Curious As To How Controversial My Words Are About God Becoming A Man.

[Daniel Martinovich]

I am re-writing my article on Mathew 24 and this is part of it. Not putting this here to debate end time prophecy. It's about the last paragraph. I would like to see how controversial my words are describing God becoming a man.

These next few verses direct from the mouth of Jesus among other things just exactly when the Lord would come. In the lifetimes of some of those standing there that he was speaking to. Some of them wouldn't live that long.
Mark 14:61 ...Again the high priest asked him, Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62. And Jesus said, I am: and you will see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Matthew 16: 27. For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28: Truly I say to you, There are some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Matthew16: 28. Truly I say to you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Mark: 9: 1. And he said unto them, Truly I say to you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
Luke 9: 26. For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.27. But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.
Matthew 25: 64. Jesus says to him, You have said: nevertheless I say to you, After this you will see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
There are a couple of items worth explaining in these words. The kingdom of God in the earth is spoken of through out the scripture as already existing. Yet here it is spoken of as yet to come. Further than this. Its many earthly promises of freedom, general prosperity, the end of despotic human government and legal human slavery were prophesied to occur in the distant future. Why is this? Very simply because Jehovah the Word of God the king of that kingdom had not yet come as a man. The promise was that the descendant of Abraham and David would rule over that kingdom forever. Jesus did not become the Son of God or the Son of man until he became a man. He laid down the physical attributes of God to do so but took them back when he was raised from the dead. So although he ruled this invisible kingdom in the earth before he became a man. He now rules it according to the promise as the son of David, the descendant of Abraham even though he is and always has been Jehovah the Word of God. So in short the reference to the kingdom of God coming is a reference to its coming with the Son of man as king and the fulfillment of all the prophecy about this. In this case the prophecy being emphasized is the end of the Old Covenant Age and the destruction of Jerusalem.

 

[SkyWriting]

I am re-writing my article on Mathew 24 and this is part of it. Not putting this here to debate end time prophecy. It's about the last paragraph. I would like to see how controversial my words are describing God becoming a man.

These next few verses direct from the mouth of Jesus among other things just exactly when the Lord would come. In the lifetimes of some of those standing there that he was speaking to. Some of them wouldn't live that long.
Mark 14:61 ...Again the high priest asked him, Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62. And Jesus said, I am: and you will see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Matthew 16: 27. For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28: Truly I say to you, There are some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Matthew16: 28. Truly I say to you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Mark: 9: 1. And he said unto them, Truly I say to you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
Luke 9: 26. For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.27. But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.
Matthew 25: 64. Jesus says to him, You have said: nevertheless I say to you, After this you will see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
There are a couple of items worth explaining in these words. The kingdom of God in the earth is spoken of through out the scripture as already existing. Yet here it is spoken of as yet to come. Further than this. Its many earthly promises of freedom, general prosperity, the end of despotic human government and legal human slavery were prophesied to occur in the distant future. Why is this? Very simply because Jehovah the Word of God the king of that kingdom had not yet come as a man. The promise was that the descendant of Abraham and David would rule over that kingdom forever. Jesus did not become the Son of God or the Son of man until he became a man. He laid down the physical attributes of God to do so but took them back when he was raised from the dead. So although he ruled this invisible kingdom in the earth before he became a man. He now rules it according to the promise as the son of David, the descendant of Abraham even though he is and always has been Jehovah the Word of God. So in short the reference to the kingdom of God coming is a reference to its coming with the Son of man as king and the fulfillment of all the prophecy about this. In case the prophecy being emphasized is the end of the Old Covenant Age and the destruction of Jerusalem.

Yes, God became man.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Yes, God became man.

Thanks. That's not what I was referring to as being controversial though. It's how I described it.

 

[klutedavid]

I am re-writing my article on Mathew 24 and this is part of it. Not putting this here to debate end time prophecy. It's about the last paragraph. I would like to see how controversial my words are describing God becoming a man.

These next few verses direct from the mouth of Jesus among other things just exactly when the Lord would come. In the lifetimes of some of those standing there that he was speaking to. Some of them wouldn't live that long.
Mark 14:61 ...Again the high priest asked him, Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62. And Jesus said, I am: and you will see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Matthew 16: 27. For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28: Truly I say to you, There are some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Matthew16: 28. Truly I say to you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Mark: 9: 1. And he said unto them, Truly I say to you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
Luke 9: 26. For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.27. But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.
Matthew 25: 64. Jesus says to him, You have said: nevertheless I say to you, After this you will see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
There are a couple of items worth explaining in these words. The kingdom of God in the earth is spoken of through out the scripture as already existing. Yet here it is spoken of as yet to come. Further than this. Its many earthly promises of freedom, general prosperity, the end of despotic human government and legal human slavery were prophesied to occur in the distant future. Why is this? Very simply because Jehovah the Word of God the king of that kingdom had not yet come as a man. The promise was that the descendant of Abraham and David would rule over that kingdom forever. Jesus did not become the Son of God or the Son of man until he became a man. He laid down the physical attributes of God to do so but took them back when he was raised from the dead. So although he ruled this invisible kingdom in the earth before he became a man. He now rules it according to the promise as the son of David, the descendant of Abraham even though he is and always has been Jehovah the Word of God. So in short the reference to the kingdom of God coming is a reference to its coming with the Son of man as king and the fulfillment of all the prophecy about this. In this case the prophecy being emphasized is the end of the Old Covenant Age and the destruction of Jerusalem.

