The Didache: Doctrines That Build on the Creed

[rewriter]

None named or cited. Plenty of the seculars reject historical claims like flood of Noah and Josephus wrote these as historical so it would not be surprising if He was accused by the fashionable moderns as a liar ofr not credible. To the Jews, Josephus was a collaborator with the Romans, so they did not like him at all.



Looks like you are right about that. GROK


Summary: Josephus explicitly claimed personal divine revelation (via dreams and God's prophetic selection) that positioned him as God’s messenger announcing Vespasian’s destiny. He also reinterpreted Jewish messianic-style prophecies as pointing to Vespasian rather than a Jewish deliverer. This self-presentation helped save his life and secure his role as a historian under the Flavians. Note that this is Josephus’ own account; ancient sources like Suetonius confirm the prophecy story but without the same divine framing.
--------------------------

Your earlier claim about late dating for Acts to after 70 is nothing more than speculation without supporting evidence which i do not find compelling.

Likely you are not aware of the recent drone assisted archeology around Masada. With drones, for the first time, a complete view of the Roman fortifications that Josephus claims took three years to finish were possible to assess. Given the multiple available accounts of how rapidly Roman legions could assemble similar fortifications, that three years looks a lot more like three months.

Josephus claims that Aretas, a Roman client king, attacked Antipas, also a Roman client ruler. A Roman Client ruler attacking another was grounds for removal from office, possibly loss of the kingdom. Aretas died 4 or 5 years after the supposed incident 9in 40 or 41 CE) in office, and his kingdom passed to one of his sons, and then to a grandson. Antipas was inexplicably taken by Vitellius to the Euphrates frontier when Vitellius had to deal with a military problem then returned to Jerusalem alone after Tiberius died in 37 and Gaius Caligula issued many political pardons. Two years later, when Gaius Caligula revoked those pardons, Antipas was removed from office and exiled, as happened to others charged with political offenses.

And a "clearly irrelevant" history just happens to show signs of recording a letter from Tiberius to a different client king, including comments that only fit between 34-6 CE and include Tiberius recognizing Antipas as being implicated in political issues along with Caiaphas, the high priest who was removed in 36, and Pontius Pilate, who was also removed in 36.

And in Acts 2, all the different groups hearing the disciples speaking in tongues, with the exception of Rome, were the first supporters of Vespasian. How is it that no region other than Rome, which took its time deciding who to back in the year of 4 emperors, was present?
Seems like a lot of coincidences to me.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Likely you are not aware of the recent drone assisted archeology around Masada. With drones, for the first time, a complete view of the Roman fortifications that Josephus claims took three years to finish were possible to assess. Given the multiple available accounts of how rapidly Roman legions could assemble similar fortifications, that three years looks a lot more like three months.

Are you referring the fortification of Masada by Herod, or the Zealots?

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

And in Acts 2, all the different groups hearing the disciples speaking in tongues, with the exception of Rome, were the first supporters of Vespasian. How is it that no region other than Rome, which took its time deciding who to back in the year of 4 emperors, was present?

What does this even mean? Those present at Pentecost were devout Jews from every nation

 

[GWH]

Some didachaic topics are not specifically addressed in Scripture, so Christians must endeavor to discern how various Biblical moral teachings might be applicable. One example is abortion. How does Biblical teaching apply to the abortion debate?

Two passages (Exo. 21:22-25 & Luke 1:41-44) seem to suggest that an unborn baby should be considered a person at least by the time of quickening (cf. Psa. 139:13-16). Perhaps Exo. 20:13 can be understood as implying, “Thou shalt not murder thy baby”. However, because believers do not dictate government policies, they need to share logical as well as biblical reasons for not aborting babies.

Logically, the crucial question is this: "When does a developing fetus become a human person with the God-given right to civil life so that to kill it is murder and warrants punishment?" Considerations other than the advent of personhood are irrelevant, unless someone would use the same rationale to justify the killing of children and adults. As a person considers two pictures: one of a seven-month-old fetus in the womb, and one of a seven-month-old preemie outside the womb, he/she should understand that location and mode of breathing is not a valid basis for defining personhood.

