• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

If Jesus is God, can these verses be true?

Discussion in 'Paterology, Christology & Pneumatology' started by edpobre, Feb 6, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yeshuaskin1

    Yeshuaskin1 New Member

    5
    +0
    drmmjr,
    you asked,
    I would have answered just as LouisBooth did. I would also add that if I say my name is Jim Carpenter and someone else says "I am a Carpenter" are we saying the same thing? I am saying that I work with wood for a living? Is the other person saying that he is part of my families blood line? Of course not, one is a surname and the other is a profession.

    you asked,
    I am not sure of the answer to this question but I would say that you are trying to put the Almighty in a human concept. G-d has no "father". Jesus does because He became man to take away the sins of the world and to do that He must live a perfect life. He had to follow the Law(Torah) perfectly. But if a man dies for the sins of others he, if he is perfect; without blemish, he saves the life of one other man, in this case it would have been the thief on the cross next to Jesus. Then we are all out of luck. But if the infinite G-d dies of all of us His creatures then the payment is for all not just one.
    To try and answer this question directly. I would say that if the son has the power of attorney, to put in today's terms, then yes he has the same authority. But if the son has not been given this right then no he does not. In biblicial times a object, usually jewelry and more specifically a ring, was given to the son with the power to represent the father.

    If Jesus was not G-d then G-d did not beget Him for we all inherit the nature of our father. We inherited the nature of Adam. But Yeshua did not inherit that nature because His father is G-d. Then He has that nature. Will I ever totally understand the Infinite One? To quote My first Pastor, Tim Henning, if we as finite creatures could understand G-d, what kind of G-d would He be.
     
  2. Yeshuaskin1

    Yeshuaskin1 New Member

    5
    +0
    Schrack,
    I will let my Gentile wife speak first since she has some of the same problems with the movement as you do.

    That sounds like a judgement call. I think you also sound defensive which is not an uncommon response. I do understand why you feel that way, being a Gentile in the movement myself. It has been very difficult at times for me to not be defensive and judgamental of the movement. The movement, like the Church, is full of imperfect people. I'm not going to deny there is pride in the movement but do you throw out the Church because it is full of problems? Of course not. I am a Christian, so is my husband, but because that term carries a lot of negative conotations for non-believing Jews, we don't use the term. It just means, "little messiah". I say messiah instead of Christ. That is what Christ really means. For us, it really comes to identifying with a people that do not identify with the Church and Christianity at all. I actually quit calling myself a Christian way back in Bible College days when one of my customers at Shoney's where I waitressed asked me what religion I practiced. I replied, "I'm a Christian" As he walked out the door, he flippantly and cynically replied "what does that really mean anyway?" I rarely used that term after that but used the term, follower of Jesus. Now, I find that the term messianic believer actually opens a lot of doors for witness. Most people will shrug their shoulders if you say you are a Christian, but they either have no idea what you mean by messianic or they are not sure or they will have a strong opinion about what you are. Bottom line, we don't call ourselves messianics to lift ourselves above others.
    Yet the Church picks out nine of the ten commandments and follows those? Come on, not all of the commandments apply anymore. The Church follows the moral law but not the cermonial laws. And that's fine, but for the "circumcised" Jewish believers, Paul said this in 1 Corinthians 7:20: "Each person should remain in the condition he was in when he was called." He never told Jewish believers to stop following the law themselves, he did have a major problem with those who tried to make the Gentiles take on the Jewish calling. Salvation is by grace and grace alone. I may not be adequately answering your questions. I am still learning a lot of this myself. I have had a lot of problems adjusting. But I do know this: as I continue to pray through a lot of these tough issues, God continues to open up my eyes as I read the N. T. in a very different light. We were taught in Bible College to take context and history and audience into account when interpreting Scripture. Yet how much Jewish culture and history is taught? Jew wrote the book and there are many nuances and idioms that have been lost over the years. The messianic movement is restoring that lost Jewish perspective but for me it has taken a lot of humility and prayer to stay with it and really appreciate it. I hope this helps. Peace in Jesus our Messiah, Terri

