Is Jesus The Son of God?

[throughfiierytrial]

As a side note, I think we can barely grasp what Jesus' death meant for him. I know we're all discussing here the relationship between Jesus (the Son) and the Father, and now remember what Jesus said when He hang on that cross to pay for our disobedience. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Do you understand? Jesus bore the punishment for our sins! The punishment for sin is separation from God! The Son, God Himself, being with the Father in all eternity, since before creation even, was separated from the Father in this very moment.
Someone mentioned fingers to visualize the difference between separation and distinction. In this moment, when Jesus died on that cross, it was separation. It was painful. It was different to what it used to be in eternity, to what it was supposed to be! Jesus bearing the punishment for sin in our place meant for Him to be forsaken by God Himself.

Perhaps, but hell after Judgement is eternal hell fire.

 

[RushMAN]

Sorry, but still not really sure what you're talking about. :/

In my post here at the bottom Is Jesus The Son of God?

 

[James A]

I quoted ,...and sisters
The Only you are speaking of is probably in reference to the time of Christ's birth. But, as I say, you be the judge.

Why would we reject the testimony of the eyewitnesses that Jesus was the only child of Mary?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Matthew 1:18 says "before they came together," implying that they "came together," eventually.

Before they were married, yes. Mary was found pregnant with the Lord before Mary and Joseph were married.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[James A]

As a side note, I think we can barely grasp what Jesus' death meant for him. I know we're all discussing here the relationship between Jesus (the Son) and the Father, and now remember what Jesus said when He hang on that cross to pay for our disobedience. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Do you understand? Jesus bore the punishment for our sins! The punishment for sin is separation from God! The Son, God Himself, being with the Father in all eternity, since before creation even, was separated from the Father in this very moment.
Someone mentioned fingers to visualize the difference between separation and distinction. In this moment, when Jesus died on that cross, it was separation. It was painful. It was different to what it used to be in eternity, to what it was supposed to be! Jesus bearing the punishment for sin in our place meant for Him to be forsaken by God Himself.

Jesus was quoting Psalm 22 when He said "God my God why have you forsaken me". Jesus quoted Psalm 22 to testify that the prophesies ( v18) fulfilled.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Catholic and Orthodox churches honor St. Mary as Bearer of God in their Liturgy

Historically so have Protestants. Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones is a hymn found in a number of Protestant hymnals.

The second stanza reads:

"O higher than the cherubim,
more glorious than the seraphim,
lead their praises, Alleluia!
Thou bearer of th' eternal Word,
most gracious, magnify the Lord"

-CryptoLutheran

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Why would we reject the testimony of the eyewitnesses that Jesus was the only child of Mary?

As the court system would say...we reject that as hear-say evidence...the story of the supposed eye witnesses cannot be corroborated. God gives us only the Word to check all other information against.
John 17:17: Sanctify them by Thy Truth; Thy Word is Truth.

 

[Sabertooth]

Before they were married, yes. Mary was found pregnant with the Lord before Mary and Joseph were married.

That is a pretty naive interpretation. The context is pretty clearly "before they came together conjugally."

 

[ViaCrucis]

Lol just so you know right now this represents my brain of trying to understand the Trinity. XD

Don't worry, the doctrine of the Trinity isn't about us trying to explain God, no one can explain God, He's God. What the doctrine of the Trinity is is the Christian Church affirming the truths which God has revealed to us, specifically our confession of these things against false opinions.

In the ancient Church there were a number of occasions where some people attempted to try and explain God, and that resulted in them saying some very wrong things--things which not only flew in the face of Scripture and the received faith of the Church but which implicitly denied the Gospel.

As such it was in many cases more important for us, as Christians, as the Church, to say what we do not believe.

