POLL: The Deity of Christ

[senzi]

What discrepancies do you see. . .keeping in mind that
Philosophical ontology of the Trinity does not take into account the manhood of Jesus, God the Son.
Human nature does not enter into its ontology.

However, the relation of the God-man Jesus to the Trinity is presented in Scripture
in terms relating to the human body and spirit, which are not the same relation as to the divine Spirit.

In the ontological sense of Trinitarian doctrine it is not possible for christ to be subject to the father. In the economic sense of trinity-Christ doing the bidding of the father, Christ is now and always has been subject to the father. I am sure any Trinitarian who had looked into this particular subject will agree with that
Yet Paul states a time WILL cone in the future(it is not here yet) when Christ will be made subject to the father. According to Trinitarian doctrine, it cannot be in the ontological sense, that is not possible. And in the economic sense(what you have been speaking of) that doctrine states Christ is NOW subject to the father. So that rules out both in relation to 1cor 15:28 doesn't it.

 

[Elin]

Secondly, we are talking about Christ's mediatorship of the kingdom.
The best I can say is what Scripture attests to, that
it is referring to the future handing over of the kingdom (v. 24) as the God-man Mediator,
his administration of which continues until all opposing power, rule and authority are put down,
including death (which locates delivering it up after the resurrection at the end of time),
when his mediation of bringing his people to glory will end, and
the kingdom committed to him as Mediator and God-man is turned over to the Father
from whom it was received, and showing the God-man to be a subject of the Father
(as previously addressed), having accomplished the purpose for which it was given to him,
and which does not exclude his continuing to reign over his glorified church (and body) in heaven
(Rev 16:15; Lk 1:33; Da 7:14; Mic 4:7). . .

What discrepancies do you see. . .keeping in mind that
Philosophical ontology of the Trinity does not take into account the manhood of Jesus, God the Son.
Human nature does not enter into its ontology.

However, the relation of the God-man Jesus to the Trinity is presented in Scripture
in terms relating to the human body and spirit, which are not the same relation as to the divine Spirit.

In the ontological sense of Trinitarian doctrine it is not possible for christ to be subject to the father. In the economic sense of trinity-Christ doing the bidding of the father, Christ is now and always has been subject to the father. I am sure any Trinitarian who had looked into this particular subject will agree with that
Yet Paul states a time WILL cone in the future(it is not here yet) when Christ will be made subject to the father.

Again, it is speaking of Christ's administration of the kingdom.
The Father has given him all the authority regarding it now.

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 it.

According to Trinitarian doctrine, it cannot be in the ontological sense, that is not possible. And in the economic sense(what you have been speaking of) that doctrine states
Christ is NOW subject to the father. So that rules out both in relation to 1cor 15:28 doesn't it.

No, only in relation to your understanding of it.

There is no Biblical discrepancy.

 

[Elin]

.
Note the added emphasis from the above:

Secondly, we are talking about Christ's mediatorship of the kingdom.
The best I can say is what Scripture attests to, that
it is referring to the future handing over of the kingdom (v. 24) as the God-man Mediator,
his administration of which continues until all opposing power, rule and authority are put down,
including death (which locates delivering it up after the resurrection at the end of time),
when his mediation of bringing his people to glory will end, and
the kingdom committed to him as Mediator and God-man is turned over to the Father
from whom it was received, and showing the God-man to be a subject of the Father
(as previously addressed), having accomplished the purpose for which it was given to him,
and which does not exclude his continuing to reign over his glorified church (and body) in heaven
(Rev 16:15; Lk 1:33; Da 7:14; Mic 4:7). . .

What discrepancies do you see. . .keeping in mind that
Philosophical ontology of the Trinity does not take into account the manhood of Jesus, God the Son.
Human nature does not enter into its ontology.

However, the relation of the God-man Jesus to the Trinity is presented in Scripture
in terms relating to the human body and spirit, which are not the same relation as to the divine Spirit.

The God-man Jesus had all authority regarding the administration of the kingdom,
which will be over in the future.