    To continue with this I will give my background as briefly as possible. I believe we need to take this to a new thread if you want to continue, but since you said these things here on the is thread I would like to response here so that if other people have the same feelings or are not sure they can here my side of this. Thanks for your understanding. I, like my wife, have no problem calling myself a christian. I have been apart of the church for 18 years. I went to a Bible College of the Christian and Missionary Alliance and from there attended Baptist, Charismatic, Vineyard, and Liberty churches as well as a Calvary Chapel. We were at the Liberty Church when we felt God call us to be a witness to my Jewish people. So I prayed and asked God what that meant. As time went on he lead both of us to the "Messianic" movement. I had great reservations at first. But in time I saw God leading me more and more. We did not leave the "Church" with any ill feelings, we left because God told us to join this movement. I am a Christian, I will Live as a Christian and die as a Christian and be raised as a Christian, i.e. a follower of the Messiah. The greek work Chirstos means "Anointed" and Meshiach or Messiah means.... you guessed it "Anointed". That means that Christian could be very rightly interpreted as "Messianic".
    No, I do not think that Christianity is a new religion just because it is the fulfillment of Judaism. "Traditional" Jews i.e. Jew who do not believe in Messiah Jesus. Are still waiting for the Messiah. And as scripture says "all Israel will be save" when Messiah returns. The OT says that "They (the Jews) will look on Him whom they peirced and morn as for an only son." 144,000 of Messianic Jews are going to turn the world upside down when the tribulation is in full swing. Moses and Eljiah will be the two witnesses that will amaze the world in the tribulation. This does not seem to me to be a "new" religion a new covenant people. Christians are grafted in. In to what the covenant people of God, the Jews.
    Romans 11:1
    I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.
    and again
    Romans 11:28-29
    As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.
    and
    Psalms 105:8-10
    He remembers his covenant forever, the word he commanded, for a thousand generations, the covenant he made with Abraham,
    the oath he swore to Isaac. He confirmed it to Jacob as a decree,
    to Israel as an everlasting covenant:
    Leviticus 26:43-45
    They will pay for their sins because they rejected my laws and abhorred my decrees. Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them. I am the LORD their God. But for their sake I will remember the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out of Egypt in the sight of the nations to be their God. I am the LORD.

    I could probably go on for a very long time. But God says the His covenant with Israel is eternal. I am not sure what you understand about eternal but to me it is without end. God has a covenant with Israel forever. If God could break His covenant with Israel, and He can not it would be against His very nature, then what makes you think that He would not break it with Christians. Do you see God somewhere down the line in eternity saying: "Well you know this has been fun but I have other plans now you all are out of here!" NO WAY! Then why would God break His covenant with Israel. I am not saying that all Jews are saved, we are all saved by grace through faith in Messiah. If they do not accept Messiah they are not saved, PERIOD. But God has a covenant with them for their good. He brought them back to the land and at some point in time He will bring a large majority of the Jews during the Tribulation to himself through the saving knowledge of Messiah Jesus.
    I am not sure what your idea of grafted is to me it does not mean that the root is thrown out but it is intact and other non-natural branches are put on it. The root, according to Paul, is the Jewish faith. Jesus himself said that not until the heavens and earth pass away not one stroke or dot of the LAW(Torah) would pass away.
    Did Paul believe the Law was still valid for believing Jews lets look at Scripture, Acts 20:21-26:
    Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you. ....
    The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.
    Here the apostles in Jerusalem are saying to Paul, it is being said that you are telling Jews to not circumcise their children or live according to our customs. Did Paul say: "Well to tell you the truth; James and Peter, in fact, I am telling them that." No, he did not, he did just as they said to prove he was not saying that. Paul and the Counsel did say that the Gentiles did not have to do Torah to be saved, since it is not doing Torah or being Jewish that saves someone but faith in Messiah.
    Else where in the book of Acts Paul circumsizes Timothy, oops, if you loose your salvation by getting circumsized then poor Timothy is a goner. No it is not the act of circumsion that is the problem it is Gentiles who are doing it as part of their salvation.