For example, in the 2nd and 3rd centuries we have people like Paul of Samosata, he taught that Jesus was an ordinary man who upon his baptism by John was adopted as God's Son, and thus Jesus was a man who became divine, and after He rose and ascended into heaven was made a god by God. The response by the Church was that no, we do not believe this, for we confess that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1) and this Word who is God became flesh (John 1:14), and so on. And so the Church rejected Adoptionism as heretical, as a deeply false opinion. On the other hand, there were those, such as Sabellius, Praxeus, and Noetus who taught that God temporarily manifested as a human being, as Jesus, and that the one God (the Father) wore different masks, like an actor changing wardrobe in a play. The Church, again, said no we do not believe this, for we confess that at Christ's baptism the voice of the Father was heard from heaven, and the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus as a dove (Matthew 3:16-17), and the Lord regularly pointed to the Father, and to the Holy Spirit, Jesus says in John's Gospel that He would ask the Father, and Another Comforter, the Holy Spirit, would be sent (John 14:16-17). And so on and so forth. And so the Church rejected what's called Modalism.

So that meant two views, in a sense on two ends of the spectrum, two extremes as it were, are being rejected.

In the 4th century an Egyptian presbyter named Arius was so anti-Modalist that he began teaching that Jesus was a second God, created by the Father. Thus there were two Gods, the eternal and uncreated Father, and a created, lesser God, the Son. Arius was so adament about rejecting Modalism that he ended up denying the eternity of Jesus and claiming that there were in fact two Gods. The Church, again, responded by saying that no, we don't believe this. As we confess that there is only one God, as it is written, "Hear O Israel, the LORD your God, the LORD is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4) and "I alone am God and there is no other" (Isaiah 46:9).

The result of this controversy is what led to the Council of Nicea, and the Nicene Creed. A few decades later another council, the Council of Constantinople would meet to address two other controversies, and provide us with the current text of the Nicene Creed which we still read and confess today.

So this is what we see, historically, not so much a, "We are going to explain God", but rather we reject what is false, and that leaves us with confessing the truth. So the doctrine of the Trinity is not about understanding or explaining God, but about confessing God as God Himself has given Himself to us.

It's not an easy idea, it's a very complicated idea. But anytime we try and simplify it, we end up saying things that are deeply and troublingly wrong.

So where do you get this idea from then?

It's important to understand that from the beginning there have always been living, worshiping, believing communities of Christians. The communities we read about in the New Testament continued to practice their faith, and to worship, and they continued to abide in the teaching and preaching of the Apostles.

Because of this, that means there has always been a living stream of teaching and faith that has come down through the centuries. And so when we find various pious opinions and ideas which aren't necessarily found in the Bible, it's because these ideas are part of the living, active Christian communities throughout the Christian world.

There have always been debates, discussions, and arguments over certain ideas. That's just part of the history, the story, of Christianity down through the ages.

But when @RushMAN says he gets this idea from the Church (and later you ask where did the Church get it), this is more-or-less what is meant. These ideas exist within living, believing communities of Christians, and these ideas, beliefs, practices, etc are passed down from one generation to the next. In fact this is how we got the Bible itself, because the Bible, as a bound volume of different books of Scripture, didn't just show up out of no where, it grew out of the practice and preservation of Christian faith and teaching down through the centuries, until it was then also passed on to you and me.

Now, that does raise questions--namely over the verity of certain positions, of certain ideas. And, obviously, the disagreements over these very things are why Christians are divided today. But recognizing this can be very helpful in understanding ourselves and our own place, at present, in the ongoing story of Christianity even today.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Daniel9v9]

Could you explain this statement as to how this is possible? Often in the English language God is referred to as The Creator. Now this statement above when I look at it just does not make any sense, and I will explain why. Now there are 2 types of existence -

1: self-existent - existence but not as a result of creation, simply is
2: existence as a result of being created. And man is a created being.

So how can you be both a Self-Existent Being and at the same time be a created being? That just does not make any sense.

Well, let me start by saying - that the man Jesus Christ is God is one of the most central teachings to the Christian faith. We can know this from Scriptures itself, where we don't only have one or two vague references to His divinity, but everything about the person and works of Christ testify to it. We also have abundant evidence for his humanity.

Besides Scriptures, this is re-affirmed in Church history, where the early fathers (and still up until this day) explicitly refer to the man Jesus as God. The early Church refuted Arianism on one hand (the teaching that Christ is only man), and Docetism on the other (the teaching that Christ is only God), along with many other Christological heresies. It's interesting to note that Docetism came first, meaning that the early heresies recognised Jesus as God, but rejected His humanity. So Christ's divinity has been understood both inside and outside of the Church since the beginning. In fact, from a Jewish point of view, it was Christ's claim of divinity - His being one with the Father - that caused him His crucifixion.

