Did Jesus claim Divinity?

[Nadiine]

>>
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.

Reposting previous "only begotton" information.

We cannot just take English meanings & apply them to scripture wording and terms. You will misinterpret scripture this way, we use Greek and Hebrew to discern scripture terms and words becuz it was written in those languages.

 

[Gary51]

He's relaying that the TERM "only begotten" doesn't mean SIRED (created by another), or that one is an ONLY child - or the first and only child...
In the use of the term "only begotten" of Abraham, it meant neither.

I had given the same information in a previous post about this term.
and He's right.
When the bible applies the term in other ways, you cannot hold it dogmatically as meaning something else when it clearly has other meanings.

Our English unfortunately hacks the Bible's word meanings and we lose alot in the translation for sure. This is why we need teachers to teach us these details for proper understanding.
(AND THE HOLY SPIRIT SURE WOULD HELP TOO)

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7269600

 

[Nadiine]

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7269600

is this to solicit your poll? Or does it mean something?

 

[Yekcidmij]

Logic is left behind, when one incorporates poetic licence.

One plus one is two
Two plus two is four
When you see poetic language ensue
It doesn't mean logic goes out the door.



Your statement is decidedly untrue. Non-poetic lisence as a precursor to logic has to be one of the silliest things I've heard. It's terribly fallacious. You must deal with the data and not the format of the data (narrative, poetry, apocolyptic, etc..).

You must deal with Hebrews use of the term as well as Psalm's.


It seems your intent is to reject the term "begotten" as refering to uniqueness and therefore reject the trinity. Your problem with the nicence council language isn't sufficient cause to reject the trinity. You must deal with the biblical data (some of which is in the form of poety heaven forbid). I hardly need nicene council language or the use of John's gospel to prove the trinity.

Heb 1:1 After God spoke long ago in various portions and in various ways to our ancestors through the prophets, 1:2 in these last days he has spoken to us in a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he created the world. 1:3 The Son is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, and he sustains all things by his powerful word, and so when he had accomplished cleansing for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. 1:4 Thus he became so far better than the angels as he has inherited a name superior to theirs.
The Son Is Superior to Angels
1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my son! Today I have begotten you”? And in another place he says, “I will be his father and he will be my son.” 1:6 But when he again brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all the angels of God worship him!” 1:7 And he says of the angels, “He makes his angels spirits and his ministers a flame of fire,” 1:8 but of the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,

Hebrews, again (as in chapter 11), agrees with me (or rather, i agree with Hebrews). Clearly this passage is about Jesus' uniqueness and not His physical birth. (It's also interesting that the Father calls the Son - God).

 

[Nadiine]

One plus one is two
Two plus two is four
When you see poetic language ensue
It doesn't mean logic goes out the door.



Your statement is decidedly untrue. Non-poetic lisence as a precursor to logic has to be one of the silliest things I've heard. It's terribly fallacious. You must deal with the data and not the format of the data (narrative, poetry, apocolyptic, etc..).

You must deal with Hebrews use of the term as well as Psalm's.


It seems your intent is to reject the term "begotten" as refering to uniqueness and therefore reject the trinity. Your problem with the nicence council language isn't sufficient cause to reject the trinity. You must deal with the biblical data (some of which is in the form of poety heaven forbid). I hardly need nicene council language or the use of John's gospel to prove the trinity.





Hebrews, again (as in chapter 11), agrees with me (or rather, i agree with Hebrews). Clearly this passage is about Jesus' uniqueness and not His physical birth. (It's also interesting that the Father calls the Son - God).

Indeed. In fact, "THE GOD" Ho Theos.

That is the strongest affirmation of Deity with the greek definite article "the".
I don't know why they ask for proof, and then reject it when it's given.
It's spelled rightout, as are others.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

If the term Eternally Unbegotten was in scpriture, there would be no confusion, it would be very simple to grasp.

Eternally = No Beginning
Unbegotten = Not Offspring

The man-made term, "Eternally Begotten" makes no sense. Surrounding it with poetic phrases and calling it a title does not make it a logical statement.

The biblical statement reads, "The Only Begotten Son"

Begotten = Offspring

Which leads many to believe this refers to His Human birth... Conceived of the Holy Spirit.

If the term Eternally Unbegotten was in scpriture, there would be no confusion, it would be very simple to grasp.

Well that is the EXACT concept that Jesus applies to Himself in John 8:58 . . .
the same Gospel that calls Him monogenes . . . I am not one to think John contradicts Himself.

BTW, the description of a title is not poeticism. Hebraic poetry is found in coordination of thought (three main kinds) not in superfluous language and pomp. So your contention really doesn't even apply. Titles are often given to describe function and relationship . . . that is all . . . not much poetry to Esau (red) being called by that name because he had red hair.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Indeed. In fact, "THE GOD" Ho Theos.

