First Word of Jesus was repent

These kinds of comments don't contribute to the conversation at all. Anyone could simply dismiss another person's point of view by saying that many people disagree with them. It's kind of a cop-out, its the tactic relativists use against Christianity.
If I don't know how to respond biblically, I simply say "I don't know", but I would never say "Well, many scholars disagree with you". There are Scholars that disagree with the inerrancy of Scripture and the Deity of Jesus. There will always be a scholar somewhere that disagrees with you and me. Their opinions for the most part is irrelevant to our reasoning of truth.

You said that you think Paul changed the subject from incarnation in verse 32 to resurrection in verse 33.
But the context shows that resurrection was already in the conversation, in fact, Luke kept returning to the idea (4 times) in the chapter... and not only in that chapter, but the whole book of Acts the theme of Jesus as the resurrected Christ is the proclamation of the Apostles.

Fact: Luke told us that the resurrection of Jesus was written about in Psalm 2:7.

You and I need to form our theology (and creeds) around the Biblical facts.

I’m not sure it was your intention but that’s a humorous and clever way of locating the first word of Jesus in the New Testament.

For clarification, do you think Jesus’ first word was spoken in the New Testament or in the Old Testament?

Thanks. I guess soggykitten was just funning with us then.

God did not divide his word, man did. Blik was hoping posters would discuss repentance and she erred by asking for first words. God did not say repent was the first words, but this is the message he started His ministry with.

Posters are using the post to show Christ is eternal God, perhaps that is what the Lord wants us to remember of Him.

I'd say Old Testament. "Let there be light..."
John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
My first post was funning with you all. Sort of a means of breaking the ice that may grow rather thick with seriousness and conflict over the question?
Doesn't mean I don't take the Bible seriously.

Thanks for the explanation. The thread certainly took an interesting turn on the error.



Christ himself has a God. Surely Christ’s God is the eternal God. I can’t imagine any other possibility. Can you?

Does it make sense that the eternal God himself has a God?

Jesus was God. Matthew 1:23.

I didn’t just say that Bruce agrees with me on this point. I showed you why he agrees with me. I find his appeal to Acts 13:23 to understand Acts 13:33 persuasive. You don’t.

You pointed out that the phrase “As for the fact“ in 13:34 was added by the translators. Why do you think they did that?

The name Emmanuel is symbolic. What does it symbolize? It symbolizes that in the conceived person’s life God has intervened to save his people.

“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and give birth to a son, and they shall call him Emmanuel,“ which is translated “God is with us.” (Mounce)

The name Emmanuel is symbolic. What does it symbolize? It symbolizes that in the conceived person’s life God has intervened to save his people.

What happens when a person is conceived? Life begins for that person.

This entire post's purpose in my mind was to start a discussion on repentance. It has taken off in an entirely new direction. I wonder if it is because posters are avoiding speaking of repentance or that God is working among us to discuss what is important for us now? Certainly, the question asked didn't make it's purpose clear. I wonder how important it is that Matthew said the first messages Christ had for us was to repent?

Actually, Bruce doesn't agree with either of us:
On "today I have begotten you". He wrote "It refers to the day on which God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit and power and called him to his messianic mission".
(Bruce F.F. The Book of Acts, Revised Edition. The New International Commentary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988)

But the rest of the NT does support this idea that the begottoness of Jesus is connected to His resurrection. Consider Hebrews 5:5.

"So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but God said to Him,
“YOU ARE MY SON,
TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”

He was glorified by the Father at His resurrection, not His incarnation.
"Jesus was not yet glorified" (John 7)
"So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken" (John 2)
"when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written of Him, and that they had done these things to Him"
(John 12)

Because it makes it more readable in our language. Translators will often add things in addition to translated words/phrases for the sake of readability. This is not a problem as long as the meaning doesn't change. Most of the time this can be done successfully.
This is one reason I learned Greek, so these things wouldn't remain ambiguous in my understanding. One of the main reasons people differ doctrinally... is because of misunderstandings of the language and assuming an allegorical view of Scripture.

Are you saying that the second Person of the trinity was created? What about the divinity of Jesus?

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him. 14 The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men. And that life shine through in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.”

John 1:1-5, Geneva Bible

This entire post's purpose in my mind was to start a discussion on repentance. It has taken off in an entirely new direction. I wonder if it is because posters are avoiding speaking of repentance or that God is working among us to discuss what is important for us now? Certainly, the question asked didn't make it's purpose clear. I wonder how important it is that Matthew said the first messages Christ had for us was to repent?

It? Your Jesus is an "it"?

The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us.

The Word is identified as the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

No. My Jesus is a “he”.

Your question illustrates what I said in an earlier post in this thread about connotation. “It” doesn’t sound like John is speaking about a person being with God. “He” sounds like John is speaking about a person being with God. (See the post by Diakonos in this thread on personification.)

John isn’t speaking about Jesus in the prologue of his Gospel. He is speaking about the Father.



Yes, but not in the prologue. You’re reading Jesus into the prologue.

What happens when a person is conceived? Life begins for that person.

LOL. The very second sentence says, He was with God in the beginning. "He" is referring to the Word. Unless you want to try to tell me that it means to say that God was with God in the beginning? Yeah, not buying it. The Word is Jesus, Who is God, and Who took on flesh, just like the text plainly states.

An eternal person is a person who has always existed. A conceived person is a person who is brought into existence.

It’s complete nonsense to say that the second person of the Trinity was brought into existence.

It’s common sense to say that a human person was brought into existence.

Is Jesus a human person?

That’s not what the second sentence says in the Geneva Bible translation; ”The same”, not “he”.

God was not with God in the beginning. God’s word was with God in the beginning. That word would later become a person.