Those who view conception to be the criterion of personhood should mourn miscarriages in the same way they would death of post-birth babies, but there is logical reason to consider personhood beginning the same way doctors use to consider a person to be dead: brain death or the absence of certain brain wave activity detected by an electroencephalogram (EEG). We might call this presence of crucial brain waves “sentience”, when the fetus has brain life of the type detectable in a person deemed to be alive and to have the civil right to life.

Thus, everyone should agree that the fetus becomes sentient and a legal person at least by that stage of development. In the absence of definitive Scriptural teaching, this is only a partial solution, but it is better than allowing abortion throughout pregnancy. It recognizes that people may reasonably disagree about the status of the fetus between conception and sentience. Implementing this solution requires educating people about fetal development until society develops a consensus that when a fetus becomes sentient, abortion is a type of manslaughter or murder and should be punished appropriately.

It was recently pointed out to me that truthseeking is a biblical topic/doctrine that provides the connection between special revelation and general revelation, so I have added this to the elaboration of the Christian creed:

6. This creed summarizes revelation of the NT Gospel/Truth (Matt. 26:13, John 14:6, Rom. 1:18&25, 2Thes. 2:10-13), which fulfilled the OT revelation (Matt. 5:17, John 19:13, Heb. 7:11-10:1) and culminates the search for salvation by souls who know only general revelation (Rom. 1:20, 2:14-16, Matt. 7:12). Repenting of sin and seeking salvation (Matt. 4:17, 7:7) begins with love of Truth, which is the Way to the Door of eternal life, who is the Lord Jesus (2Thes. 2:10, John 14:6, 1:1-18).

General revelation includes both 1. meditating logically on the natural world or God’s supernatural work and 2. moral conscience or “common” sense, which manifests morality or a moral Authority in every culture, beginning with the Golden Rule (Rom. 2:14-16, Matt. 7:12). Paul said men are without excuse for atheism/sin, both because God’s eternal power and divine nature (love) are manifested by creation (Rom. 1:20), which serve as a proto-gospel revealed implicitly in pre-NT foreshadowings (Col. 1:23, Rom. 10:13-18, Gal. 3:8). Like Paul (according to Acts 22:3) and most adults, some didachaic truth is learned prior to knowing the kerygma.

As has already been mentioned, the Parable of the Talents indicates that souls are saved via faith in God/ Christ as revealed (cf. 1Cor. 10:1-5), but sometimes didachaic truth and common logic may be the way truthseekers around the world in all times are pilgrims at various places along the road of life, and all true roads eventually lead to the Way to eternal life in heaven (John 14:6, Acts 24:14, Phil. 2:10-11). All truth leads to One Way; thus didachaic doctrines prepare the way for the Gospel/kerygmatic finale. A logical train of thought leads an unbiased truthseeker to have a propensity to believe in an all-loving God, who is not tricky and does not hide the way to heaven (Heb. 11:6, Acts 13:10). Humanity’s understanding of God progressed through the millenniums and climaxed with the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, who is the apex of divine revelation (Heb. 7:18, 8:13, 9:15).

God-given logical thinking is the way every sane soul has access to the supreme Mind or Logos (1Cor. 2:11-16). Right reasoning is the glue that binds all individual truths together in one faith. Divine Logic provides the rationale for believing that the history of humanity is not a farce, and it sustains the hope of experiencing love and joy in a future heavenly existence. The beauty of this hermeneutic is the harmonization/unity of whatever is good and true.

 

[Lightbeamrider]

The main point I glean from your post is that the inspired NT revelation/canon ended with the death of Paul and the collection of Christ's teachings in the gospels by the other apostles.

