What does it "REALLY" mean that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?
- Thread starter bluto
- 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.
You posted in the 5:00 p.m. thread. It’s still there. This is the 7:00 p.m. thread.
Just to add also.. Jesus as Son.. doesn't also mean 'created or born out of the Father'
It's more Son like 'image' 'expression' 'supreme heir'
When Jesus said 'the father is greater than I'
That's not saying He is superior.. but that the Father is in a greater position.
Like if I said the President is greater than I..
The president isn't a superior being.. but in a greater office
It's more Son like 'image' 'expression' 'supreme heir'
When Jesus said 'the father is greater than I'
That's not saying He is superior.. but that the Father is in a greater position.
Like if I said the President is greater than I..
The president isn't a superior being.. but in a greater office
Thanks. I did not realize that there were two threads on the same subject.
You seem to be a little confused. Let's leave "Trinitarianism" aside and focus on what the Bible teaches.
1. Jesus of Nazareth was a fully human person.
2. Jesus of Nazareth was also (at the same time) fully God in human form.
3. Jesus of Nazareth is the second person of the triune Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).
4. The triune Godhead is the one true God -- three divine persons but one God.
5. This is called "the Mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ": That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ (Col 2:2)
I’ve actually said very little so far in this thread, so I’m not sure how you reached that conclusion.
Though not stated in the OP, this thread was started by bluto so that he and I could continue a discussion that sprang up in another thread. That discussion began with me asking him, “Are you aware that trinitarianism also teaches us that Jesus is not a human person?” (See post #42, “God born as man - any reference in old testament” thread.)
There’s no need to use the word “fully” in the description of Jesus, unless scripture is viewed through the lens of trinitarianism.
Jesus was a human person. Jesus is a human person.
There is a human person [a Jew, the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth] sitting at the right hand of God in heaven.
That’s what trinitarianism teaches us.
That’s what trinitarianism teaches us.
That’s what trinitarianism teaches us.
“that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself.” (Col. 2:2 NASB)
This is Paul - the same Paul who wrote, “For us [Christians] there is but one God, the Father”. A true knowledge of the Father’s mystery, which is, summed up in the Messiah.
So you think Paul was contradicting Himself? God the Father is generally called "God" in the New Testament, but Jesus is generally called "the Lord Jesus Christ". At the same time God the Father calls God the Son "GOD" so that there is no misunderstanding. See Hebrews 1:8,9.
Still repeating the same fallacy of reification? Trinitarianism is not a person, therefore it can't teach anything. You can learn about trinitarian belief from a person, but you have selected a few quotes from people who don't speak for all those who hold to trinitarian views.
In other words, in every case that you say, "Trinitarianism teaches us that...", it doesn't.
No. Paul wasn’t contradicting himself. The God of Paul is the God of Jesus - the Father; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Yes.
Jesus is very seldom called “theos” but being called “theos” doesn’t identify Jesus (or any other human person who is called “theos”) as the one true God.
I don’t think trinitarians can leave “Trinitarianism” aside. The language of trinitarianism permeates their vocabulary. This can be seen in your communication to me. Let’s look at one example: the phrase, “God the Son”.
In Greek, the phrase “God the Son” is “theos ho huios”.
How many times does this phrase occur in scripture? 0.
If we could truly set aside trinitarianism and focus on the Bible, our language would sound different. Rather than speaking about “God the Son” (a theological term of later trinitarianism) we would speak about “the Son of God”.
How many times is Jesus called “the Son of God” in the NT? 37.
It does not matter. Either you believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is true Bible doctrine, or you identify yourself as a cultist. So what kind of cultist are you?
From the day it dawned on me that his God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - his.
”Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” - Peter (1 Peter 1:3) and Paul (2 Corinthians 1:3)
Doing some late night reading to unwind after a very looong day; another Protestant takes a stab at explaining the two natures of the second person of the Trinity. In the article titled “Anhypostasis, Enhypostasis, and Bears...Oh My”, author Tony Arsenal writes,
”Christological Controversy
That brings us to the quandary of Christ and his two natures. It is uncontroversial, and rather straight forward, that the divine ousia was always hypostatic in the person of God the Son. However, where it becomes complicated is when the human ousia was assumed by the divine hypostasis, God the Son.
If this ousia was hypostatic in the traditional sense, then it was a hypostasis. Thus, the term enhypostatic began to be used to describe the way that this second ousia existed. It existed not as its own hypostasis, but as an attached ousia to the divine hypostasis. Thus, Christ possesses two ousiai. The first is the divine ousia which is and always has been hypostatic. The second is a human ousia which came into existence as an attached enhypostatic ousia. This is why theologians say that Christ is not a human person (which is a synonym for hypostasis) but that he is a divine person with a human nature. Another way to say this is that Christ’s human nature is not personal in and of itself, but is personalized by becoming part of the divine Logos (who is a personal.)”
https://orthopathos.wordpress.com/2015/08/11/anhypostasis-enhypostasis-and-bears-oh-my/
Bold is mine.
”Christological Controversy
That brings us to the quandary of Christ and his two natures. It is uncontroversial, and rather straight forward, that the divine ousia was always hypostatic in the person of God the Son. However, where it becomes complicated is when the human ousia was assumed by the divine hypostasis, God the Son.
If this ousia was hypostatic in the traditional sense, then it was a hypostasis. Thus, the term enhypostatic began to be used to describe the way that this second ousia existed. It existed not as its own hypostasis, but as an attached ousia to the divine hypostasis. Thus, Christ possesses two ousiai. The first is the divine ousia which is and always has been hypostatic. The second is a human ousia which came into existence as an attached enhypostatic ousia. This is why theologians say that Christ is not a human person (which is a synonym for hypostasis) but that he is a divine person with a human nature. Another way to say this is that Christ’s human nature is not personal in and of itself, but is personalized by becoming part of the divine Logos (who is a personal.)”
https://orthopathos.wordpress.com/2015/08/11/anhypostasis-enhypostasis-and-bears-oh-my/
Bold is mine.
I suspect he may have me on ignore as well, or at least intentionally ignores my posts.
It's what happens when his strawmen are exposed for the poor argumentation they are.
Either he is incapable of proper discourse, or he is so committed to his spiritual blindness that he purposely distorts what his opponents say.
I can see people putting others on Ignore when they are blatantly rude. Even then, it is easy enough to simply not read the posts of people who are unpleasant. Personally, I think the feature is much overused.
Jesus was God who became a human person = Jesus is not a human person.
Is that where you want to leave it, bluto?
Is that where you want to leave it, bluto?
It means that God took upon Himself the form of man, humbled Himself and came down to earth (less than the angles) to preach His Gospel and to provide the payment for the sins of ALL MANKIND that would allow them to be worthy to be called the children of God and heirs to the Promise.......
God the Son IS FULLY GOD............and, when here on earth, He was both fully man AND FULLY GOD........
That's what it means
God the Son IS FULLY GOD............and, when here on earth, He was both fully man AND FULLY GOD........
That's what it means
There is a human person [a Jew, the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth] sitting at the right hand of God [Yahweh, the living God, the Father, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the one and only true God, the God of the human Jewish person seated at his right hand] in heaven.