POLL: The Deity of Christ

[Elin]

Hmmmm - which of the above quotes comes over as more "ignorant" and/or "self-righteous" ?

Previously addressed. . .

 

[Elin]

Elin, To what day does Paul assign the fulfillment of "today"? It is in the text. I do not understand why you keep ignoring Pau's inspired explanation of this Psalm.

Today is the day God proved with power, in the resurrection, that Jesus was his begotten Son.

It was declared to Mary with voice by the angel Gabriel on the day of the angel's visit,
and it was declared to the bystanders with voice by the Father on the day of Jesus' baptism,
but Easter Sunday it was declared with power, in his resurrection from death.

 

[Elin]

I understand why she keeps on doing it and I suppose that you probably do as well.
She chooses her own beliefs over scripture. It's really that simple.

Actually, she chooses her understanding in the light of the whole counsel of God,
rather than your understanding in the light of one verse.

 

[oldhermit]

Today is the day God proved with power, in the resurrection, that Jesus was his begotten Son.

This is true.

It was declared to Mary with voice by the angel Gabriel on the day of the angel's visit,
and it was declared to the bystanders with voice by the Father on the day of Jesus' baptism,
but Easter Sunday it was declared with power, in his resurrection from death.

This is not even offered as an application to the Psalm by Paul. Paul does not use μονογενοῦς here but γεγέννηκά.

 

[purgedconscience]

It's not "popular, it's historically orthodox.

Surely you are aware Jesus said that
he came forth out of God (Jn 8:42),

And?

Came forth or exerchomai or ἐξέρχομαι doesn't always mean from within as you'd have us to believe that it does.

Greek Lexicon :: G1831 (KJV)

to go or come forth of

1. with mention of the place out of which one goes, or the point from which he departs

1. of those who leave a place of their own accord
2. of those who are expelled or cast out

That's the very first definition given and it says nothing about from within. Can it mean from within? Yes, it can, but it doesn't always mean that by a longshot. How do you know that this verse isn't merely saying that Jesus came to us from the place where His Father is or that He departed from heaven?

Here's the text:

John chapter 8 verse 42

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

I'll use your next text to elaborate on my last question:

he came forth from the Father (Jn 16:27),
he came forth out of the Father (Jn 16:28),

Keep reading:

John chapter 16 verses 27 thru 30

For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.
His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.
Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.

Do you honestly believe that when Jesus' disciples told Him by this we believe that thou camest forth from God that they were saying, Hey, Jesus, now we believe that you were eternally generated and proceeded forth from within the Father? I hope that you don't. They were merely telling Him that they now believed that the Father had sent Him.

he came forth from the Father (you--Jn 17:8).

It's the same exact scenario as the one that I just described by giving a fuller text than you gave. Again, here's the text:

John chapter 17 verse 8

For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

When did Jesus' disciples know surely that He came out from the Father? Well, we just finished reading about it in the last part of my response to you and it had absolutely nothing at all to do with them allegedly believing that Jesus was eternally begotten. It's nonsense. I'm sorry, but it is.

The Greek verb for "came forth from/out of" is exelthon.
It means "to proceed, to emanate (flow out, issue from as a source, as light issues from the sun),
to come out or go out of, to go forth."

See 1Co 14:36--"Did the word of God go forth from, originate with you?"
See Mt 2:6 (where different form, exeleusetai, is used)--"Out of thee will come forth a governor."
See Mt 15:18 (where a third form, like go, went and gone, is used, exerchontai)--"Out of the heart comes forth evil thoughts."

When "proceed, emanate, come out, go out, go forth" is used with ek, which means "out from within,"
as in Jn 8:42, 16:28 above, it means "to proceed out from within, to emanate out from within, to come out from within, to go forth out from within," an emerging from within, an origin, and used by John in this sense, without exception, 336 times.

It is the meaning of being in the Father's bosom.

Again, you're taking one possible meaning and extending it to cover the whole which is never a wise thing to do.

