POLL: The Deity of Christ

[Elin]

Again, here is the clear meaning of today in relation to Christ being begotten:

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.

Why did the writer of this epistle to the Hebrews quote from the second Psalm in relation to Christ's Priesthood?

The writer is showing the greatness of Christ over Aaron, after having shown his greatness over the angels and over Moses.

Christ is greater than the Levitical High Priest in two ways:
1) his call - his eternally generating as God (v. 5), his divine conception as man, his office as Mediator greater than Moses;
2) his holiness - he did not have to offer sacrifice for his own sin as did Aaron (v. 3), for he had none.

The Nicene Creed, no matter how popular, is wrong in this point if we're to believe scripture and I choose to do just that.

The Nicene Creed does not contradict Scripture, it is according to Scripture.

I am not ready to toss orthodox Christianity. . .

 

[purgedconscience]

John chapter 1 verse 18

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

How is the only begotten Son used here in relation to Christ?

At the time of John's writing, where was the only begotten Son?

According to John, He was in the bosom of the Father.

When I read this, it immediately conjures up images of the following in my mind:

Exodus chapter 4 verses 1 thru 8

And Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, The LORD hath not appeared unto thee.
And the LORD said unto him, What is that in thine hand? And he said, A rod.
And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it.
And the LORD said unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand:
That they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee.
And the LORD said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow.
And he said, Put thine hand into thy bosom again. And he put his hand into his bosom again; and plucked it out of his bosom, and, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh.
And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign.

As we all know, there were many types and shadows which pointed to Christ in the Old Testament. In fact, Christ mentioned one of them Himself in John chapter 3 when He compared His coming crucifixion to the brazen serpent which Moses lifted up upon a pole. With such a reminder before us, let's examine these first two signs which the LORD gave unto Moses to prove that God had sent him.

In the first sign, Moses was instructed to cast his rod to the ground. When the rod hit the ground, it became a serpent; only to be picked up again and return to its former state. To me, this speaks of Christ coming down to this earth, becoming a serpent in type in that He took upon Himself our sins or our followings of that old serpent the Devil and then He ascended back up to heaven.

What of the second sign? In this sign, Moses removed his hand from his bosom, it became leprous and then it returned to its former manner when it was placed back within his bosom. Again, to me, this signifies when Christ left the bosom of His Father in heaven and came to this earth and became leprous in type by taking upon Himself our sins; only to return back again to the Father's bosom after His ascension.

And?

Well, when John spoke of the only begotten Son Who was in the Father's bosom after Christ's resurrection and ascension had already passed, I believe that this was the fulfilling of the sign given to Moses way back in Exodus. IOW, in order for Jesus to have been in the Father's bosom at the time of John's writing He had to be begotten or raised from the dead.

Does this make sense?

 

[oldhermit]

John chapter 1 verse 18

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

How is the only begotten Son used here in relation to Christ?

At the time of John's writing, where was the only begotten Son?

According to John, He was in the bosom of the Father.

I deal with this verse at length on page 40, post #784. When you read that, if it still does not answer your questions I will try to explain further.

When I read this, it immediately conjures up images of the following in my mind:

Exodus chapter 4 verses 1 thru 8

And Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, The LORD hath not appeared unto thee.
And the LORD said unto him, What is that in thine hand? And he said, A rod.
And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it.
And the LORD said unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand:
That they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee.
And the LORD said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow.
And he said, Put thine hand into thy bosom again. And he put his hand into his bosom again; and plucked it out of his bosom, and, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh.
And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign.

As we all know, there were many types and shadows which pointed to Christ in the Old Testament. In fact, Christ mentioned one of them Himself in John chapter 3 when He compared His coming crucifixion to the brazen serpent which Moses lifted up upon a pole. With such a reminder before us, let's examine these first two signs which the LORD gave unto Moses to prove that God had sent him.

In the first sign, Moses was instructed to cast his rod to the ground. When the rod hit the ground, it became a serpent; only to be picked up again and return to its former state. To me, this speaks of Christ coming down to this earth, becoming a serpent in type in that He took upon Himself our sins or our followings of that old serpent the Devil and then He ascended back up to heaven.

I am not sure I would equate Jesus as the serpent. Everywhere else in scripture serpent is symbolized as evil but the being lifted up for the salvation of the people is certainly typology. I may need to think on this a bit more.

