Did Jesus claim Divinity?

[scriptures]

Actually, He did. And the Jews who heard Him understood this.

Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.
Joh 10:31 The Jews then took up stones to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them: Many good works I have shewed you from my Father. For which of those works do you stone me?
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him: For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy: and because that thou. being a, man, makest thyself God.

That was what the Jews thought..... but how did Jesus answered them....

(Joh 10:36 LITV) do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, You blaspheme, because I said, I am Son of God?

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

No not really, I accept what the Bible say's, "Jesus is the only begotten Son of God"... But the word begotten is often dropped for, "Jesus the Son of God"... I just wanted to bring it back into focus.

And I told her, the post is there for all to see.
There is no trinity... And I can use the word begat, because Jesus was begotten.

I don't think it, I know it... because there is no trinity. You ask again on my opinion what begotten means. Again, I have explained in a post.

It is not a claim it is a fact.... God does not tell us everything as you well know. We know He created the Angels... but He didn't tell us how... He told us That Jesus is His only begotten Son... But He didn't tell us how.

Yes... this is your way out, every time you have no answer you bring in the same old trick... "It's in the Greek" It won't work... Try something else.

Very nice be it does not explain... Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.

Again, I have explained in my post... Did you miss it or something?

Interesting that you

Funny that you should ask that, because I thought that might be your answer... It sure isn't mine... See my post.

Now, can you answer a question without a question?

Can you explain in detail, Why Scripture says that, Jesus is the Only begotten Son of God?

Make it simple as I don't have your trinitarian mindset... That is not an insult, I truly have no belief in a trinity. So help me out.[/quote]

Yes... this is your way out, every time you have no answer you bring in the same old trick... "It's in the Greek" It won't work... Try something else.

Gary you fail to understand that this is the primary line of determining what the Bible communicates . . . if people had this same mind frame of your's we wouldn't even have an English Bible. What was written was written originally in Greek . . . so if we are going to decipher exactly what was meant by the authors (cause what they meant is what really matters) we MUST go to the Greek.

Can you explain in detail, Why Scripture says that, Jesus is the Only begotten Son of God?

Make it simple as I don't have your trinitarian mindset... That is not an insult, I truly have no belief in a trinity. So help me out.

Sure. But I must tell you that the explanation includes Greek !

First it is not simply "begotten" . . . it IS a compound adjective which also functions as a noun (being a title) which we see as two words in English when it is only one word in Greek. Monogenes simply means "one generated" "single given" monos being one and genes coming from ginomai which is a basic verb meaning to cause to be that has various and WIDE senses.

IMO, it is a title in reference to Jesus uniqueness in relationship to the Father. It does not constitute a once he was not and now he has been generated. It is a relational term not one of ontology. IOW, Jesus becomes the first of many who are to relate to God in this way. He did not prior relate to God in this way because He was not priorly human . . . as soon as He takes on flesh and blood His relationship to the Father changes by defintion of the task of redemption . . . He has become Man and God something He was NOT before (being only God). As such He is the pre-eminent one now as the first of many sons . . . His unique role as the only begotten defines the term as a special title of honor NOT describing His ontology (or being) but describing His function in the glory of redemption.

If this is true, which given the doctrines of Adoption and the systematics of the Family of God it fits quite well, the statement has nothing to do with Jesus' essence defining Him as some sort of created being . . . but is a glorious title like "Son of Man" "Messiah" "Vine" "Door" amongst the many other titles given to Him to describe His greatness and function.

 

[Nadiine]

Funny that you should ask that, because I thought that might be your answer... It sure isn't mine... See my post.

Now, can you answer a question without a question?

Can you explain in detail, Why Scripture says that, Jesus is the Only begotten Son of God?

Make it simple as I don't have your trinitarian mindset... That is not an insult, I truly have no belief in a trinity. So help me out.

Gary you fail to understand that this is the primary line of determining what the Bible communicates . . . if people had this same mind frame of your's we wouldn't even have an English Bible. What was written was written originally in Greek . . . so if we are going to decipher exactly what was meant by the authors (cause what they meant is what really matters) we MUST go to the Greek.