    I guess I could go on and on but I probably have already gone on too long. Please forgive me everyone. Mr. Moderate please accept my apologies if I have gone on too long or went into an area we should not being going here. I just felt that if this was brought up here to all the people reading this it should be answered to the same people. I believe if this discussion needs to continue, now that both of us have had our say, it should be in another thread, unless it is OK with you to continue.
    I would like to ask forgiveness of anyone I have offend with my first post. I am a emmissary to my people, the Jews, and I tend to write as if one of them will be looking in, especially on a forum that is deemed interfaith.

    Love in Messiah,
    Yeshuaskin
     
  3. drmmjr

    drmmjr Regular Member

    459
    +7
    Christian
    Yeshuaskin1
    Let's look at the scripture.
    John 8:58 - Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
    Jesus says "before Abraham was, I am". If "I am" (ego eimi) is to be taken to mean God, then Jesus was saying that before Abraham was, God. If the phrase is to be taken that Jesus is referring to himself, then it is not the name of God. For that to have been true, then Jesus would have had to say "before Abraham was, I am I am."

    I am not trying to put God in a human concept. One question for you, how does an infinite God die?
    God gave Jesus the authority.

    John 5:19 - Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
    20 - For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
    21 - For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
    22 - For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
    23 - That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
    24 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
    25 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
    26 - For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
    27 - And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.


    So, you have Jesus begetting himselt? Yes we inherit the nature of our fathers, but we are not our fathers. You mention "natures", I had started a thread at "King's Tavern" concerning this, but evidently it was not transferred. I guess I'll have to ask the question again.
     
  4. jbenjesus

    jbenjesus <font color="blue">Berean</font>

    165
    +0
    Christian
    You said,
    God (the Eternal Existent One) cannot die. But let's make no bones about it, the flesh that He manifested Himself in, did die.

    I Peter 3:18 - For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

    The eternal Spirit can not and did not die. His eternal Spirit is His very essence, presense and is omnipresent even if He does manifest Himself in flesh.

    Some say that God the Father and the Holy Spirit are different. Well, Jesus said God is a Spirit and those who worship Him must do so in spirit and in truth.

    According to this belief if God the Father is separate and different from the Holy Spirit than we now have two Spirits. God the Father is a Spirit and the Holy Spirit. But the reality is, God the Father is the Holy Spirit. There are not two Spirits.

    You said as well,
    To properly interpret John 8:58 you need to understand it in its context first and look at it from the Jewish perspective, in which this statement was spoke to, and understand what Jesus was communicating.

    John 5:18 - Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God .

    I know this scripture came before 8:58 (after the scripture above), but Jesus, all throughout the gospel of John, is communicating His Divine Identity. However, He was not being accepted as such by the religious leaders of His day (much the same way today when His true identity is not being accepted - the title of this thread is such proof). His works and words testify of His true identity - healing on the Sabbath, forgiving sins, saying God was His Father (in relation to His humanity, being conceived of the Holy Spirit (Father), "I am" or "I am He". Only the One True God could do and say these things.

    Jesus said unless you believe this you will die in your sins.

    LouisBooth did adequately answer your question.

    Regarding John 5:26,27, yes it says the Father gave authority and life to the Son. How?

    By being the authority and life in the Son. Notice everything you cited as a reference in John 5 came after the John 5:18 (already referenced above).

    In this thread those who don't understand this are invariably putting Jesus Christ in an inferior role or status. He is God and Lord. There is only One God and Lord. The apostles testified to this (as cited earlier in this thread).

    God manifested Himself in the flesh (I Tim. 3:16) and was reconciling the world to Himself in the body or in the Man Jesus Christ (II Cor. 5:19). Jesus was not another "person". He was as it so clearly declared God manifest in the flesh. The Word (God) become flesh.

    To say otherwise is to make more gods and more spirits than necessary. There is but One God and Spirit.
     