Furthermore, this is all reflected in our ecumenical creeds. The most thorough of these creeds is the Athanasian Creed, which explains, in purely Biblical and non-speculative terms, the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, our one God.

To answer your question - It's a holy mystery only possible by virtue of God's divinity. God did not change into a man, but He assumed man into His own nature. Jesus is both eternal (according to His divinity) and born (according to His humanity) at the same time.

What I'm about to express is not a good or accurate analogy of Christ's natures, but it can help form some picture of what this all could look like. Consider it a foolish thought experiment, only appealing to your reason. Imagine an author of a novel, writing himself into the story. He is fully inside and fully outside at the same time. He is both bound by the laws of his work and free from them at the same time. In this way, the finite can contain the infinite. But again, this is an imperfect comparison that ultimately amounts to a heresy. The reason I do use this example is just to illustrate that even in our fallen state we can speculate and perceive of some philosophical or abstract ideas of higher things - how much more can God in His infinite wisdom and power create realities that we cannot dream of? What seems impossible to us is not impossible for God. God is greater than math. He is not bound by any laws of nature or human reason.

So, when we, with the apostles, confess Christ as Lord, that does not mean "lord" in a generic sense, but YHWH; in Christ, the fullness of the deity dwells bodily. Colossians 2:9

 

[ViaCrucis]

So how can you be both a Self-Existent Being and at the same time be a created being? That just does not make any sense.

And yet, the Uncreated and created coinciding as one undivided Person is the reality of our very salvation.

If Jesus is not God, then He is not our Savior. After all, humans die every day, why should just another ordinary frail mortal dying at the hands of tyrants be of any more salvific importance than any other ordinary frail mortal dying? Thus there can be no Gospel.

If Jesus is not human, then He is not our Savior. After all, a non-human can't die, can't rise, so that means the entire story of the Gospel is all just a bit of pretend, nothing more than shadow puppets backlit against a wall.

The Gospel is about God becoming man. God assuming our humanity, God uniting Himself to our humanity, in order to rescue, redeem, heal, and save us. To bear our sin, our death; and then defeat the very powers that hold us captive away from, and hostile toward God, thus reconciling us to God by joining us to Himself. As the righteous one who suffers death for all men, for the sins of the world, and as the firstfruits of the resurrection. We, therefore, are the reconciled and justified people, not by our own strength and power, but by the God who comes down and rescues and redeems us, that we might have life from, in, and with Him--forever and ever.

EDITED: Expanded my response

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

That is a pretty naive interpretation. The context is pretty clearly "before they came together conjugally."

The point is that Mary and Joseph were not yet wed, and so Mary being pregnant before the wedding would have been a massive scandal. Ultimately the point being driven home is that Joseph, an honorable man, does not allow himself to place his reputation above that of Mary, and retains her as his betrothed.

It's very important that we are engaging in exegesis of the text, not eisegesis.

The point isn't that Joseph and Mary had sex at some point, the point is that Mary and Joseph were not yet married, and Mary was pregnant with Jesus. That's the point of what's being said.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[PaulCyp1]

If they read the Bible, they would know that God the Father caused a human woman to become pregnant with His Son, Who was named Jesus.

 

[Sabertooth]

The point is that Mary and Joseph were not yet wed, and so Mary being pregnant before the wedding would have been a massive scandal.

You have correctly stated the major point, but you have missed the conflicting minor point of Mary & Joseph having a normal married sex life after Jesus was born.

Joseph knew her baby wasn't his, because it was (as Matthew points out) before they had sex (as opposed to "never had sex").

 

[The Righterzpen]

Yes that is true that God the spirit does not have a mother but Mary was indeed the mother of Jesus.

Well he certainly isn't His biological father.

Yes but He and the Father are the same yet different and this is the point that I've been trying to get a crossed.