Sure. But I must tell you that the explanation includes Greek !

First it is not simply "begotten" . . . it IS a compound adjective which also functions as a noun (being a title) which we see as two words in English when it is only one word in Greek. Monogenes simply means "one generated" "single given" monos being one and genes coming from ginomai which is a basic verb meaning to cause to be that has various and WIDE senses.

IMO, it is a title in reference to Jesus uniqueness in relationship to the Father. It does not constitute a once he was not and now he has been generated. It is a relational term not one of ontology. IOW, Jesus becomes the first of many who are to relate to God in this way. He did not prior relate to God in this way because He was not priorly human . . . as soon as He takes on flesh and blood His relationship to the Father changes by defintion of the task of redemption . . . He has become Man and God something He was NOT before (being only God). As such He is the pre-eminent one now as the first of many sons . . . His unique role as the only begotten defines the term as a special title of honor NOT describing His ontology (or being) but describing His function in the glory of redemption.

If this is true, which given the doctrines of Adoption and the systematics of the Family of God it fits quite well, the statement has nothing to do with Jesus' essence defining Him as some sort of created being . . . but is a glorious title like "Son of Man" "Messiah" "Vine" "Door" amongst the many other titles given to Him to describe His greatness and function.

I am SOOOOOOOO glad I waited to post. You saved me so much time. And headache, so thank you. thumbsup: rep tomorrow when I get them in)!

I had run out of time to sit and do a whole reply on this in depth when I posted last. Plus I got a horrible headache yesterday along with major lethargy [again] (long story- but I finally found out why & got back on my iron suppliments & am doing so much better today already - amazing).

I have 2 books out that I was going to have to handtype whole sections from and I just didn't have it in me. And males are so much more to the point than me. lol

One other point I was going to add about the meaning of "only Begotten", is that only begotten is also used of Isaac (Abraham's son) in Heb 11:17.
However, Isaac wasn't Abraham's only son, he had others.

Within earlier context of Heb. 11 (speaking of God's promise to Abraham) since God's covenant purposes were to be carried out thru Isaac and his family line, it's only Isaac that carried the 'title' "only begotten" when he was not literally the only begotten of Abraham.
Isaac is merely being set apart from the others as Unique, specially blessed or favored.

Further, if they're going to use 'only begotten' of Jesus to mean literally created, then it should be used in the same way it's used of Abraham & Isaac; namely by the term "beget" to beget a son is to sire a son/begotten.
Abraham didn't literally "create" Isaac from a virgin, Abraham literally sired Isaac with a female- procreating to produce a son.

That's what begotten/begetting would tend to mean.

 

[Nadiine]

Maybe because people are not hearing you answer the questions they asked first?

that would be correct - I did check back & still didn't see our questions answered.
Sometimes I do have human error and miss posts... I hadn't seen an answer.
Once I did see it, I wasn't able to finish a reply.

 

[Nadiine]

Um . . . Gary . . . YOU were the one who broached the "begotten" issue . . . so that kinda determines that "begotten" is the issue to be stuck on.

Her question is WHAT do think is meant by "begotten"?

Cause if this:



Is really how you feel . . . then you cannot use the "begat" arguement against a Trinitarian understanding of the Godhead . . . because you don't even understand what He means . . . ergo, if you don't understand what He means . . . then how can you say what He means contradicts Trinity?

You can't.

SO . . . if you think that the term "begotten" mitigates AGAINST Trinity (which is what you have been arguing) then you MUST therefore have an opinion on WHAT begotten means or entails. THAT is what she is asking.

To claim that you don't know because God doesn't tell us is essentially to refute your own line of reasoning . . . and therefore you must give up the arguement that it contradicts Trinity.

BUT, God does indeed tell us what and begotten means (per the Greek usage) and HOW Jesus is such.



Yeah in English . . . but we are not talking about English.

We are speaking of Greek and Greek has a different meaning. Like David . . .