 

[purgedconscience]

I'd like to throw another portion of scripture into this mix if I may. If somebody else has already mentioned it, then I'm sorry for repeating it.

Hebrews chapter 11 verses 17 thru 19

By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

In what sense was Isaac Abraham's only begotten son?

Ishmael was Abraham's son, wasn't he?

According to Genesis chapter 25 verses 1 and 2, after Sarah died, Abraham remarried and had several more sons, didn't he?

How then was Isaac Abraham's only begotten son?

Does this pertain to Isaac's birth?

I suppose that it could be argued that it does in that there was a supernatural element surrounding Isaac's conception. Paul said that Isaac was born after the Spirit in Galatians chapter 4 verse 29 and we're also told that Sarah needed to receive strength, dynamis, to conceive seed in Hebrews chapter 11 verse 11.

That said, the immediate context seems to imply a different understanding in relation to Isaac being Abraham's only begotten son. Let's look at the text one more time:

Hebrews chapter 11 verses 17 thru 19

By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

To me, there seems to be a definite correlation here between Isaac being called Abraham's only begotten son and him being figuratively raised up from the dead as a foreshadowing of what God would ultimately do in relation to His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, on the day in which Christ was begotten or on the day in which Christ was raised from the dead.

Thoughts?

Thanks.

 

[oldhermit]

I'd like to throw another portion of scripture into this mix if I may. If somebody else has already mentioned it, then I'm sorry for repeating it.

Hebrews chapter 11 verses 17 thru 19

By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

In what sense was Isaac Abraham's only begotten son?

Ishmael was Abraham's son, wasn't he?

According to Genesis chapter 25 verses 1 and 2, after Sarah died, Abraham remarried and had several more sons, didn't he?

How then was Isaac Abraham's only begotten son?

Does this pertain to Isaac's birth?

I suppose that it could be argued that it does in that there was a supernatural element surrounding Isaac's conception. Paul said that Isaac was born after the Spirit in Galatians chapter 4 verse 29 and we're also told that Sarah needed to receive strength, dynamis, to conceive seed in Hebrews chapter 11 verse 11.

That said, the immediate context seems to imply a different understanding in relation to Isaac being Abraham's only begotten son. Let's look at the text one more time:

Hebrews chapter 11 verses 17 thru 19

By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

To me, there seems to be a definite correlation here between Isaac being called Abraham's only begotten son and him being figuratively raised up from the dead as a foreshadowing of what God would ultimately do in relation to His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, on the day in which Christ was begotten or on the day in which Christ was raised from the dead.

Thoughts?

Thanks.

Yes. The writer uses μονογενῆ here as opposed to γεγέννηκά as he does with regard to Jesus in 1:5 or 5:5. Since we know that Isaac was not Abraham's only biological son then we know the writer is not using 'begotten' in this way. The writer goes on to link the idea of 'begotten' to Isaac's function as a type related to being offered as a sacrifice. This certainly fits the lexical definition of the word meaning one of a kind or the only of its kind. He was the son of promise given to fulfill a divinely determined purpose, unlike Ishmael who was nothing more than the result of a failure of human rationalization in response to a discontinuity dilemma. None of Abraham's later children had any connection to the inheritance. This belonged exclusively to Isaac.

 

[Elin]

It was declared to Mary with voice by the angel Gabriel on the day of the angel's visit,
and it was declared to the bystanders with voice by the Father on the day of Jesus' baptism,
but Easter Sunday it was declared with power, in his resurrection from death (Ro 1:4).

This is not even offered as an application to the Psalm by Paul.

Not talking about application of the Psalm, I'm talking about application to the Psalm.

God declared the truth of the Psalm with power, not just voice, on Easter Sunday (Ro 1:4).
Paul offers proof of its truth, not an application of it in Ac 13:33, by the resurrection.

Paul does not use μονογενοῦς here but γεγέννηκά.

Ac 13:33; Heb 1:5, 5:5 - "he hath raised up (anistemi) Jesus, as it is written,
'Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten (gennao) thee.' "

Mt 1:20 - "Do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife. For that (conceived) in her is fathered by (gennao) the Holy Spirit."