Hello Daniel.

I agree, two separate kingdoms, the earthly kingdom of Israel and the heavenly kingdom of God. Jesus is only called the, 'Son of God', during His time walking with us. Jesus always came from above, no earthly father, i.e., no lineage, born into the house of David.

Even further, Jesus was the YHWH of the Old Testament, always visible and knowable to humanity.

 

[St_Worm2]

Jesus is only called the, 'Son of God', during His time walking with us. Jesus always came from above, no earthly father, i.e., no lineage, born into the house of David. Even further, Jesus was the YHWH of the Old Testament, always visible and knowable to humanity.

Hi KD, although I agree with most of what you've just said (and that this is a small matter to be sure), what of Revelation 2:18 (and the name of the One speaking to the church at Thyatira), as well several uses of "Son of God" that refer to the Lord in the Epistles?

Revelation 2
18 To the angel of the church in Thyatira write:
The Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet are like burnished bronze, says this:
19 I know your deeds, and your love and faith and service and perseverance, and that your deeds of late are greater than at first.​

Granted, He was NEVER referred to/referred to Himself as the "Son of God" in the OT (that I'm aware of anyway).

Thanks!

Yours and His,
David

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Hello Daniel.

I agree, two separate kingdoms, the earthly kingdom of Israel and the heavenly kingdom of God. Jesus is only called the, 'Son of God', during His time walking with us. Jesus always came from above, no earthly father, i.e., no lineage, born into the house of David.

Even further, Jesus was the YHWH of the Old Testament, always visible and knowable to humanity.

So not controversial to you? That's good. Some people get so tweaked on the subject of the trinity and stuff. I have always wondered if the way I describe this would trigger them or make sense. I've had some detailed conversations on it but it always revolved around other issues that were controversial to them. Like miracles at the hands of Gods saints. Or Jesus' sinlessness. That's a big one. They would argue that Jesus was sinless because he was God. I would argue he was sinless because he was the only begotten Son of God. Meaning: He laid down the physical attributes of God and literally became a man. God raised him personally though and kept him from sin making him THE ONLY begotten son of God. Something God is not doing with the rest of us as children of God. I think my description of it fits better with all the scriptures on it rather than he was sinless because he was God. How could he be tempted the way we are all tempted? Does that not imply all the same feelings and desires? How could he "learn" obedience even to the point of the cross if he was sinless by virtue of being God. How is holiness and purity even a virtue if it is not voluntary?
See what I mean. Very controversial statements but the scenario I painted, ( I think) fits them best and accounts for Jesus's humanity.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Hi KD, although I agree with most of what you've just said (and that this is a small matter to be sure), what of Revelation 2:18 (and the name of the One speaking to the church at Thyatira), as well several uses of "Son of God" that refer to the Lord in the Epistles?

Revelation 2
18 To the angel of the church in Thyatira write:
The Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet are like burnished bronze, says this:
19 I know your deeds, and your love and faith and service and perseverance, and that your deeds of late are greater than at first.​

Granted, He was NEVER referred to/referred to Himself as the "Son of God" in the OT (that I'm aware of anyway).

Thanks!

Yours and His,
David

He was, but in, or as prophecy. Psalm 2. The three Israelites thrown into the fire by Nebuchadnezzar. I would say your right. He is the son of God still just like he is the descendant of Abraham. A risen man. Who took back upon himself the physical attributes of God he had before. Great is the mystery right?

 

[klutedavid]

Hello St_Worm.

Thanks for your comment.

what of Revelation 2:18 (and the name of the One speaking to the church at Thyatira), as well several uses of "Son of God" that refer to the Lord in the Epistles?

Revelation 2
18 To the angel of the church in Thyatira write:
The Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet are like burnished bronze, says this:
19 I know your deeds, and your love and faith and service and perseverance, and that your deeds of late are greater than at first.​

Granted, He was NEVER referred to/referred to Himself as the "Son of God" in the OT (that I'm aware of anyway).

