POLL: The Deity of Christ

[Elin]

This is the kind of nonsense I will not put up with.

Or as Winston Churchill said. . ."up with I will not put."

 

[oldhermit]

Or as Winston Churchill said. . ."up with I will not put."

LOL. Actually if memory serves what he said was "...up with which I will not put."

 

[Elin]

I have no doubt that you can form a convincing valid proof of the Trinity using Scripture, or else no one would believe such a thing;
but my doubt is in the USEFULNESS of such a doctrine, in light of the usefulness of the Gospel by itself.

I never doubt the value of what God reveals, for several reasons:

I would be second guessing God, setting my judgment above his.

If he reveals it, it has value.

He would not reveal it if he didn't think it was good for us to know.

You have a diminished view of God..

 

[Elin]

No, Solomon was not a type of the Son of God except in the fact that he built the house of God, not as one begotten of God.

Solomon was a figure of the subject King (Jesus, 1Co 15:28).

Solomon was not the begotten of God, he was begotten of exclusively human parents.
Since Paul exclusively links Psa 2:7 to resurrection then
Solomon cannot serve as a type in this regard because he is still dead and his body is still in the grave.

All the types are dead, only the anti-types are not dead.

God calls Solomon his son and repeats that he is Solomon's father (2Sa 7:5, 13-14),
(which figurative, not literal language in the ancient near East meant
Solomon was a subject king under God, the King)
a figure of Jesus, son of the King (the Father) who will rule God's Kingdom
under the Father's authority (1Co 15:28) when Jesus, the subject King
has put all enemies under his feet and delivers the Kingdom over to the Father (1Co 15:24-28).

2Sa 7:13-14 is not saying that Solomon was a natural son of God,
but that Solomon was a subject king ruling by the authority of God the King,
whose throne would be established forever (all of which which is a type of Christ,
as is the Davidic covenant).

The NT links both Ps 2:7 and 2Sa 7:13-14 to Jesus as:
the Son of God,
who is subject king ruling the Kingdom under the authority of the greater King (the Father),
and then Ro 1:4 states he was declared with power to be the Son of God, and subject king (1Co 15:28),
by the resurrection.

The only two characters of the OT who are spoken as represent Jesus as the Son of God
was Adam and Isaac and Issac only represents him as sacrifice.

However, as you know, the OT is strewn with types of Jesus as different things; e.g.,
the Passover lamb,
the sin sacrifice,
David, the king whose throne is established forever ,
Melchizedek, the eternal high priest,
Moses, the Mediator and Prophet,
the show bread in the Holy Place,
the rock in the wildnerness,
the manna from heaven,
the Branch,
Solomon, the Son and subject king of the King, etc.

I find the meaning of Ac 13:33; Ro 1:4; 1Co 15:24-28 to be clear that
Jesus is the fulfillment of the promises to the Fathers in 2Sa 7:5, 13-14 and Ps 2:7;
that God's Son would be ruler of the Kingdom and subject king of the Father,w
which has been declared with power by the resurrection.

 

[Elin]

If you want to think Solomon is a type of son in this regard that is up to you. But, you know that
Paul is not using "begotten" to refer to natural processes. He is speaking of resurrection. This is a completely non-natural event.

The resurrection declares Jesus to be the Son and the subject king of the King (2Sa 7:13-14),
who rules the Kingdom under the authority of the King, the Father (1Co 15:28).

God's promises (2Sa 7:13-14) were not always spoken literally.

 

[Elin]

When Christ delivers it up, the Father will resume the authority regarding it,
WITH THE SON REIGNING under the authority/will of the Father.

There is no reason to reject this understanding which reconciles 1Co 15:28.

There is no Biblical discrepancy.

For he must REIGN UNTIL he has put all his enemies under his feet 1cor 15:25

Previously addressed. . .review/study the record--with attention. . .instead of skimming it.

 

[Elin]

The greatest power and most rapid growth of the christian church was seen before the emergence of the scholar and theologian, not after.