  5. Yeshuaskin1

    Yeshuaskin1 New Member

    5
    +0
    Omen! JbenJesus. Could not have said it better myself. It seems to me that what is needed here is an understanding of Hermeneutic. Exogesis veruses Isogesis. Keeping the idea in mind who this was written by and to. Seeing it from that perspective. I can not understand Chinese indigenious writings, even if transliterated for me, because I do not know the nuaices of their culture. Just as someone foreign to American culture would not know the nuiances of the word "Cool" or "Bad" or "Righteous" which can have two total different even opposite meanings.

    Shalom,
    YeshuasKin
     
  6. drmmjr

    drmmjr Regular Member

    459
    +7
    Christian
    jbenjesus,
    This is exactly why I was trying to find out about the son being a representatibe of the father earlier, to understand better why the Jews would try to kill Jesus for claiming God as his Father. It was not that Jesus was claiming to be God, but that he was claiming to be the son of God.

    In the verses leading up to 58, they were talking about the promises of Abraham. Who is going to put those promises into effect? Jesus.

    God gave Jesus the power to do these works.
    Acts 10:38 - How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

    "I am He", He who? He who will deliver you from your sins.
     
  7. jbenjesus

    jbenjesus <font color="blue">Berean</font>

    165
    +0
    Christian
    To drmmjr:

    You just contradicted John 5:18 with this statement:

    They, of all people, knew exactly what Jesus claimed to be, because what He did and said could only be said and done by God. That's what got them so riled up. He said I and the Father are one. But He went a step beyond that and forgave sins, healed the lame and sick and cast out demons. These are things that can only be done by God. They knew and understood that too and they could do nothing by word or power to contest it. The works witnessed or testified of the truth He was speaking concerning His own identity.


    You said,
    David prayed for deliverance from His sins to who?

    Psalms 79:9 - Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of thy name: and deliver us, and purge away our sins, for thy name's sake.

    God answered His prayer not only for him, but the whole world.

    2 Kings 17:39 - But the LORD your God ye shall fear; and he shall deliver you out of the hand of all your enemies.

    We are taught to pray to our Father to forgive us our sins and deliver us from the evil one.

    Luke 11:4 - And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

    Forgive and cleanse us from our sins.

    God delivered us from the hands of the law of sin and death and satan and the kingdom of darkness. He forgave us our sins and cleansed us.

    How? By the sacrifice of Himself on the cross to destroy the works of the devil and pay the penalty of death from the law.

    Again, the Son was none other than God Himself come in the flesh reconciling the world to Himself by the works which He accomlished in Christ Jesus.
     
  8. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "God gave Jesus the power to do these works. "

    yeah so? That is only because Jesus gave it all up before coming to earth..he limited himself to be obendent to show us an example of how to live. See Phil 2:5-8 for details.
     
  9. jbenjesus

    jbenjesus <font color="blue">Berean</font>

    165
    +0
    Christian
    Very true Louisbooth,

    Jesus, as a man, was an example to us, as men, on how to become completely and utterly dependent upon God in letting Him live out His life through us rather than our own lives. God was able to live His life out through Jesus Christ.

    When we become born again, He lives His life out through His body corporately, also know as the Church.
     
  10. drmmjr

    drmmjr Regular Member

    459
    +7
    Christian
    jbenjesus,

    How does this contradict John 5:18?
    John 5:18 - Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
    Jesus said that God was His Father, not that He was God. So I don't see a contradiction. The Jews were the ones who considered a son equal with his father.

    This has been the reason I have been trying to find out the Jewish thoughts on the legal relationship between a father and son. If the son is doing work in the father's name, the Jews belief is that they were in essence dealing with the father. Is this not true?
    Jesus could do these things because he was doing the will of God.
    John 6:38 - For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
    39 - And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
    40 - And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.


    The desciples were given the power to heal. Were they considered God because they were doing something that only God could do?

    Act 1:7 - And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
    8 - But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

    Act 5:12 - And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.
    13 - And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them.
    14 And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)
    15 - Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.
    16 - There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.