I am glad you used a capital letter for the noun, 'Son', in your quotation. The title, 'Son of God', enforces His equality with His Father. So the apostle John would have been very familiar with this phrase, Son of God, as he would have heard it often.

God is declaring His real identity to John, the description (Revelations 2:18), eyes like a flame of fire, is the description of YHWH in the visions of the prophets. God is saying to John, the Son of God, has always been the God displayed in the Old Testament.

A simple mixture of the name of the messiah and older description of God, to enforce the deity of the Christ.

 

[klutedavid]

So not controversial to you? That's good. Some people get so tweaked on the subject of the trinity and stuff. I have always wondered if the way I describe this would trigger them or make sense. I've had some detailed conversations on it but it always revolved around other issues that were controversial to them. Like miracles at the hands of Gods saints. Or Jesus' sinlessness. That's a big one. They would argue that Jesus was sinless because he was God. I would argue he was sinless because he was the only begotten Son of God. Meaning: He laid down the physical attributes of God and literally became a man. God raised him personally though and kept him from sin making him THE ONLY begotten son of God. Something God is not doing with the rest of us as children of God. I think my description of it fits better with all the scriptures on it rather than he was sinless because he was God. How could he be tempted the way we are all tempted? Does that not imply all the same feelings and desires? How could he "learn" obedience even to the point of the cross if he was sinless by virtue of being God. How is holiness and purity even a virtue if it is not voluntary?
See what I mean. Very controversial statements but the scenario I painted, ( I think) fits them best and accounts for Jesus's humanity.

Hello Daniel.

I don't think what you wrote was controversial.

The Father has never been revealed, nor has the Father ever spoken to humanity.
The Father has never been revealed, the Father has never been seen by humanity.
The Father has never been revealed, no one has ever known the Father.

There has only been one deity, one YHWH, one creator we have ever known, Jesus.

The key to understanding this revelation, is understanding that everything was created through Jesus and for Jesus. We exist for Jesus, so Jesus is the one who is walking in the garden of Eden with us. Jesus was speaking to Abraham and Moses, the prophets only saw Jesus on the throne.

 

[St_Worm2]

Are you saying there was no manifistation of the Word in human form before Jesus? I would disagree.

Hi Daniel, the Bible agrees with you.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.​

The question is, why are we discussing the possibility that the church's view of the Trinity/the dual nature of Christ might not be true on a Christians Only board

Yours and His,
David

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Hi Daniel, the Bible agrees with you.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.​

The question is, why are we discussing the possibility that the church's view of the Trinity/the dual nature of Christ might not be true on a Christians Only board

Yours and His,
David

Because I really am trying to see if Christians think the way I am putting it is controversial. I am not much on dry theological arguments. Much more of a practical kind of person. There is a lot of baggage tied to this subject that contributes to a lot of disagreements and division among Christians. So I thought. What if I approach the issue from a basic's of who Jesus is and see if that causes controversy. I actually thought it might but there probably isn't enough people looking at this to really test it they way I would like. But then maybe I am wrong. Maybe it just makes sense, which is what I hope. Makes sense in such a way that people's baggage can fit into a basic scriptural understanding of Jesus. Thereby ending some of the controversy over all the baggage.

 

[St_Worm2]

I'm not positive I would say that the Lord appeared in "human" form prior to His birth, but He certainly existed and did appear in various forms (sometimes human "like"), not the least of which we find in the opening verses of Isaiah 6, which is confirmed by St. John in John 12:41, I believe.

Gotta go. Back in a bit (Dv).

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

I'm not positive I would say that the Lord appeared in "human" form prior to His birth, but He certainly existed and did appear in various forms (sometimes human "like"), not the least of which we find in the opening verses of Isaiah 6, which is confirmed by St. John in John 12:41, I believe.

Gotta go. Back in a bit (Dv).

Can't say for sure what is the proper way to put it. But here is an example.
Genesis 18:1And Jehovah appeared unto him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; 2and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood over against him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself to the earth,

 

[Greg Logan]

Why is this? Very simply because Jehovah the Word of God the king of that kingdom had not yet come as a man. The promise was that the descendant of Abraham and David would rule over that kingdom forever. Jesus did not become the Son of God or the Son of man until he became a man. He laid down the physical attributes of God to do so but took them back when he was raised from the dead. So although he ruled this invisible kingdom in the earth before he became a man. He now rules it according to the promise as the son of David, the descendant of Abraham even though he is and always has been Jehovah the Word of God.

I don't understand "became a man". What does that even mean?

Jesus is said at least 10x to be sitting AT THE RIGHT HAND OF JEHOVAH GOD - how could he possibly be Jehovah?? See esp. Rev 4 and 5 - clearly distinguishes the two. Jehovah in Rev 4 - Jesus coming TO Jehovah in Rev 5.