That was not the point of my post. The point of my post was to refute the late dating of the Gospels to after 70 AD, with all the omissions, especially in Acts. Why trust seculars [Like Ehrman] who approach scripture with built-in biases?

What is your opinion of Revelation?

Does not matter if it is not backed by facts. It is contained in Scripture

 

[GWH]

That was not the point of my post. The point of my post was to refute the late dating of the Gospels to after 70 AD, with all the omissions, especially in Acts. Why trust seculars [Like Ehrman] who approach scripture with built-in biases?


Does not matter if it is not backed by facts. It is contained in Scripture

I agree with you regarding the dating of all but John.
As I just posted elsewhere after reading the introductory information in my Bible:

Regarding the chronology of the NT writings, there is insufficient evidence to be dogmatic, but most scholars think that Matthew and Luke incorporated Mark, which Papias said was derived from Peter (aka the Q source) before he was martyred circa 67 A.D.

Of course, the epistles of Paul and Peter also must have been written before being murdered by Nero c. 67 A.D.

It should be noted that both Mark and Luke were associated with Paul and involved with his ministry, and the last event in Acts occurred about 62 A.D., before awareness of the Nero persecutions and the destruction of Jerusalem. Lack of reference to these events is also an argument for dating John in the 60s , but there also are good reasons for thinking he wrote it during his long exile on Patmos 89-95 A.D.

Thus, there is every good reason to view the NT as a package deal, authored by apostles of Jesus seeking to preserve the oral tradition before they died because his parousia did not occur quickly.

 

[rewriter]

I agree with you regarding the dating of all but John.
As I just posted elsewhere after reading the introductory information in my Bible:

Regarding the chronology of the NT writings, there is insufficient evidence to be dogmatic, but most scholars think that Matthew and Luke incorporated Mark, which Papias said was derived from Peter (aka the Q source) before he was martyred circa 67 A.D.

Of course, the epistles of Paul and Peter also must have been written before being murdered by Nero c. 67 A.D.

It should be noted that both Mark and Luke were associated with Paul and involved with his ministry, and the last event in Acts occurred about 62 A.D., before awareness of the Nero persecutions and the destruction of Jerusalem. Lack of reference to these events is also an argument for dating John in the 60s , but there also are good reasons for thinking he wrote it during his long exile on Patmos 89-95 A.D.

Thus, there is every good reason to view the NT as a package deal, authored by apostles of Jesus seeking to preserve the oral tradition before they died because his parousia did not occur quickly.

I greatly differ with you regarding dating. Likely you are unaware that one of the DSS fragments fit only with the Gospel of Mark among know ancient writings and is dated to circa 49 CE although there is also evidence of rewriting, aka, a second edition. There are also what appear to be parallels between John and some of Paul's epistles, as well as again, evidence of a second edition. Matthew fits best with a mid-60's dating and Luke-Acts fits best with an early 70's dating, the lack of some things being mentioned can be addressed quite easily by assuming literary parallels, and already existing knowledge. Paul's date of death is likewise contested, with some obscure accounts suggesting that it was Vespasian who had Paul executed, which could easily fit with Paul having written the Pastorals in the late 60's, and thus allowing Clement of Rome to be accurately reporting history in his passing comment.

Now if one takes this timeline, then the historical parts of the NT were largely written (rewritten) to explain why the parousia did not occur as anticipated. It also allows for Ephesians to be clearly Pauline and referencing current events (I know, most scholars would say "heaven forbid" at that suggestion, but it fits).

 

[GWH]

I greatly differ with you regarding dating. Likely you are unaware that one of the DSS fragments fit only with the Gospel of Mark among know ancient writings and is dated to circa 49 CE although there is also evidence of rewriting, aka, a second edition. There are also what appear to be parallels between John and some of Paul's epistles, as well as again, evidence of a second edition. Matthew fits best with a mid-60's dating and Luke-Acts fits best with an early 70's dating, the lack of some things being mentioned can be addressed quite easily by assuming literary parallels, and already existing knowledge. Paul's date of death is likewise contested, with some obscure accounts suggesting that it was Vespasian who had Paul executed, which could easily fit with Paul having written the Pastorals in the late 60's, and thus allowing Clement of Rome to be accurately reporting history in his passing comment.