 

[senzi]

Again, it is speaking of Christ's administration of the kingdom.
The Father has given him all the authority regarding it now.

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 it.


No, only in relation to your understanding of it.

There is no Biblical discrepancy.

I know there is no biblical discrepency Elin, scripture is infallible

 

[Elin]

Again, it is speaking of Christ's administration of the kingdom.
The Father has given him all the authority regarding it now.

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.

No, only in relation to your understanding of it.

There is no Biblical discrepancy.

I know there is no biblical discrepency Elin, scripture is infallible.

Non-responsive. . .

 

[Elin]

People have made all sorts of wild conjectures about
just what it means for Jesus to be called the "Begotten" and what this refers to. Since Peter gives is the revealed application of the Psalm and assigns it to the exclusive act of the resurrection of Jesus that should render all other speculations null and void. Scripture MUST be allowed to define its own terms and its own use of language.

Would it be that in Ro 1:4 Paul explains his meaning of Ac 13:33?

That as to his human nature, Jesus was a descendant of David, but
as to his spirit, he was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead:
Jesus Christ our Lord (Ro 1:4)?

And that in Ac 13:33 Paul was referring to God promising David that God would be Solomon's father
and Solomon would be God's (begotten) son (2Sa 7:13-14),
which familial language in the ancient near East expressed the relationship between a great king
and one of his subject kings, who ruled by his authority and owed him allegiance,
that being the special relationship God promised to maintain with the descendants of David's throne,
and marking Solomon as the one God had chosen and enthroned to rule in his name as
the official representative of God's rule over his people, and
ultimately fulfilled in Jesus Christ (Mt 1:1, Mk 1:11; Heb 15)?

 

[oldhermit]

Would it be that in Ro 1:4 Paul explains his meaning of Ac 13:33?
That as to his human nature, Jesus was a descendant of David, but
as to his spirit, he was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead:
Jesus Christ our Lord (Ro 1:4)?

Yes, I think this is precisely what Paul is revering to in Rom 1:4 and there is no question that it is linked to his humanity because the body was raised from the tomb. There is no question that all of this is connected but Paul is singling out the resurrection as the event that fulfills this specif Psalm in which God says "today I have begotten you."

And that in Ac 13:33 Paul was referring to God promising David that God would be Solomon's father
and Solomon would be God's (begotten) son (2Sa 7:13-14),
which familial language in the ancient near East expressed the relationship between a great king
and one of his subject kings, who ruled by his authority and owed him allegiance,
that being the special relationship God promised to maintain with the descendants of David's throne,
and marking Solomon as the one God had chosen and enthroned to rule in his name as
the official representative of God's rule over his people, and
ultimately fulfilled in Jesus Christ (Mt 1:1, Mk 1:11; Heb 15)?

In Acts 13 Paul is not talking about David. Jesus is the subject of Paul's revelation on this Psalm. "God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.’ “As for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: ‘I WILL GIVE YOU THE HOLY and SURE blessings OF DAVID.’ “Therefore He also says in another Psalm, ‘YOU WILL NOT ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY.’ “For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and was laid among his fathers and underwent decay; but He whom God raised did not undergo decay." Solomon is still in the grave just like David. There is no connection of this Psalm to Solomon in any way. Even the Hebrew writer quotes this same Psalm and applies this to Jesus. In Acts 13, Paul is just a bit more specific because he not only applies it to Jesus but to an specific event in the life of Jesus - his resurrection.

 

[Elin]

Would it be that in Ro 1:4 Paul explains his meaning of Ac 13:33?
That as to his human nature, Jesus was a descendant of David, but
as to his spirit, he was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead:
Jesus Christ our Lord (Ro 1:4)?

Yes, I think this is precisely what Paul is revering to in Rom 1:4 and there is no question that it is linked to his humanity because the body was raised from the tomb. There is no question that all of this is connected but Paul is singling out the resurrection as the event that fulfills this specif Psalm in which God says "today I have begotten you."