That is the strongest affirmation of Deity with the greek definite article "the".
I don't know why they ask for proof, and then reject it when it's given.
It's spelled rightout, as are others.

Amen!


. . . but poor ol Gary refuses to take the arguements from the Greek as legit . . . I counseled him to take a Greek class . . . but I don't know if he enrolled yet!

 

[Gary51]

Amen!


. . . but poor ol Gary refuses to take the arguements from the Greek as legit . . . I counseled him to take a Greek class . . . but I don't know if he enrolled yet!

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7269600

 

[Gary51]

Hi, Mathestes and Nadiine...

Did you miss my link to the poll.... Here it is again...

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7269600

Would you mind voting?

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Hi, Mathestes and Nadiine...

Did you miss my link to the poll.... Here it is again...

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7269600

Would you mind voting?

I would Gary . . . but the gamut isn't fully available . . . IOW the question is too limited. Make sense?

 

[Nadiine]

I would Gary . . . but the gamut isn't fully available . . . IOW the question is too limited. Make sense?

exactly - plus, what's the point of that type of poll on this site anyways with the mixed bag of members that can vote....

I don't even do polls anymore really. They aren't expressive of Christianity in the least.

 

[Nadiine]

Amen!


. . . but poor ol Gary refuses to take the arguements from the Greek as legit . . . I counseled him to take a Greek class . . . but I don't know if he enrolled yet!

Well in all fairness, I'm a layperson also, I just have books that I've bought that address the greek in some of these topics.
I think the proof IS there but people have preconceived beliefs they won't let go of.

In my view what's CRITICAL to have over and above all the apologetics aids is the HOLY SPIRIT to guide in scripture understanding.

 

[seeker777]

In my view what's CRITICAL to have over and above all the apologetics aids is the HOLY SPIRIT to guide in scripture understanding.

What if 10 Bible Christians read the same scripture, all ten claim they are guided by the Holy Spirit and all 10 come up with different interpretations.

Whose right, whose wrong?

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

What if 10 Bible Christians read the same scripture, all ten claim they are guided by the Holy Spirit and all 10 come up with different interpretations.

Whose right, whose wrong?

It depends on the Genre and context.

 

[Nadiine]

What if 10 Bible Christians read the same scripture, all ten claim they are guided by the Holy Spirit and all 10 come up with different interpretations.

Whose right, whose wrong?

This is off topic to this thread so I'm not going to continue traveling down this road which leads to another topic entirely after my reply.

This is a post link where I explained why wrong biblical understanding exists and that just becuz people disagree or interpret differently doesn't make truth subjective, relative or unknown to us.
The issue becomes what CAN we be wrong about and what CAN'T we get wrong.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=48038226&postcount=16

I will say this, there are lots of reasons for people's different interpretations on MINOR doctrines that are not thoroughly explained in enough detail, or that are unclear to us.

What Christians DO have in common is the basic essentials of central doctrine which DEFINE what a Christian is.
Christians agree on more than they disagree with.

MANY ARE WRONG. The fact that differences of opinion exist do not make truth relative or subjective.
In the case of those who believed the earth was flat, guess what, THEY WERE WRONG. The truth did exist, they just didn't get it right.

In the case of JW's in the 70's who sold all their possessions & sat on a mountain to await God's return, THEY WERE WRONG!.

The Jim Jones & David Koresh cults were wrong when they believed those founders spoke for God.

Opposite interpretations & beliefs mean 1 of 3 things:
they are either Right, or Wrong, or they're all wrong.

Peter explained it well:
2 Peter 3
just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort [twist], as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Differing opinions never removes what is actually true and error can be to your own demise depending on the doctrines your in error about.

*With that answered, this should not derail into another topic on biblical interpretation, it is a thread on Jesus' Divinity.

 

[seeker777]

It depends on the Genre and context.

Now that's what I call a flexible belief system!

 

[Gary51]

Now that's what I call a flexible belief system!

LOL....

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Now that's what I call a flexible belief system!

Actually it is quite the contrary!

 

[scriptures]

Yes!
and MIGHTY GOD, HO THEOS (THE GOD), YHWY OF HOSTS (armies)...
CREATOR OF ALL THINGS...

(you might have forgotten to add those by accident)

All of them when combined show us that there is 1 true God, consisting of 3 separate & distinct persons who all 3 perform the acts of God, AS GOD, in complete unity together.

Wrong my friend.... It means Jesus as subordinate servant of God is distinct being from the father and not part of the trinity......

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Wrong my friend.... It means Jesus as subordinate servant of God is distinct being from the father and not part of the trinity......

I guess you believe that there is more than one God huh?