Jesus was fathered by, sired by (gennao) God at his conception, not on Easter Sunday.

On Easter Sunday, it was proven with power, not just voice, that Jesus was begotten of God.

 

[oldhermit]

Not talking about application of the Psalm, I'm talking about application to the Psalm.

God declared the truth of the Psalm with power, not just voice, on Easter Sunday (Ro 1:4).
Paul offers proof of its truth, not an application of it in Ac 13:33, by the resurrection.


Ac 13:33; Heb 1:5, 5:5 - "he hath raised up (anistemi) Jesus, as it is written,
'Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten (gennao) thee.' "

Mt 1:20 - "Do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife. For that (conceived) in her is fathered by (gennao) the Holy Spirit."

Jesus was fathered by, sired by (gennao) God at his conception, not on Easter Sunday.

On Easter Sunday, it was proven with power, not just voice, that Jesus was begotten of God.

You are still not seeing the difference between μονογενοῦς and γεγέννηκά or how they are being used in their respective passages.

 

[Elin]

For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.
His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.
Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee:
by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.

Do you honestly believe that when Jesus' disciples told Him by this we believe that thou camest forth from God that
they were saying, Hey, Jesus, now we believe that you were eternally generated and proceeded forth from within the Father? I hope that you don't. They were merely telling Him that they now believed that the Father had sent Him.

"They" didn't write the gospel of John 50 years later.

The Greek meaning of John's words are clear.

The Greek verb for "came forth from/out of" is exelthon.
It means "to proceed, to emanate (flow out, issue from as a source, as light issues from the sun),
to come out or go out of, to go forth."

See 1Co 14:36--"Did the word of God go forth from, originate with you?"
See Mt 2:6 (where different form, exeleusetai, is used)--"Out of thee will come forth a governor."
See Mt 15:18 (where a third form, like go, went and gone, is used, exerchontai)--"Out of the heart comes forth evil thoughts."

When "proceed, emanate, come out, go out, go forth" is used with ek, which means "out from within,"
as in Jn 8:42, 16:28 above, it means "to proceed out from within, to emanate out from within, to come out from within, to go forth out from within," an emerging from within, an origin, and used by John in this sense, without exception, 336 times.

See ekporeuetai in Mk 7:19 (goes out of--from within--the body),
in Rev 9:17 (out of--from within--their mouths come fire and smoke and sulfur)
in Rev 11:15 (fire comes out of--from within--their mouths).

Again, you're taking one possible meaning and extending it to cover the whole which is never a wise thing to do.

Previously addressed. . .above.

 

[Elin]

You are still not seeing the difference between μονογενοῦς and γεγέννηκά or how they are being used in their respective passages.

That wouldn't surprise me. . .

 

[purgedconscience]

Yes. The writer uses μονογενῆ here as opposed to γεγέννηκά as he does with regard to Jesus in 1:5 or 5:5. Since we know that Isaac was not Abraham's only biological son then we know the writer is not using 'begotten' in this way. The writer goes on to link the idea of 'begotten' to Isaac's function as a type related to being offered as a sacrifice. This certainly fits the lexical definition of the word meaning one of a kind or the only of its kind. He was the son of promise given to fulfill a divinely determined purpose, unlike Ishmael who was nothing more than the result of a failure of human rationalization in response to a discontinuity dilemma. None of Abraham's later children had any connection to the inheritance. This belonged exclusively to Isaac.

The passage itself speaks of how Isaac was figuratively raised from the dead. You see no correlation whatsoever?

 

[purgedconscience]

"They" didn't write the gospel of John 50 years later.

Who said that they did?

Is this a dodge?

The Greek meaning of John's words are clear.

No, they're not and this is precisely why context is important.

Let me ask you again:

Do you honestly believe that the disciples' response to Jesus was them saying, in effect, Hey, Jesus, now we believe that you were eternally generated and that you proceeded forth from within God? You're not a Jehovah's Witness, are you? You and they seem to be setters forth of a "begotten God". Again, that which is eternally can never be generated. Why do you keep on ignoring the same?