And that in Ac 13:33 Paul was referring to God promising David that
God would be Solomon's father and Solomon would be God's (begotten) son (2Sa 7:13-14),
which familial language in the ancient near East expressed the relationship between a great king
and one of his subject kings, who ruled by his authority and owed him allegiance,
that being the special relationship God promised to maintain with the descendants of David's throne,
and marking Solomon as the one God had chosen and enthroned to rule in his name as
the official representative of God's rule over his people, and
ultimately fulfilled in Jesus Christ (Mt 1:1, Mk 1:11; Heb 1:5)?

In Acts 13 Paul is not talking about David.

You skimmin'?

I said Paul is talking about the fulfillment in Jesus Christ of the promise made to David in 2Sa 7:5, 11-14.

David penned Ps 2 (Ac 4:25).

Jesus is the subject of Paul's revelation on this Psalm. "God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.’

Isn't that what I said?

“As for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: ‘I WILL GIVE YOU THE HOLY and SURE blessings OF DAVID.’ “Therefore He also says in another Psalm, ‘YOU WILL NOT ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY.’ “For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and was laid among his fathers and underwent decay; but He whom God raised did not undergo decay." Solomon is still in the grave just like David.
There is no connection of this Psalm to Solomon in any way.

It is connected to Solomon in that God promised David that Solomon would be his Son (2Sa 7:5, 13-14) and king of his people, the meaning of which is explained above, and which was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, when he was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection (Ro 1:4).

Even the Hebrew writer quotes this same Psalm and applies this to Jesus.

That quote is noted in what I posted.

In Acts 13, Paul is just a bit more specific because he not only applies it to Jesus but to an specific event in the life of Jesus - his resurrection.

Did you misunderstand me?

I'm often not easy to understand.

 

[SolidGround]

Acts 13:31-38. I think I said Peter when I meant Paul.

If "only begotten" is dealing only with the Resurrection, and the words of Jesus in the book of John were prophetic of His Resurrection,
then I might have made a few more decent points on this thread than I thought.

I had been comparing the birth of Adam to the birth of Jesus, and if "only begotten" does not refute that birth by the Ruach of God as a connective tissue, then the Adoptionism theory is still valid.

 

[oldhermit]

If "only begotten" is dealing only with the Resurrection, and the words of Jesus in the book of John were prophetic of His Resurrection,
then I might have made a few more decent points on this thread than I thought.

I had been comparing the birth of Adam to the birth of Jesus, and if "only begotten" does not refute that birth by the Ruach of God as a connective tissue, then the Adoptionism theory is still valid.

I cannot see how this would support the Adoptionist theory. Adoptionism holds that Jesus BECAME the Son through the process of adoption. Jesus is not the Son of God because he is "begotten". He is begotten because he is the Son which brings up another question about what is it about Jesus that qualifies him as Son.

 

[oldhermit]

You skimmin'?

I said Paul is talking about the fulfillment in Jesus Christ of the promise made to David in 2Sa 7:5, 11-14.

David penned Ps 2 (Ac 4:25).

Isn't that what I said?



It is connected to Solomon in that God promised David that Solomon would be his Son (2Sa 7:5, 13-14) and king of his people, the meaning of which is explained above, and which was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, when he was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection (Ro 1:4).


That quote is noted in what I posted.


Did you misunderstand me?

I'm often not easy to understand.

I did not skim. I read the post twice. Perhaps I am not really understanding what it is you are asking.

 

[Elin]

I did not skim. I read the post twice. Perhaps I am not really understanding what it is you are asking.

I was asking if Post #686 was a Biblical understanding, particularly of the meaning of Ac 13:33, in relation to the promise made to David and David's penning Ps 2 (A 4:25).

 

[oldhermit]

I was asking if Post #686 was a Biblical understanding, particularly of the meaning of Ac 13:33.

2Sa 7:13-14 is used by the Hebrew writer in 1:5 and he says that this was spoken in regard to Jesus, not Solomon. Solomon was not the son of God, he was the son of David and Bathsheba.