Now if one takes this timeline, then the historical parts of the NT were largely written (rewritten) to explain why the parousia did not occur as anticipated. It also allows for Ephesians to be clearly Pauline and referencing current events (I know, most scholars would say "heaven forbid" at that suggestion, but it fits).

I do not think our timelines differ "greatly"/significantly. IMO, agreeing within a decade or two is not differing.

A great difference would be dating the writings after the death of the apostles, which might mean
they were not the authors, causing problems regarding inspiration and historicity.

IMO, apparent ignorance of the fall of Jerusalem strongly indicates authorship before that event.

Discussion of the parallels between John and Paul interests me if you want to share some examples.

 

[rewriter]

I do not think our timelines differ "greatly"/significantly. IMO, agreeing within a decade or two is not differing.

A great difference would be dating the writings after the death of the apostles, which might mean
they were not the authors, causing problems regarding inspiration and historicity.

IMO, apparent ignorance of the fall of Jerusalem strongly indicates authorship before that event.

Discussion of the parallels between John and Paul interests me if you want to share some examples.

Writings occurring after the death of the apostles would be an issue, I agree. But two or three works might fall into that category. Hebrews is a major example, it does not appear to actually be written by an apostle, but rather to be a sermon delivered by an unknow person and attributed to Paul in ancient times in order for it to be included. 2nd Peter is thought by some scholars to have been written in Peter's name and honor after his death, this is debatable but possible. And Revelation can be seen as having been written in three stages. There is an obscure Jewish apocalypse that bears some close parallels, and Revelation can have all clear references to Jesus removed and still read very well. There is also a latest date for the seven churches, safely before any suggestion of Nero returning from the dead as implied. And finally, the expectation of a new temple fits best both after 70, still later than either of the other two, and realistically in the mid-90's.

As for parallels between John and Paul, both use DSS type language in places, but even more, compare John's prologue with Colossians 1:15-22. Both also seem reliant on the Wisdom of Solomon if I am remembering my apocrypha correctly. And I might note it is possible to see hints from 4th Maccabees in some of Paul in addition to the more obvious parallels to the Synoptics.

As for no comment about the fall of Jerusalem, if Luke-Acts was influenced by Homer's two-part epic with the Aeneid substituted in for the Odyssey, then Luke sets the stage for the fall of Jerusalem and Acts merely assumes that the fall is inevitable and has no reason to directly reference it. This, with the table of nations in Acts 2, which parallels the regions that were early supporters of Vespasian, allows for Theophilus to be a flattering nickname for Vespasian without having to suggest that he was involved in the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. This would also fit with a change in the understanding of the Parousia which is presented in a clearly different fashion than what Paul understood, and some preserved statements by Jesus suggest that He also understood it in a more immediate and physical fashion as opposed to spiritual as tradition assigns.

 

[GWH]

Writings occurring after the death of the apostles would be an issue, I agree. But two or three works might fall into that category. Hebrews is a major example, it does not appear to actually be written by an apostle, but rather to be a sermon delivered by an unknow person and attributed to Paul in ancient times in order for it to be included. 2nd Peter is thought by some scholars to have been written in Peter's name and honor after his death, this is debatable but possible. And Revelation can be seen as having been written in three stages. There is an obscure Jewish apocalypse that bears some close parallels, and Revelation can have all clear references to Jesus removed and still read very well. There is also a latest date for the seven churches, safely before any suggestion of Nero returning from the dead as implied. And finally, the expectation of a new temple fits best both after 70, still later than either of the other two, and realistically in the mid-90's.