    Act 8:5 - Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.
    6 - And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.
    7 - For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.
    8 - And there was great joy in that city.

    Yes God is Saviour, but Jesus is the tool by which that saving was done.
     
  11. jbenjesus

    jbenjesus <font color="blue">Berean</font>

    165
    +0
    Christian
    You said,
    "Yes God is Saviour, but Jesus is the tool by which that saving was done."

    So Jesus is now inferior to God? :(

    Instead of believing that God manifested Himself in the flesh, you now want to believe Jesus is a mere tool? Like a housebuilder uses a hammer to drive in a nail, Jesus was the hammer - a tool??? :confused:

    It told you guys, if you do not accept the revelation that Jesus was none other than the Holy, One, God of Israel manifested in the flesh, you are forced to reduce Jesus to an inferior status to God.

    Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh.

    Don't dance around I Timothy 3:16. When you understand that alone, you can then start understanding that God Himself was in man reconciling the world to Himself and God showed us in Jesus Christ how a man should pray, preach, teach, and simply BE - living dependent on the Spirit of God that is true life.
     
  12. drmmjr

    drmmjr Regular Member

    459
    +7
    Christian
    Ok, so "tool" wasn't exactly the term to use. But aren't we all tools of God.
    Was Jesus infinite, eternal, immortal, or all powerful before his resurrection? So, yes Jesus was inferior to God. But now, Jesus sits at the right hand of God.

    1 Timpthy 3:16 - And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

    Manifest - 1 : readily perceived by the senses and especially by the sight.
    2 : easily understood or recognized by the mind.

    Nothing here about being, just showing. If you live you life as a Christian, the Jesus is manifest in you. Others see Jesus in your actions. Are you Jesus? No. But you are Christ like.
    Yes God is shown to us through Jesus, by his life and actions.
     
  13. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    drm..just explain why Christ accepted worship when it is clearly show in rev 22 that if you're not God you shouldn't accept worship. Was God lying on commandment 1?
     
  14. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    Jesus says "before Abraham was, I am". If "I am" (ego eimi) is to be taken to mean God, then Jesus was saying that before Abraham was, God. If the phrase is to be taken that Jesus is referring to himself, then it is not the name of God. For that to have been true, then Jesus would have had to say "before Abraham was, I am I am." Very true. This passage cannot be said to show that Jesus is God.




    Nothing here about being, just showing. If you live you life as a Christian, the Jesus is manifest in you. Others see Jesus in your actions. Are you Jesus? No. But you are Christ like.


    This SEEMS at first reading, a reasonable assumption drawn from, and analysis of, this particular passage. However, there are other passages, which show that "manifest" in this passage must take the more usual meaning of "being manifested" rather than "being made manifest."

    This ambiguous passage must be interpreted in the light of other passages addressing the issue which are not ambiguous. And those other passages state that God was the word, that Jesus being in very substance God, did not count it robbery, being equal with God, to be made in very substance a servant" - those passages are by no means ambiguous. Trying to make a doctrine out of ambiguous passages while ignoring absolute statements is not an approved pracitce.

    It is also true that John 5:18 declares that Jesus is (in John's opinion, not that of the Jews alone) saying he is equal to the Father. Hardly a surprise - John makes that claim repeatedly.

    Nor were the disciples God as has already been stated, nor considered EQUAL to God, nor yet was the claim made that they were SAYING they were equal to God.

    Moreover, we know from the records of pagan chroniclers even, what the Christian teachings were about Jesus's identity - they ridiculed that teaching - "Are we really to believe, as these people assert, that a god climbed into the womb of a woman - being subjected to the indignity of .... " - It is VERY clear from the pagan records of the time what was being taught by the Christians.
     
  15. ZoneChaos

    ZoneChaos Senior Veteran

    +21
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Jbenjesus.

    I have seen you use the term "triune" and not "trinity" Do you note a difference and thus use triune instead for a reason?
     
  16. ZoneChaos

    ZoneChaos Senior Veteran

    +21
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Hmm.. before can answer, I would need to know if you see Jesus as the SOn of God. If so, as i do, then here is the answer:

    Be fore Jesus was resurrected, He (the Son of God) was everytying God was: infinite, eternal, immortal... etc...