Ps 89:27
27 "I also shall make him My firstborn,
The highest of the kings of the earth.
NASU

who was certainly not the "offspring" of God. The term is OFTEN used in the sense of preeminance . . . as it is here.

and

Ps 2:7
7 "I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD:
He said to Me, 'You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.
NASU

where David (or Israel) is certainly not the "offspring" of God.

These are proofs of the wide range of ancient concepts held within the statements. It does not need to literally mean "offspring."

Otherwise your ridgid interpretation means God had sex with Mary . . . perhaps you should then become a Mormon?

exactly, yes.

thank you

 

[Gary51]

Sure. But I must tell you that the explanation includes Greek !

Why am I not surprised.

First it is not simply "begotten" . . . it IS a compound adjective which also functions as a noun (being a title) which we see as two words in English when it is only one word in Greek. Monogenes simply means "one generated" "single given" monos being one and genes coming from ginomai which is a basic verb meaning to cause to be that has various and WIDE senses.

IMO, it is a title in reference to Jesus uniqueness in relationship to the Father. It does not constitute a once he was not and now he has been generated. It is a relational term not one of ontology. IOW, Jesus becomes the first of many who are to relate to God in this way. He did not prior relate to God in this way because He was not priorly human . . . as soon as He takes on flesh and blood His relationship to the Father changes by defintion of the task of redemption . . . He has become Man and God something He was NOT before (being only God). As such He is the pre-eminent one now as the first of many sons . . . His unique role as the only begotten defines the term as a special title of honor NOT describing His ontology (or being) but describing His function in the glory of redemption.

If this is true, which given the doctrines of Adoption and the systematics of the Family of God it fits quite well, the statement has nothing to do with Jesus' essence defining Him as some sort of created being . . . but is a glorious title like "Son of Man" "Messiah" "Vine" "Door" amongst the many other titles given to Him to describe His greatness and function.

Ahhhh.... Now I get it.... I can see it now... It's become all so clear...

Oh, thank you so much for that explanation.... If only you could have told me all that earlier... Now I see how you manage to avoid the simplicity of God's word....

When you see a simple statement that does not fit your preconceived ideology you invent a solution in order to make it fit.

And what a long solution for such a simple statement... Why use 10 words, when you can use 100... eh. You know what they say, "Bulls--t baffles brains."

Now I can say I understand you much better.

 

[scriptures]

Why am I not surprised.

Ahhhh.... Now I get it.... I can see it now... It's become all so clear...

Oh, thank you so much for that explanation.... If only you could have told me all that earlier... Now I see how you manage to avoid the simplicity of God's word....

When you see a simple statement that does not fit your preconceived ideology you invent a solution in order to make it fit.

And what a long solution for such a simple statement... Why use 10 words, when you can use 100... eh. You know what they say, "Bulls--t baffles brains."

Now I can say I understand you much better.

We call that human philosophy......

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

We call that human philosophy......

Yak spit . . . got something better than one liners?

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Why am I not surprised.

Ahhhh.... Now I get it.... I can see it now... It's become all so clear...

Oh, thank you so much for that explanation.... If only you could have told me all that earlier... Now I see how you manage to avoid the simplicity of God's word....

When you see a simple statement that does not fit your preconceived ideology you invent a solution in order to make it fit.

And what a long solution for such a simple statement... Why use 10 words, when you can use 100... eh. You know what they say, "Bulls--t baffles brains."

Now I can say I understand you much better.

W-H-A-T
E-V-E-R

Do better and make sure you exegete rightly . . . I will be waiting.

 

[Gary51]

W-H-A-T
E-V-E-R

Do better and make sure you exegete rightly . . . I will be waiting.

I'm going to keep a copy of your invention, and do some experiments with it on another website.

<Staff edit>

(2) How many claim to understand it

(3) Does anyone come up the the same explanation.

I''ll get back to you with my findings.

 

[Zebra1552]

I based my beliefs on what I read.....What is clear is that Jesus is the son of God and he is Christ.....not Trinity....rely on the Bible only.....