Anecdotal. . .proves nothing.

One wonders how the NT church survived and grew so rapidly, not having the benefit of all the theological understanding now available. But they did have the Holy Spirit, and relied totally on him

 

[Elin]

Perhaps I'm on the right track ....
"Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein."

Perhaps anyone who says "There is soooooo much more I have to show you"
could use a little humility ?

So the church doesn't need teachers. . .and God doesn't provide them. . .

 

[tourist]

Oh, ok.........

I was thinking when I read your comment............Well now, I would have expected the Blond (uh, she isn't here right now is she?) to do something like that.......



(better ease away before she shows up)

She just walked in the door from the pool.

 

[senzi]

Previously addressed. . .review/study the record--with attention. . .instead of skimming it.

I prefer to rely on the inner conviction of the holy spirit, rather than much theological study of the academic mind. That mind is fallible. Paul is clear, Christ WILL reign UNTIL all is defeated including the last enemy death. The person led of the spirit accepts that, the

Person led of the academic mind comes up with all kinds of theologising and refutes it

 

[Elin]

But Old Hermit, Iggy is for wimps who cannot abide any view other than their own
nor any suggestion that they might lack humility.

Who made that rule?

 

[Elin]

I prefer to rely on the inner conviction of the holy spirit, rather than much theological study of the academic mind. That mind is fallible. Paul is clear,
Christ WILL reign UNTIL all is defeated including the last enemy death.

Agreed. . .

 

[senzi]

We give thanks to you Lord God Almighty
The one who is and who was
Because you have taken your great power
And have BEGUN to reign
Rev 11:17

 

[p_rehbein]

I prefer to rely on the inner conviction of the holy spirit, rather than much theological study of the academic mind. That mind is fallible. Paul is clear, Christ WILL reign UNTIL all is defeated including the last enemy death. The person led of the spirit accepts that, the

Person led of the academic mind comes up with all kinds of theologising and refutes it

Well, GOOD NEWS..........Christ defeated death and the grave with His resurrection and ascent to the Throne!

YEA JESUS!

 

[Elin]

We give thanks to you Lord God Almighty
The one who is and who was
Because you have taken your great power
And have BEGUN to reign
Rev 11:17

Revelation is of the future (Rev 1:1).

 

[senzi]

Revelation is of the future (Rev 1:1).

Yes it is. Christ reigns now, but at a time in the future when all is defeated he will hand over the kingdom to the father who will then reign. John and Paul agree.

 

[Elin]

Jesus, who is the υἱὸν θεοῦ – Son of God, is so because he bears the same nature, form, and and moral character of God. Christians are also called υἱοί Θεοῦ - sons of God for the same reason. As Christians we take on the character and nature of God. We are also called the τέκνα - children of God because we are his children by adoption, a term that is never used in scripture to refer to Christ.
Jesus is NEVER called the child of God, always the υἱὸν - the one who bears the image of God. This is Phil 2 and Heb 1.

Does the Son's issuing forth out from within the Father (Jn 8:42, 16:27, 28, 17:8) make him a begotten Son?

 

[oldhermit]

Does the Son's issuing forth out from within the Father (Jn 8:42, 16:27, 28, 17:8) make him a begotten Son?

This is not how Paul defied the term as it applies to Jesus.

 

[Elin]

Yes it is. Christ reigns now, but at a time in the future when all is defeated
he will hand over the kingdom to the father who will then reign. John and Paul agree.

Rev 11:15; Lk 1:33, Da 7:14 present Jesus as reigning forever over the Kingdom (glorified church and body of Christ).

 

[Elin]

Does the Son's issuing forth out from within the Father (Jn 8:42, 16:27, 28, 17:8) make him a begotten Son?

This is not how Paul defied the term as it applies to Jesus.

Does John's description define the term in Jn 8:42, 16:27, 28, 17:8,
which is also a description of begetting?

Paul does not exclude begetting.
His emphasis is on proof of sonship and kingship presented with power on the day of the resurrection.