What of the second sign? In this sign, Moses removed his hand from his bosom, it became leprous and then it returned to its former manner when it was placed back within his bosom. Again, to me, this signifies when Christ left the bosom of His Father in heaven and came to this earth and became leprous in type by taking upon Himself our sins; only to return back again to the Father's bosom after His ascension.

This may be an over allegorization.

And?

Well, when John spoke of the only begotten Son Who was in the Father's bosom after Christ's resurrection and ascension had already passed, I believe that this was the fulfilling of the sign given to Moses way back in Exodus. IOW, in order for Jesus to have been in the Father's bosom at the time of John's writing He had to be begotten or raised from the dead.

Does this make sense?

John is presenting Jesus from the vantage point of eternity.

 

[purgedconscience]

oldhermit:

I'll check out the post that you referenced tomorrow morning. Right now, I have to take care of some things at home. Thanks for your replies.

Good night.

 

[Elin]

The promise fulfilled is Ge 22:18, of the Messiah in whom all the nations of the earth would be blessed, fulfilled at the birth of Christ.

I think the orthodox Christian understanding, reflected in the Nicene Creed,
"begotten of the Father before all the worlds" does not agree with specifically begotten at the resurrection.

1Jn 4:9 - "God sent his only begotten Son into the world. . ."
Jesus was "begotten" before the resurrection.

TODAY - can refer to eternal generation: "from everlasting to everlasting" with God is one and the same eternal day, today.

TODAY - dependant on eternal generation, can also refer to the resurrection: "Today by the resurrection I manifested that I have begotten you (as in Paul's meaning of Ro 1:4), as well as all that are given to you," as in 1Pe 1:3, "has begotten us again to a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead."

The power of the resurrection was the proof of Christ being the Son of God (Ro 1:4),
as declared by the angel to Mary, "He. . .will be called the Son of the Most High" (Lk 1:35) and
by God at his baptism, "This is my beloved Son," plainly referring to Ps 2:7.

The resurrection was the proof, not a statement, of Sonship as from the angel and from the Father at his baptism.

The orthodox Christian understanding of the Bilbical meaning of "begotten" as eternal generation of the Son is seen in the Nicene Creed.

You are trying to over-think this

Actually, I am trying to understand it in relation to the rest of Scripture.

This understanding is new to me, and I'm not finding it in orthodox sources.

and you are making this harder than it is. Paul gives a divine interpretation of that passage

And I think his meaning of the passage is clearly stated in Ro 1:4, where the word "begotten" is not used.

We cannot just link any definition or concept to the language of scripture that we want to.
Meaning is supplied by the text itself

And as you know, meaning is supplied by the text in context of the whole counsel of God.

Jesus indicates (Jn 3:18) that he was begotten before the resurrection.
John indicates (1Jn 4:9) that Jesus was begotten before he was sent into the world and resurrected.

Go back and re-read what I said about the Paul's application of "today."

I have addressed that in my post above, blue text, regarding TODAY.

I really do not know how much clearer I can make it.

You have made yourself very clear . .and I thank you, friend, for so graciously taking the time and effort to address my questions on this.

I am getting a lot from your posts on the Trinity.

 

[Elin]

John chapter 1 verse 18

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

How is the only begotten Son used here in relation to Christ?

At the time of John's writing, where was the only begotten Son?

According to John, He was in the bosom of the Father.

When I read this, it immediately conjures up images of the following in my mind:

Exodus chapter 4 verses 1 thru 8

And Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, The LORD hath not appeared unto thee.
And the LORD said unto him, What is that in thine hand? And he said, A rod.
And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it.
And the LORD said unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand:
That they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee.
And the LORD said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow.
And he said, Put thine hand into thy bosom again. And he put his hand into his bosom again; and plucked it out of his bosom, and, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh.
And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign.

As we all know, there were many types and shadows which pointed to Christ in the Old Testament. In fact, Christ mentioned one of them Himself in John chapter 3 when He compared His coming crucifixion to the brazen serpent which Moses lifted up upon a pole. With such a reminder before us, let's examine these first two signs which the LORD gave unto Moses to prove that God had sent him.

In the first sign, Moses was instructed to cast his rod to the ground. When the rod hit the ground, it became a serpent; only to be picked up again and return to its former state. To me, this speaks of Christ coming down to this earth, becoming a serpent in type in that He took upon Himself our sins or our followings of that old serpent the Devil and then He ascended back up to heaven.