As for parallels between John and Paul, both use DSS type language in places, but even more, compare John's prologue with Colossians 1:15-22. Both also seem reliant on the Wisdom of Solomon if I am remembering my apocrypha correctly. And I might note it is possible to see hints from 4th Maccabees in some of Paul in addition to the more obvious parallels to the Synoptics.

As for no comment about the fall of Jerusalem, if Luke-Acts was influenced by Homer's two-part epic with the Aeneid substituted in for the Odyssey, then Luke sets the stage for the fall of Jerusalem and Acts merely assumes that the fall is inevitable and has no reason to directly reference it. This, with the table of nations in Acts 2, which parallels the regions that were early supporters of Vespasian, allows for Theophilus to be a flattering nickname for Vespasian without having to suggest that he was involved in the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. This would also fit with a change in the understanding of the Parousia which is presented in a clearly different fashion than what Paul understood, and some preserved statements by Jesus suggest that He also understood it in a more immediate and physical fashion as opposed to spiritual as tradition assigns.

I believe that Hebrews was authored by Paul, and I see no doctrinal reason to doubt 2Peter. I think Jude seems more problematic.

Revelation is an outlier doctrinally, because it seems to minimize John's emphasis on faith and overly esteem OT prophecies,
but it is a fun read--stimulating the imagination after the words to the churches, so I vote to keep it. It seems to have possible references to the fall of Jerusalem, which John on Patmos would have known.

Parallels between John and Paul?

 

[rewriter]

I believe that Hebrews was authored by Paul, and I see no doctrinal reason to doubt 2Peter. I think Jude seems more problematic.

Revelation is an outlier doctrinally, because it seems to minimize John's emphasis on faith and overly esteem OT prophecies,
but it is a fun read--stimulating the imagination after the words to the churches, so I vote to keep it. It seems to have possible references to the fall of Jerusalem, which John on Patmos would have known.

Parallels between John and Paul?

Hebrews definitely sounds Pauline, but very few scholars consider it to be from Paul, most argue that it was from an associate of Paul.

And I would also keep Revelation, but which John wrote it? The Greek of the gospel and the three letters are not the same as the Greek of Revelation. Either someone really cleaned up John's Greek in the gospel and the letters, or there were two different Johns writing. I vote for the latter.

As for more parallels between John and Paul than the one I cited and the linguistic ones I referenced, how familiar are you with Euripides? You need knowledge of his works to see many of the parallels (and a willingness to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, tradition is intentionally concealing somethings). Mark edition one, "the Parousia is coming soon", Paul in carefully chosen language so as to not upset the Romans, "the Parousia is coming soon", John edition one, "the Parousia is coming soon", Matthew more subtly, "the Parousia is coming soon", Revelation, "the Parousia is coming soon", Luke-Acts, (oops, Rome won the Jewish rebellion that they were supposed to lose) "people have misunderstood the coming Parousia", Mark and John second editions, "people have misunderstood the coming Parousia" tradition, every part of the NT agrees that the people of Jesus's day misunderstood the coming Parousia.

And on that last point, tradition, 1 John makes some strange statements that we have to correct in translation citing not-existent evidence. And this is closely related to the common "adjustment" made in translating Romans 1:25 where the same definite article appears before both the words translated correctly as "truth" (translated "the truth") and "lie" (often translated "a lie", ignoring the definite article as it is troublesome).

 

[GWH]

Hebrews definitely sounds Pauline, but very few scholars consider it to be from Paul, most argue that it was from an associate of Paul.

And I would also keep Revelation, but which John wrote it? The Greek of the gospel and the three letters are not the same as the Greek of Revelation. Either someone really cleaned up John's Greek in the gospel and the letters, or there were two different Johns writing. I vote for the latter.