Previously addressed. . .above.

I'm sorry, but you didn't address anything and I think that we both know why that is.

 

[purgedconscience]

By the way, is anybody else have trouble accessing this website?

I've been getting kicked out of it all day long.

 

[purgedconscience]

Again, that which is eternally can never be generated.

That ought to read that which is eternal. I've been having problems with this site all day long and its hard for me to edit posts when I can't even remain on the site.

 

[oldhermit]

The passage itself speaks of how Isaac was figuratively raised from the dead. You see no correlation whatsoever?

Yes of course, this is the corollary. His symbolic resurrection from the dead illustrated his uniqueness to all of Abraham's other sons. It is in this respect that Isaac is Abraham's μονογενῆ - the one of a kind son or the only one of his kind.

 

[oldhermit]

By the way, is anybody else have trouble accessing this website?

I've been getting kicked out of it all day long.

I had that trouble all last week.

 

[purgedconscience]

I had that trouble all last week.

I had some trouble last week too.

I'm probably done for the night. I'll try to catch up at some later time or maybe just drop out of the conversation all together.

Good night.

 

[Elin]

For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.
His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.
Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee:
by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.

Do you honestly believe that when Jesus' disciples told Him by this we believe that thou camest forth from God that
they were saying, Hey, Jesus, now we believe that you were eternally generated and proceeded forth from within the Father? I hope that you don't. They were merely telling Him that they now believed that the Father had sent Him.

"They" didn't write the gospel of John 50 years later.

The Greek meaning of John's words are clear.

Who said that they did?

Is this a dodge?

No, it is a reminder that there was more than one thing Jesus said to them which they did not understand while he was alive.

I am saying that 50 years after his death the understanding of the apostles was not the same as before his death. . .and you should know that.

The Greek verb for "came forth from/out of" is exelthon.
It means "to proceed, to emanate (flow out, issue from as a source, as light issues from the sun),
to come out or go out of, to go forth."

See 1Co 14:36--"Did the word of God go forth from, originate with you?"
See Mt 2:6 (where different form, exeleusetai, is used)--"Out of thee will come forth a governor."
See Mt 15:18 (where a third form, like go, went and gone, is used, exerchontai)--"Out of the heart comes forth evil thoughts."

When "proceed, emanate, come out, go out, go forth" is used with ek, which means "out of, from (within)"
as in Jn 8:42, 16:28, it means "to proceed out from within, to emanate out from within, to come out from within, to go forth out from within,"
an emerging from within, an origin, and used by John in this sense, without exception, 336 times.

Jn 8:42 - "for out of (ek) God I went forth. . ."

See ekporeuomai in Mk 7:19 (goes out of--from within--the body),
in Rev 9:17 (out of--from within--their mouths come fire and smoke and sulfur)
in Rev 11:15 (fire comes out of--from within--their mouths).

I'm sorry, but you didn't address anything and I think that we both know why that is.

Previously addressed. . .

 

[Elin]

Not talking about application of the Psalm, I'm talking about application to the Psalm.

God declared the truth of the Psalm with power, not just voice, on Easter Sunday (Ro 1:4).
Paul offers proof of its truth, not an application of it in Ac 13:33, by the resurrection.

Ac 13:33; Heb 1:5, 5:5 - "he hath raised up (anistemi) Jesus, as it is written,
'Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten (gennao) thee.' "

Mt 1:20 - "Do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife. For that (conceived) in her is fathered by (gennao) the Holy Spirit."

Jesus was fathered by, sired by (gennao) God at his conception, not on Easter Sunday.

On Easter Sunday, it was proven with power, not just voice, that Jesus was begotten of God.

You are still not seeing the difference between μονογενοῦς and γεγέννηκά or how they are being used in their respective passages.

I am using the verb gennao of Ac 13:33 the same way it is used in Mt 1:20, above.