What of the second sign? In this sign, Moses removed his hand from his bosom, it became leprous and then it returned to its former manner when it was placed back within his bosom. Again, to me, this signifies when Christ left the bosom of His Father in heaven and came to this earth and became leprous in type by taking upon Himself our sins; only to return back again to the Father's bosom after His ascension.

And?

Well, when John spoke of the only begotten Son Who was in the Father's bosom after Christ's resurrection and ascension had already passed, I believe that this was the fulfilling of the sign given to Moses way back in Exodus. IOW, in order for Jesus to have been in the Father's bosom at the time of John's writing He had to be begotten or raised from the dead.

Does this make sense?

Thanks.

It conjures for me the image of Moses hand coming from within his bosom. . .

 

[Pumicestone]

if the Messiah was to be born in the tribe of Judah "according to the flesh" but you reckon Joseph was not his earthly father,
then surely Joseph's lineage is totally irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Elin

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

. You won't stay here long advocating this type of nonsense.

Thank you for your Deep and Meaningful contribution Old Hermit, Threat are always helpful.

far from being irrelevant it was vital. it was the lineage of descent of the heir to the throne of Israel.
When Joseph adopted Jesus by naming Him, Jesus became heir to the throne of Israel. From then on He would be seen as the true 'firstborn' son of Joseph.

At least Valiant tries !
But I wonder which part of "according to the flesh" you all seem unable to comprehend ?

Not according God's reckoning of genealogy. You are ignorant in the matters you discuss.

Another insightful and illuminating contribution. Insults are almost as helpful as threats.
If my views are dead wrong - and they might well be - why not just address them as Valiant tried to do.
Who knows, you might convince me.

 

[oldhermit]

Actually, I am trying to understand it in relation to the rest of Scripture.
This understanding is new to me, and I'm not finding it in orthodox sources.
And I think his meaning of the passage is clearly stated in Ro 1:4, where the word "begotten" is not used.

Forget about "orthodox" sources and stay with the language of the text. This is the inspired source of revealed information.

And as you know, meaning is supplied by the text in context of the whole counsel of God.
Jesus indicates (Jn 3:18) that he was begotten before the resurrection.
John indicates (1Jn 4:9) that Jesus was begotten before he was sent into the world and resurrected.

Like I said, the text determines what "begotten" refers to by which word is used.
Jn 3:18 and 1Jn 4:9 both use μονογενοῦς defining the relationship between Jesus and the Father. This is used in connection to the incarnation but is not limited to it. He is the one of a kind - the only one who comes from the Father - the "only begotten of the Father."

You have made yourself very clear . .and I thank you, friend, for so graciously taking the time and effort to address my questions on this. I am getting a lot from your posts on the Trinity.

Sometimes it is hard for me to boil things down in a concise fashion so that others can understand a particular concept. This has always been a failing of mine.

 

[senzi]

And yet God made the head and its functions (1Co 10:31). . .

Scriptural basis?

From your replies you obviously cannot discern the difference between the spiritual and the natural, which may be why many choose to discuss subjects that have little or no bearing on their Christianity, but are great exercise for the academic brain

 

[senzi]

Eternal generation is a self-refuting lie.

That which is eternal can never be generated.

The Nicene Creed, no matter how popular, is wrong in this point if we're to believe scripture and I choose to do just that.

I never knew of the Nicene creed until I was in my forties, it was never mentioned in churches I went to. What is the need for creeds, we have the bible?

 

[oldhermit]

I never knew of the Nicene creed until I was in my forties, it was never mentioned in churches I went to. What is the need for creeds, we have the bible?

That is the best comment you have made on this thread.

 

[senzi]

That is the best comment you have made on this thread.

In my view, this would be a better comment. The holy spirit resides in every christian(rom8:9) and he ensures every christian sees Christ in a manner-the person of who is in an acceptable way to God. Understanding the grammatical structure of words does not bring this knowledge, nor does an in depth debate as to understanding the word begotten in relation to Christ.

 

[oldhermit]

In my view, this would be a better comment. The holy spirit resides in every christian(rom8:9) and he ensures every christian sees Christ in a manner-the person of who is in an acceptable way to God. Understanding the grammatical structure of words does not bring this knowledge, nor does an in depth debate as to understanding the word begotten in relation to Christ.

A brief shining moment and then this.

 

[PeterJens]

I never knew of the Nicene creed until I was in my forties, it was never mentioned in churches I went to. What is the need for creeds, we have the bible?

Creeds serve the roll of summarising differences and underlining this is what this group believes, so they are sound while this group over there are totally off beam.

