of the prophets of the Old Testament, John 1: 32-34; 4:14.
4. He endured temptation as a man, Matthew 4:1-4 and Luke 4:1-13.
5. He died as a man, Matthew 27:50.

 

[purgedconscience]

What is the meaning of "begotten"?

All we have is its usage in the OT, meaning to sire.

Are you saying he is a sired son by divine declaration?

I've stayed away from this thread for a few days because I didn't want to get into strife with anybody when I briefly contributed here before, but I'll answer this question for you scripturally from the Old Testament and how it pertains to Christ as I tried to explain it once before to somebody here.

Psalm 2 verses 1 thru 3

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

The Apostles understood the opening part of this Psalm to be referring to the time when Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles and the people of Israel banded together in relation to Christ's crucifixion. That's what the ragings, imaginings, settings and counselings were all about. You can read that in Acts chapter 4 verses 23 thru 28. This brings us to the begotten part and how it pertains to Jesus:

Psalm 2 verses 4 thru 7

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

When Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles and the people of Israel joined forces against the LORD and His Christ in relation to Christ's crucifixion, God laughed and declared a decree unto Jesus. The LORD, God, said unto Jesus, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Paul explained this for us in Acts chapter 13 verses 29 thru 33:

And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
But God raised him from the dead:
And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.
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.

God's promise was that His Son would be begotten and that promise was fulfilled when Jesus was raised from the dead.

It's right there and all of the references to Jesus being begotten in scripture perfectly align themselves with this as well.

 

[senzi]

No, the Biblical beginning is of time, where God already existed.

God has always existed, but the biblical beginning is:

In the beginning O Lord you laid the foundations of the earth... Heb1:10.

The biblical beginning is creation

 

[senzi]

Straw man. . .in regard to oldhermit.

I am sure that anyone who wanted to give the glory to God from their heart, not their head would agree with me

 

[oldhermit]

Can't find it. . .is there no statement of this meaning of "begotten"?

I'm sorry. I think I directed you to the wrong post I covered this on an earlier post.

We find two different words used in the NT that are translated as "begotten" in connection to Jesus. The first word we find in John 1:14 which is μονογενοῦς and according to [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]HELPS word studies means "one-and-only" and /génos, "offspring, stock") – properly, one-and-only; "one of a kind" – literally, "one (monos) of a class, genos" (the only of its kind). This establishes the uniqueness of his nature in contrast to that of man.[/FONT]

The other word is [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]γεγέννηκά which we find in Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:5. This word[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]is a metaphor meaning to engender, to cause to rise (resurrection - from ἀνάστασις meaning to stand again). We have already discussed the fact that the word “today,” refers to Jesus' resurrection from the dead hence it is connected to time. Since we learn from scripture that Jesus is eternal just as the Father is eternal then Jesus is not begotten by virtue of creation, rather he is begotten in relationship to a new type of relationship - He is the first one of a now order of creatures - sons of God. [/FONT]

 

[SolidGround]

Very well, let us continue.

THE HUMANITY OF JESUS


Infancy
While the events surrounding his birth were extra-ordinary, there was nothing in the natural process of human growth and development that went beyond the realm of normal human experience. Only the conception was exceptional.
1. He was conceived in a human egg. This was a natural, biological conception, but from a non-natural source – the Holy Spirit, Luke 1:31,35.
2. He underwent the normal human gestation period in the womb, Luke 2:6.
3. His was a normal birth. He was an infant with everything it implied, Luke 2:6-7.
4. Mary underwent the normal, ceremonial sacrificial purification required for women after childbirth according to the Law of Moses, Luke 2:27-32.
5. At the same time, Jesus was presented to the Lord at the temple according to the Law of Moses, which required the firstborn male of both man and beast to be dedicated to the Lord, Luke 2:27-32.
6. At this time, he underwent the normal ritualistic circumcision at eight days old according to the Abrahamic covenant and the Law of Moses, Luke 2:22-27.

Adolescence
1. He experienced the normal growth process of all human children, Luke 2:40-42.
2. He demonstrated normal youthful indiscretions, Luke 2:43-49. This behavior represents normal adolescent reasoning and behavior.
3. He demonstrated the normal inquisitive nature of a pre-teen child, Luke 2:46-50. Listening to the teachers in the temple - He was hungry for knowledge and understanding.- Asking questions, looking for answers (perhaps about the afore-mentioned Passover proceedings). As a part of the human collective, he is not omnipotent. As a child his understanding came by way of instruction in the Law, not inspiration. This speaks well of parental influence. Even his answers astonished the teachers.
4. Submissiveness to his parents, Luke 2:51. He was obedient to them.
5. Normal process of physical and spiritual development - He increased in wisdom.- He grew in favor with God and man. This reflects a conscious effort.

Adult
1. He met all human obligations of the Law, Matthew 3:15.
2. He was attested by the Father and the Spirit to be the bio-representation of God.
3. He received the Holy Spirit as a man. This follows the same pattern as all of the prophets of the Old Testament, John 1: 32-34; 4:14.
4. He endured temptation as a man, Matthew 4:1-4 and Luke 4:1-13.
5. He died as a man, Matthew 27:50.

So the question is, which part of Jesus was man during His early years/ministry, and which part was God,
or is that question too far ahead, or perhaps a lap behind?

And now ascended, which part is man and which part is God, or is the structure changed?