As for more parallels between John and Paul than the one I cited and the linguistic ones I referenced, how familiar are you with Euripides? You need knowledge of his works to see many of the parallels (and a willingness to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, tradition is intentionally concealing somethings). Mark edition one, "the Parousia is coming soon", Paul in carefully chosen language so as to not upset the Romans, "the Parousia is coming soon", John edition one, "the Parousia is coming soon", Matthew more subtly, "the Parousia is coming soon", Revelation, "the Parousia is coming soon", Luke-Acts, (oops, Rome won the Jewish rebellion that they were supposed to lose) "people have misunderstood the coming Parousia", Mark and John second editions, "people have misunderstood the coming Parousia" tradition, every part of the NT agrees that the people of Jesus's day misunderstood the coming Parousia.

And on that last point, tradition, 1 John makes some strange statements that we have to correct in translation citing not-existent evidence. And this is closely related to the common "adjustment" made in translating Romans 1:25 where the same definite article appears before both the words translated correctly as "truth" (translated "the truth") and "lie" (often translated "a lie", ignoring the definite article as it is troublesome).

Well, we know of no one else who could have written Hebrews, so I vote for Paul for now,
but I could be persuaded that John's gospel and epistles were written by a different author than who wrote Rev.
because of differing doctrines and emphases.

Regarding John and Paul, I am only interested in concrete doctrinal comparisons,
not in speculation based on tradition.

I compared Paul with Peter's epistles and found enough similarities
to convince me of Pauline influence, so I included them in my list of the Teachings of Paul.

 

[rewriter]

Well, we know of no one else who could have written Hebrews, so I vote for Paul for now,
but I could be persuaded that John's gospel and epistles were written by a different author than who wrote Rev.
because of differing doctrines and emphases.

Regarding John and Paul, I am only interested in concrete doctrinal comparisons,
not in speculation based on tradition.

I compared Paul with Peter's epistles and found enough similarities
to convince me of Pauline influence, so I included them in my list of the Teachings of Paul.

For concrete doctrinal comparisons you need be very aware oof Euripides, I had to do some heavy research to become convinced of the ties. But the issues of women's hair in Corinth and scripture in 2 Timothy as well as Colossians and John's prologue all fit with connections, and there are others.

As for who besides Paul could have written Hebrews, Paul himself mentions multiple possibilities.

 

[GWH]

For concrete doctrinal comparisons you need be very aware oof Euripides, I had to do some heavy research to become convinced of the ties. But the issues of women's hair in Corinth and scripture in 2 Timothy as well as Colossians and John's prologue all fit with connections, and there are others.

As for who besides Paul could have written Hebrews, Paul himself mentions multiple possibilities.

Well, in order to be concrete we need citation of verses both for the comparison and for Paul's possibilities, please.

 

[rewriter]

Well, in order to be concrete we need citation of verses both for the comparison and for Paul's possibilities, please.

How familiar are you with Euripides? I can make the argument in 25-30+ pages if you are not, but I really do not want to try to post that much. A lot of my work is based on a few decades of trying to learn what the ancients would have known automatically but that we have forgotten or dismissed as "clearly irrelevant" because it differs with tradition.

 

[GWH]

How familiar are you with Euripides? I can make the argument in 25-30+ pages if you are not, but I really do not want to try to post that much. A lot of my work is based on a few decades of trying to learn what the ancients would have known automatically but that we have forgotten or dismissed as "clearly irrelevant" because it differs with tradition.

Sorry, I guess I did not make it clear that the comparison and citations I desire are in the writings of John and Paul, not Euripedes.

 

[rewriter]

Sorry, I guess I did not make it clear that the comparison and citations I desire are in the writings of John and Paul, not Euripedes.

And are you certain that you will see the connections without knowledge of Euripides? If so, you are excellent, as I could not, nor any scholar that I know of. But virtually every scholar I know of, once they see the connections with Euripides, sees the connections between Paul and John.

It is like spotting some other questionable points in scripture, once you are aware of some obscure points, various scripture passages suddenly change meaning. Awareness of ancient Judean numismatics and other fields being one example, just the numismatics and Bible leave puzzles, but add in a third field and suddenly an entirely new vista opens up.