By now, I think I know almost every verse use by trinitarians.... they are not convincing.... so I settled on what is basic.... that is Jesus is Christ and son of God.....

Human philosophy is nothing compared to the word of God.....

It is not philosophy. It is simply reading comprehension followed by a degree of simple logic rather than an overly literal, narrow-minded (you said yourself that one should rely on the Bible only) interpretation of a single work.

 

[Lion-Of-Zion]

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

John 20:28
28Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

John 8:58
58Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

FUN I can do it too!

 

[Nadiine]

John 20:28
28Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

John 8:58
58Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

FUN I can do it too!

YEP, and all they end up doing is proving to people that they have a self-refuting Bible. Brilliant.


To Lion:
Trinitarians AFFIRM AND UPHOLD every verse a nontrinitarian uses to counter the Trinity with. Why? ALL OF THE ABOVE IS TRUE. Every verse is true - yours AND ours.
They all work together to teach one theme/one truth - you cannot remove any to biasly prove a view.

The Bible is simply pointing out the differences within the 3, relaying that they are separate and unique, YET One God. They aren't a one-eyed creature with 6 arms, 6 legs, 6 eyes, etc.
Rather He is one [mono] God as 3 separate, distinct and unique "persons" who comprise that Godhead. A Unity.

Like a husband and wife are ONE, yet you'll describe your spouse as separate than you, your spouse will have a different position in the relationship-household and different duties/functions, yet your spouse is EQUAL to you as a human being.

***(this also goes to the ever popular refutation used "the Father is 'greater' than I".
First, the Greek: Meizon
meizon = position
The word Kreitton in Greek is "better than" - to be better than by nature. Jesus didn't say the Father is BETTER than Me..
And in contrast, kreitton is used in Heb. 1:4 - where Jesus is called BETTER THAN the angels in regard to His superiority.
By nature, Jesus is BETTER THAN any angel...

The President of the USA is greater than all the citizens of his country. He is not BETTER than the citizens by nature. His position makes him greater by authority - his nature is human like every other human - so he's equal to all other human beings by nature.
see the difference?

A husband is GREATER than his wife (by God given authority as head of the home) - but he is NOT 'better' than her as a person. They are 100% EQUAL.

So Christ is equal with the Father (by nature, GOD), yet the Father is greater positionally; there is order in the Godhead. Just like order is also ordained by God for mankind.
This also goes to the Father being the "head of Christ". POSITIONAL ORDER. God has this order, and He places this authoratative onto humanity as well. It is for structure, not supremacy of nature.

All those verses you use are doing is defining, framing & detailing the Godhead, not refuting it!

explaining My God and your God:

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

K, again, this doesn't prove Jesus isn't God - what nature did Jesus take on when He came? (John 1 He BECAME FLESH). (you only 'become' something you are not by nature).

While divine by nature, Jesus also took on a human form to perform the mission of the cross for salvation to His creation:
Hebrews 2:14
Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,

AS a human being (now equipped for the mission of shedding blood), and in being our direct example (ie. Jesus prayed to the Father as He taught us to pray, Jesus depended on the Father as He taught us to depend on the Father, Jesus obeyed the laws as He taught us to obey God's laws, etc. etc.)...
Being our LITERAL EXAMPLE in human form - He taught us how to interact with God. AS a human, He did human things showing us what to immitate. Yet as GOD (the divine nature He withheld), He was the sinless propitiation for our sin. (which only God can be sinless).

He held 2 natures at the same time. In error, NonTrinitarians continue removing that divine nature to replace it with the human only - HE CARRIED BOTH; veiling one (divine) nature to complete His mission as the sacrificial "Lamb" for man's atonement.

Until nonTrin's grasp the dual natures He carried, they'll continue making their bible's a contradictory and heretical mess.

Also, if Jesus was ONLY human in nature, He should have said "OUR God" instead, He specified "your God and My God" - If you pay attn. to Jesus' wording concerning His relationship with the Father, you'll notice it's not the same as if He were one of us humans by nature.
He doesn't lump us all in with the SAME relationship, He's clearly identifying us by the different relationship we hold with God

Christ was God's Son by NATURE.
Humans are God's sons by ADOPTION. (via Christ - thru faith/salvation). Jesus is very clear to make the distinction of His relationship as unique and set apart from our relationship w/ God.