 

[Elin]

I was asking if Post #686 was a Biblical understanding, particularly of
the meaning of Ac 13:33,
in relation to the promise made to David (2Sa 7:5, 13-14), and David's penning of Ps 2 (Ac 4:25).

2Sa 7:13-14 is used by the Hebrew writer in 1:5 and he says that this was spoken in regard to Jesus, not Solomon. Solomon was not the son of God, he was the son of David and Bathsheba.

My Bible notes that Heb 1:5 is using Ps 2.

 

[oldhermit]

My Bible notes that Heb 1:5 is using Ps 2.

He quotes from both passages in verse five. The first quote is from Psa 2 and the second is from 2Sa 7:14 .

 

[Elin]

He quotes from both passages in verse five. The first quote is from Psa 2 and the second is from 2Sa 7:14 .

Indeed he does. . .I am referring to the Jewish understanding of both of these to be Messianic
in their ultimate application (Lk 1:32-33), with
2Sa 7:5, 13-14 being the familial language used in the ancient near East
to express the relationship between a great king (the Father) and one of his subject kings (the Son),
who ruled by his authority and owed him allegiance,
and that being the special relationship God promised David to maintain with the descendants of his throne
(marking Solomon as the one God had chosen and enthroned to rule in his name at the time)
as the official representative of God's rule (only represented by "my son") over his people, and
ultimately fulfilled in Jesus Christ (Mt 1:1, Mk 1:11; Heb 1:5).

I am connecting the promise (and also covenant) given to David in the language of the ancient near East as it ultimately relates to Christ.

 

[oldhermit]

Indeed he does. . .I am referring to the Jewish understanding of both of these to be Messianic
in their ultimate application (Lk 1:32-33), with
2Sa 7:5, 13-14 being the familial language used in the ancient near East
to express the relationship between a great king (the Father) and one of his subject kings (the Son),
who ruled by his authority and owed him allegiance,
and that being the special relationship God promised David to maintain with the descendants of his throne
(marking Solomon as the one God had chosen and enthroned to rule in his name at the time)
as the official representative of God's rule (only represented by "my son") over his people, and
ultimately fulfilled in Jesus Christ (Mt 1:1, Mk 1:11; Heb 1:5).

Yes, there was an immediate implication of Solomon as the one who would build the temple of God which David had desired to build. This is nothing more than a representational form of the reality. The house to which God spoke was not the building that Solomon erected in Jerusalem, it was the house of God that Messiah would build. The Hebrew covers this in 3:1-6. "Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession; He was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was in all His house. For He has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, by just so much as the builder of the house has more honor than the house. For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God. Now Moses was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken later; but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house—whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end."

 

[Elin]

Yes, there was an immediate implication of Solomon as the one who would build the temple of God which David had desired to build. This is nothing more than a representational form of the reality.

A type. . .pattern. . .shadow. . .copy.

The house to which God spoke was not the building that Solomon erected in Jerusalem, it was the house of God that Messiah would build. The Hebrew covers this in 3:1-6. "Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession; He was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was in all His house. For He has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, by just so much as the builder of the house has more honor than the house. For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God. Now Moses was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken later; but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house—whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end."

Yes, Solomon was the type of God's begotten Son, meaning in the language of the ancient near East
that he was the ruler (God the Son) of his people under the king's (God the Father) authority, and
declared to be so with power by the resurrection.

 

[oldhermit]

A type. . .pattern. . .shadow. . .copy.


Yes, Solomon was the type of God's begotten Son, meaning in the language of the ancient near East
that he was the ruler (God the Son) of his people under the king's (God the Father) authority, and
declared to be so with power by the resurrection.

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 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. 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.

 

[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 type of the Son of God who is King of God's people.

Begotten simply means natural son.

In 2Sa 2:5, 13-14, for the King to declare someone his "son" meant he was naming that person as a subject king over his people under the authority of himself.

That is Paul's meaning in Ac 13:33.
Jesus was declared with power to be the Son of God (King over the Father's people under the Father's authority) by the resurrection.