Whether people admit it or not, we all do this in fellowships,and often cause us to leave one and join another.
It is not often an issue of faith but emphasis, but in some cases it can be one of heresy.

Now saying we have the bible does not help, because it can take years to know you agree with this group and not that.
A little creed list would be
Lutherine, Strict and particular Baptists, 7th Day adventists, Mormons, JW's, Catholics, Pentecostals, Methodists, WOF NAR assemblies.

Now those who often want to appear to be the same as other groups, but are actually distinct, they hate creeds, because it points out where they sit, which is often experiential in its origins, though heretical in its intent.

I would be sceptical of any group who cannot tell you their core theology, and where they stand, because that is our faith and experience, it is why the bible is so long and developed, and for the naive, so easy to take out of context.

 

[senzi]

A brief shining moment and then this.

I read a book. The author said every christian-regardless of education has the ability to know more than Einstien, for thee Holy Spirit dwells in them

 

[oldhermit]

I read a book. The author said every christian-regardless of education has the ability to know more than Einstien, for thee Holy Spirit dwells in them

Perhaps some day on another thread you can explain to me just how you think the H.S operates. For now I have enough work to do.

 

[purgedconscience]

The writer is showing the greatness of Christ over Aaron, after having shown his greatness over the angels and over Moses.

I agree.

Christ is greater than the Levitical High Priest in two ways:

In more than two ways.

1) his call - his eternally generating as God (v. 5), his divine conception as man, his office as Mediator greater than Moses;

That's your personal spin on verse 5, but that is not what the verse says. Again, as has already been explained to you by more than one poster here, Paul explained what Psalm chapter 2 verse 7 actually means and how it was fulfilled in the 13th chapter of the book of Acts. If you want to persist in rejecting Paul's explanation, then that is your choice, but a very unwise choice which is a polite way of saying a very foolish choice.

2) his holiness - he did not have to offer sacrifice for his own sin as did Aaron (v. 3), for he had none.

I agree.

The Nicene Creed does not contradict Scripture, it is according to Scripture.

I addressed one aspect of it and not the whole. Again, eternally begotten is a self-refuting lie, whether you like it or not.

I am not ready to toss orthodox Christianity. . .

Yet you're apparently more than ready to toss the Divine revelation of what Psalm 2 verse 7 is all about as was revealed to the Apostle Paul by the Holy Spirit and recorded for us in our Holy Bibles in the 13th chapter of the book of Acts.

Again, not a wise choice at all.

 

[purgedconscience]

Thanks.

It conjures for me the image of Moses hand coming from within his bosom. . .

Does it also conjure up images of Christ having returned within the Father's bosom? In other words, since you hold to the self-refuting lie that Christ was somehow eternally generated in that He allegedly eternally came forth from within the Father's bosom, then you must equally believe that such is where Christ returned to. It's nonsense. Please reject it and stick to what the scriptures teach regardless of whether or not such teachings are considered to be orthodoxy by some.

Christ is presently seated at the right hand of the Father. He's not within His bosom.

 

[oldhermit]

Does it also conjure up images of Christ having returned within the Father's bosom? In other words, since you hold to the self-refuting lie that Christ was somehow eternally generated in that He allegedly eternally came forth from within the Father's bosom, then you must equally believe that such is where Christ returned to. It's nonsense. Please reject it and stick to what the scriptures teach regardless of whether or not such teachings are considered to be orthodoxy by some.

Christ is presently seated at the right hand of the Father. He's not within His bosom.

You are thinking about this in limited terms. What we are dealing with is the use of anthropomorphic terms in connection to God. Since God is spirit and not man then terms like bosom are meant to express a quality of relationship, not a literal part of the body.

 

[senzi]

Does it also conjure up images of Christ having returned within the Father's bosom? In other words, since you hold to the self-refuting lie that Christ was somehow eternally generated in that He allegedly eternally came forth from within the Father's bosom, then you must equally believe that such is where Christ returned to. It's nonsense. Please reject it and stick to what the scriptures teach regardless of whether or not such teachings are considered to be orthodoxy by some.

Christ is presently seated at the right hand of the Father. He's not within His bosom.

In relation to Christ being eternally begotten of the Father. Tertullian believed there was a time when God could not be referred to as Father as there was a time before he begat/brought forth Christ. I am sure many them agreed with him. If this was not the case, then we would have to say God has always existed as three persons for infinitum, never one in Trinitarian terms
However, thank goodness christians are not required to delve into ex nihilo!