Until this is straight - I am not sure that the understanding of the Kingdom of God really matters.

 

[Greg Logan]

Tell me. can anyone figure out what people call the Trinity? Nope, at least I don't think so. It's like trying to figure out were God came from. Eterntity with no begining. We can't comprehend it. That Jesus was Jehovah the Word is just something the Bible declares, from the very start. There are people on this board that can list a hundred scriputres on the subject.

Hmmmm.... that is odd... I cannot think of one clear text that unambiguously, didactically teaches this - whereas I can find a hundred that teach that Jesus is NOT Jehovah - starting with Rev 4 and 5.

If someone cannot explain their own model - I would say the problem is with the model. Certainly one should be VERY humble and not high-minded to assert a model they are not even able to explain - NOR criticize those with a different model. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Greg Logan]

What you can find is hundreds that call him the Son of God, The Son of Man, the Son of David etc etc because he became a man still is those things because he is a risen man. You just can't fit into YOUR model that he is God of which there are also "hundreds" of texts. Not my problem.

Hmmmm.... I was not thinking of the any of the Son of God texts - nor, especially "Son of Man" texts (a potentially more complex rather than simple ontological statement) nor especially the Son of David (since ontology is not the focus).

I don't have any texts which make your statement "he became man" (not sure where you get that text???). I do have at least one clear text for "the risen man" (1Tim2:5).

I do not have any texts which clearly, unambiguously, didactically, formally state that "he is God" which I assume you mean in an ontological rather than positional sense (?). I have heard of a various assumptions and ambiguities but nothing more.

 

[Greg Logan]

If it is the name Jehovah your wrestiling with and not the fact that Jesus is God then here is another one.
13And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? What shall I say unto them? 14And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. 15And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. 16Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, hath appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and'seen that which is done to you in Egypt:

John 8:56Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad. 57The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am. 59They took up stones therefore to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.

Daniel

Just curious - how did you come about making such an assertion? Did someone tell you these texts were related? Did you figure it out based on your reading? Have you ever really done any in-depth exegetical work related to these texts? Have you worked through the languages including the OT that John used (the Septuagint)?

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Daniel

Just curious - how did you come about making such an assertion? Did someone tell you these texts were related? Did you figure it out based on your reading? Have you ever really done any in-depth exegetical work related to these texts? Have you worked through the languages including the OT that John used (the Septuagint)?

Yes to all the above but I don't think I needed to, to come to that conclusion. That is a common understanding to Christians who actually read their Bibles.
Here is the thing though. This subject isn't my shtick. I was subjecting the way I was putting it to people who's shtick it is. The are a dozens people on this site who can argue about the trinity waaay better than me. I have seen them, they love the subject. I don't feel the need to teach about it much because I think the subject is covered. Unlike many other subjects where need for me to be the expert and teach is overwhelming. So I will be bidding farewell soon as I did not post this to argue about Jesus being God or not with someone who rejects that.

Exodus 24:1 And he said unto Moses, Come up unto Jehovah, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and worship ye afar off. 2 and Moses alone shall come near unto Jehovah; but they shall not come near; neither shall the people go up with him........ 9Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. 10 And they saw the God of Israel; and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and as it were the very heaven for clearness. 11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: and they beheld God, and did eat and drink.

Who is this God of Israel who sits down with Moses, the preists and 70 elders of Israel for dinner the same as he did with Abraham?

 

[Greg Logan]

Yes to all the above but I don't think I needed to, to come to that conclusion. That is a common understanding to Christians who actually read their Bibles.

Hmmmm.... I have been reading my Bible for 40 years including in the Greek in both the NT and the Septuagint.

Now then - I assume that what is most important to you is that your assertions actually genuinely reflect the content of the Word of God - is that not true??

If so - can you please tell me how the Septuagint renders Ex 3:14 - compared to Jn8:58 "I am" that you quite enthused about? At the same time can you tell me about the EXACT SAME WORDING in Jn9:9 by the blind man?? Was he likewise claiming to be "I am"....??

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Well that is a pretty big claim. That the Septuagint, which is a translation is more authoritative than the Hebrew.....Not withstanding the alterations made to the Hebrew at the end of the first century by a pretty anti-Christ group of rabbi's. Fortunately we have the Dead Dead Scrolls, in addition to the Septuagint to correct the treachery of those rabbis and the Masoretic Text. Those alterations are well known though. Your talking about the vast body of the Hebrew that was never altered.
Dead Sea Scroll with Exodus 3: Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls - 4Q13 Exodus

Dead Sea Scroll with Exodus 3: Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls - 4Q1 Genesis-Exodus

So what if Jesus or the Apostles read and quoted the Septuagint? They had access to the Hebrew also just like we do. Your going KJV only here with the Septuagint.