    The Son of God has existed since before time, and will exist forever. So, yes, Jesus, as the Son of God was and still is all these things. howrever, for a brief time, He surrendered the potential of those things, and took upon Himsefl, willingly, the nature of being a man. He stiull retained the nature of being God, but "set it aside" so to speak, in order to fulfill what He needed to do, as He could only have done by being a man.

    As a man, that nature of being man was mortal.. and that nature was not infinite or eternal... and that nature was meant, intended and planned to die, and to be resurrected. BUt thorugh it all, He was and still is God in every way.

    Jesus was and is God. He took on a second nature, while retaining the first, that was inferior to His nature of being God, but at thge same time, He was still God.
     
  17. jbenjesus

    jbenjesus <font color="blue">Berean</font>

    165
    +0
    Christian
    I only used the word "Triune" because Apologist introduced that term in one of his posts.

    I must disagree with you, however, that "the Son of God" always existed. I'm sure you mean eternally as a person in the Godhead.

    The role of Son of God had a definite beginning. If I had the time I would share this in my own words with the scriptures but unfortunately I don't right now. I quickly copied this is excerpt written by David K. Bernard.

    Please, do me the honor of reading without bias and give it a chance to explain itself. I know it's hard to put aside our own beliefs for a second, but there is a much more valid and more biblical explanation than the one you keep sharing:

    The Son in Biblical Terminology
    We should consider the dual nature of Christ into the framework of biblical terminology. The term Father refers to God Himself - God in all His deity. When we speak of the eternal Spirit of God, we mean God Himself, the Father. God the Father, therefore, is a perfectly acceptable and biblical phrase to use for God (Titus 1:4). However, the Bible does not use the term "God the Son" even one time. It is not a correct term because the Son of God refers to the humanity of Jesus Christ. The Bible defines the Son of God as the child born of Mary, not as the eternal Spirit of God (Luke 1:35). Son of God may refer solely to the human nature or it may refer to God manifested in flesh - that is, deity in the human nature.

    Son of God never means the incorporeal Spirit alone, however. We can never use the term "Son" correctly apart from the humanity of Jesus Christ. The terms "Son of God," "Son of man," and "Son" are appropriate and biblical. However, the term "God the Son" is inappropriate because it equates the Son with deity alone, and therefore it is unscriptural.

    The Son of God is not a separate person in the Godhead, but the physical expression of the one God. The Son is "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:13-15) and "the express image of His [God's] person" (Hebrews 1:2-3). Just as a signature stamp leaves an exact likeness on paper, or just as a seal leaves an exact impression when pressed in wax, so the Son of God is the exact expression of the Spirit of God in flesh. Man could not see the invisible God, so God made an exact likeness of Himself in flesh, impressed His very nature in flesh, came Himself in flesh, so that man could see and know Him.

    Many other verses of Scripture reveal that we can only use the term "Son of God" correctly when it includes the humanity of Jesus. For example, the Son was made of a woman (Galatians 4:4), the Son was begotten (John 3:16), the Son was born (Matthew 1:21-23; Luke 1:35), the Son did not know the hour of the Second Coming (Mark 13:32), the Son could do nothing of Himself (John 5:19), the Son came eating and drinking (Matthew 11:19), the Son suffered (Matthew 17:12), a person can blaspheme against the Son but not the Spirit and be forgiven (Luke 12:10), the Son was crucified (John 3:14; 12:30-34), and the Son died (Matthew 27:40-54; Romans 5:10). The death of Jesus is a particularly good example. His divine Spirit did not die, but His human body did. We cannot say that God died, so we cannot say "God the Son" died. On the other hand, we can say that the Son of God died because Son refers to humanity.

    As stated above, "Son" does not always refer to the humanity alone but to the deity and humanity together as they exist in the one person of Christ. For example, the Son has power to forgive sin (Matthew 9:6), the Son was both in heaven and on earth at the same time (John 3:13), the Son ascended up into heaven (John 6:62), and the Son is coming again in glory to rule and judge (Matthew 25:31).