Much of what you've quoted in this thread (and much of what you are describing with "Father and Son being the same") is a doctrinal heresy called "modalism". You are correct. Jesus and the Father are not the same Person of the Godhead. They are equal in essence but not in "role played". The Father did not become incarnated, nor did He pay for anyone's sin.

Now how this relational aspect between roles of Persons of the Godhead operates in many facets isn't fully understood; but that doesn't mean we can't know anything. Who would do what, how and why was all planned out by God before creation ever commenced.

As far as Joseph and Mary go?

Yes, Jesus's body was created using Mary's DNA. Sin nature is passed from father to child, not mother to child. This is how Jesus could be born of a woman who was a sinner herself but not inherit her sin nature. (She'd gotten her fallen nature from her own father.) Since Jesus didn't have a human father; He did not have a fallen nature. He had Mary's DNA because that's what connected Him to the human race. Without that; He would not have been an appropriate sacrifice to atone for human sin, because He would not have been "the last Adam".

"Aliens; I tell you it was aliens!" LOL - (that's a joke).

Scripture says Joseph was a righteous man. (Assuming this means his sin was atoned for.) When the angel told him Mary's child was conceived by the Holy Spirt (she hadn't been "messing around"). He exercised love and took on the responsibility for this child which he had not created.

What this meant socially though was that Joseph's reputation "took a hit" because by not divorcing Mary; he was proclaiming to the community that the child was his. You go back to Exodus; if two unmarried people had sex, the stipulation was that they were to get married. (Unless it was in illegal circumstance like adultery, incest, rape etc.)

So yes, Joseph accepted Jesus as if Jesus was his biological son.

 

[lsume]

I know that this is a ridiculous question because the obvious answer is yes He is. Although it seems like that a lot of people don't believe that and think that the Father and the Son are the exactly the same being and person. Which even though they are alike they are not the same because even Jesus refers to the creator as being His Father and prays to Him. He couldn't pray to Himself. So I just had to make this topic to make that perfectly clear. Jesus is the Son of God and Joseph is His step-father. I've known this even before I turned double digits.

What I believe is happening right now;
Matt.13

1. 
   [12] For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath

 

[Hmm]

He is a step Father simply because he is not the child's biological father.

That makes no sense. I have given the definition of step-father and he doesn't meet it.

 

[lsume]

I know that this is a ridiculous question because the obvious answer is yes He is. Although it seems like that a lot of people don't believe that and think that the Father and the Son are the exactly the same being and person. Which even though they are alike they are not the same because even Jesus refers to the creator as being His Father and prays to Him. He couldn't pray to Himself. So I just had to make this topic to make that perfectly clear. Jesus is the Son of God and Joseph is His step-father. I've known this even before I turned double digits.

Many are called but few are chosen. Seek and you shall find. If you set the desire of your heart to be obedient to The Word, you will fail until Christ sets you free. All anyone can do is pray and read The Word. When Christ comes to you as a thief in the night, you will understand.

 

[Hmm]

Then how did Joseph feel raising a child he didn't father? Joseph knew it's not his own child.

How do I know? Hopefully he loved him but not he would not have relates to him as a child of another man (trying to respect the child's feelinhgs about his biological father etc.) . The relationship was obviously not one of step-father to step-son.

 

[Fullness of Christ]

According to scripture, God is Spirit. And Spirit is likened to water. Imagine God is an ocean, and a vessel is filled with some of that water. The water of the ocean is God and the water in the vessel is God. Two separate bodies of water but the same substance.

God’s Spirit was in heaven, which Jesus called, “My Father“. And a part of God’s Spirit was inside a human body, which the Father called, “My Son”.

Even though Jesus was God, He had to live a life as one of us, so that He could fulfil the law of God for us and die as the perfect sacrifice for our sins. He faced the same temptations as us, He had the same feelings and emotions as us. Although He was God, He fulfilled the law 100% as a man, and was therefore completely dependent upon the Father, as we are, which is why He prayed to the Father for everything. He didn’t pray to the Father because He was inferior or anything like that; He prayed to the Father because He had to fulfil His mission as a man.

We are also vessels, and when we are born again, we receive some of the water (the Spirit of God); we become sons and daughters of God just as Jesus was the Son of God.

I hope this helps.

God bless!