 

[GWH]

And are you certain that you will see the connections without knowledge of Euripides? If so, you are excellent, as I could not, nor any scholar that I know of. But virtually every scholar I know of, once they see the connections with Euripides, sees the connections between Paul and John.

It is like spotting some other questionable points in scripture, once you are aware of some obscure points, various scripture passages suddenly change meaning. Awareness of ancient Judean numismatics and other fields being one example, just the numismatics and Bible leave puzzles, but add in a third field and suddenly an entirely new vista opens up.

Yes, I am confident, just as I can see the connections/similarities between Jesus and Paul without Euripides.
May I suggest you start a thread about Euripides and numismatics, and I will check it out?

 

[rewriter]

Yes, I am confident, just as I can see the connections/similarities between Jesus and Paul without Euripides.
May I suggest you start a thread about Euripides and I will check it out?

Very good then start with Jesus and Paul on women and slaves, then on the relationship between Rome and believers. You might also wish to check out the tasks and titles used for Jesus in both John and Paul. Have fun.

 

[GWH]

Very good then start with Jesus and Paul on women and slaves, then on the relationship between Rome and believers. You might also wish to check out the tasks and titles used for Jesus in both John and Paul. Have fun.

I already started comparing the TOI with the TOP in the Teachings of Jesus thread post #230 on p, 12:

TOJ #1: Jesus is the Son of God. [Luke 2:49, cf. John 3:16] Jesus’ first pupils were His parents. By the age of twelve Jesus realized that God was His heavenly Father (in fulfillment of Psalm 2:7). John 1:14 states that God’s Word/Spirit was incarnate in Jesus. Hebrews 1:3 says that Jesus is God’s Son, “the exact representation of his being.”

Insofar as it is possible for the almighty, immortal and invisible God (1Tim. 1:17) to reveal Himself in a mortal human (Rom. 1:3), that person is Jesus (1Tim. 2:5). Jesus is the fullest possible revelation of the superhuman God (Col. 1:19) in the human dimension (Phil. 2:7-8). And with God all things are possible that do not contradict who He is (Matt. 19:26, Heb. 6:18). The “insofar” of this theophany is sufficient, so that the Son of God (Matt. 3:17, 17:5) or Messiah/Christ may be considered as Immanuel (Matt. 1:23) or God the Son {John 5:17-27, 10:25-38, 14:9f., 17:1-5}. This means that God may be understood as a Triunity (See TOJ #7, #49, #52 & #178).

TOP #9: The Gospel of God is that Jesus was a descendant of David, who was revealed by His resurrection to be the Son of God and Christ the Lord. [Rom. 1:1-4] Paul said Jesus had a human nature, and was declared to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead. Thus, he should also be called Jesus Christ/Messiah our Lord.

God the Father and Christ’s Sonship are discussed in Hebrews 1:1-4. The Son of God also is mentioned by John (John 1:14, 3:16, etc.) and by Paul (Rom. 1:4, Gal. 2:20, 1Thes. 1:10). God the Father is over all creation (Eph. 4:6), God the Son is Immanuel or with humanity (Matt. 1:23), and the Holy Spirit is within all believers (Eph. 1:13). A single passage that comes closest to indicating this distinction is Ephesians 3:14-19.

TOP #260: Jesus is God’s Son, the manifestation of God’s Being and co-creator of the universe, which is sustained by God’s Word. [Heb. 1:1-3a] This verse seems akin to John 1:1-3, 14-18 & 34, 3:16-18, etc., but John also calls Jesus the Son of Man (John 1:51, 3:13-14) and equates these Sonships in John 5:25-27.

TOP #261: After providing humanity purification for sins, Jesus returned to reign in heaven over the angels as God’s firstborn Son. [Heb. 1:3b-14, 2:5-9] Paul referred to Christ’s reign in 1Cor. 15:20-28 (cf. Jude v. 25).

I would welcome you to begin reading that thread from this point and commenting,
even citing Euripides if relevant.