 

[scriptures]

John 20:28
28Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

FUN I can do it too!

Then what would be the conclusion for that......

(Joh 20:28 LITV) And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!
(Joh 20:29 LITV) Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, Thomas, you have believed. Blessed are the ones not seeing, and believing.
(Joh 20:30 LITV) Then truly Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book.
(Joh 20:31 LITV) But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

That Jesus is the Christ (anointed one) and the Son of God... Amen....

 

[Lion-Of-Zion]

John 20:28
28Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

John 8:58
58Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

FUN I can do it too!

Yeah it actually is fun!!

[/quote] Trinitarians AFFIRM AND UPHOLD every verse a nontrinitarian uses to counter the Trinity with. Why? ALL OF THE ABOVE IS TRUE. Every verse is true - yours AND ours.
They all work together to teach one theme/one truth - you cannot remove any to biasly prove a view.

The Bible is simply pointing out the differences within the 3, relaying that they are separate and unique, YET One God. They aren't a one-eyed creature with 6 arms, 6 legs, 6 eyes, etc.
Rather He is one [mono] God as 3 separate, distinct and unique "persons" who comprise that Godhead. A Unity.

Like a husband and wife are ONE, yet you'll describe your spouse as separate than you, your spouse will have a different position in the relationship-household and different duties/functions, yet your spouse is EQUAL to you as a human being.[/quote]

Very well said Nadiine. I THINK I see what you are trying to say. While I dont agree that Jesus is God, You and everyone else have every right to. I feel (ya know, this has probably been said a thousand times in this thread). Eh, God the father, Jesus the son, and then they share the holy spirit. God gave Jesus power and so on. Lol if Scriptures and I are the only ones in the world that think God and Jesus are separate beings Im ok with that.
Bless

 

[scriptures]

You are making totally illogical statements. Your statements above would mean that if someone said that Christianity was about relationship with God and love, they would be wrong because it is outside the Bible.

And anyhow, how do you explain the trinitarian verses already quoted?

Am I illogical because I believe that Jesus is Christ (anointed one of God) and Son of God?????

Is Apostle Peter illogical to you????

(Mat 16:16 LITV)

And answering, Simon Peter said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

 

[scriptures]

The minute Jesus is called God (and He's called God directly........ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=1&verse=8&version=49&context=verse
Heb 1:8

I will paste a website for my friends here.... examining the text given.....

http://www.scripturaltruths.com/jesus/firstlast/

 

[Nadiine]

I will paste a website for my friends here.... examining the text given.....

http://www.scripturaltruths.com/jesus/firstlast/

I'd urge you to read CF's statement of faith
http://christianforums.com/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_sof

This is also why the Nicene Creed was created - heretics were coming in with false teachings and they were formally confirming the standard of Christian belief.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/nicene.htm

 

[Nadiine]

Am I illogical because I believe that Jesus is Christ (anointed one of God) and Son of God?????

Is Apostle Peter illogical to you????

We affirm the same terms & titles of Jesus in the Bible.
The issue becomes the definitions for those terms. The term, "son of" is agreed to - but we're left to ask in what way is He the son?

Is He "created" by the Father (nonexistant prior to His physical birth)?
Is He 'sired' by the Father via procreation w/ a woman? (as mormons teach)
Or is Jesus fully divine as GOD prior to His conception (ie. eternal) via the Holy Spirit inside the virgin Mary and born as a human child?
Who BECAME flesh to accomplish His mission of shedding blood for remission of sin? God incarnate.

People have alot of different ideas on how Jesus is the "Son of God" & Son of Man. Trinitarians accept the same terms given of Christ; it's all in the definitions and that is what differentiates people & religions.

*Lastly, the page you link denies that the Holy Spirit is a PERSON, but rather is God's Power - (non person) - MANY verses exist that prove He's a person, not merely personified.