    Begotten Son Or Eternal Son?

    John 3:16 calls Jesus the only begotten Son of God. However, many people use the phrase "eternal Son." Is this latter phrase correct? No. The Bible never uses it and it expresses a concept contradicted by Scripture. The word begotten is a form of the verb beget, which means "to procreate, to father, to sire." Thus begotten indicates a definite point in time - the point at which conception takes place. By definition, the begetter (father) always must come before the begotten (offspring). There must be a time when the begetter exists and the begotten is not yet in existence, and there must be a point in time when the act of begetting occurs. Otherwise the word begotten has no meaning. So, the very words begotten and Son each contradict the word eternal as applied to the Son of God.

    We have already discussed that "Son of God" refers to the humanity of Jesus. Clearly the humanity of Jesus is not eternal but was born in Bethlehem. One can speak of eternality - past, present, and future - only with respect to God. Since "Son of God" refers to humanity or deity as manifest in humanity, the idea of an eternal Son is incomprehensible. The Son of God had a beginning.

    The Beginning Of The Son

    The Sonship - or the role of the Son - began with the child conceived in the womb of Mary. The Scriptures make this perfectly clear. Galatians 4:4 says, "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law." The Son came in the fulness of time - not in eternity past. The Son was made of a woman - not begotten eternally. The Son was made under the law - not before the law. (See also Hebrews 7:28.) The term begotten refers to the conception of Jesus described in Matthew 1:18-20 and Luke 1:35. The Son of God was begotten when the Spirit of God miraculously caused conception to take place in the womb of Mary. This is evident from the very meaning of the word begotten and also from Luke 1:35, which explains that because the Holy Ghost would overshadow Mary, therefore her child would be the Son of God. We should notice the future tense in this verse: the child to be born "shall he called the Son of God."

    Hebrews 1:5-6 also reveals that the begetting of the Son occurred at a specific point in time and that the Son had a beginning in time: "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." The following points can be deducted from these verses: the Son was begotten on a specific day in time; there was a time when the Son did not exist; God prophesied about the Son's future existence ("will be"); and God brought the Son into the world sometime after the creation of the angels.

    Other verses of Scripture emphasize that the Son was begotten on a certain day in time - "this day" (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33). All the Old Testament verses that mention the Son are clearly prophetic, looking forward to the day when the Son of God would be begotten (Psalm 2:7, 12; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6).

    If you would care to, please show us all the term "eternal Son" being used in the scriptures?
     
  18. ZoneChaos

    ZoneChaos Senior Veteran

    +21
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    So you are oneness, then I take it?

    I did read what you posted.. and to be honest don't agree with it. :) It was very non-trinitarian.

    It is true that the term "God the Son" is not in scripture. Niether is the term "Trinity".

    However, what these terms represent are in scripture.

    "God the Son" is not just a referewcne to Jesus Christ, on earth asd a man. "God the Son is the same as the "Word" mentioned in Genisis and in John.

    The Trinity Doctrine incoorporates the terms: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit to give a sense of balance to the different points of the Trinity Doctrine.
     
  19. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "Very true. This passage cannot be said to show that Jesus is God. "

    I would disagree. If it doe not then spritis were created before time and before creation, which simply isn't true.

    "We have already discussed that "Son of God" refers to the humanity of Jesus. "

    Really? According to Pslams 2 it refers to the authority of Jesus.

    "If you would care to, please show us all the term "eternal Son" being used in the scriptures?"

    John 1:1 in the beginnig was Jesus and God. Logos exsisted and so did God the father.
     
  20. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    I assume that you are referring to the passage "Before Abraham was, I am," Louis Booth. It seems to me that there is no reference to eternal in that statement - Jesus existed before Abraham - there were also quite a number of people who existed before Abraham. The passage in question does not state that Jesus was in the beginning (though other passages do make that statement) - only that he was before Abraham.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...