Preaching The Son of God

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mr. M

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2020
8,129
3,211
Prescott, Az
✟36,927.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Acts 9:20. At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.

How much significance should be placed on this point that Paul immediately began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God? First, consider the evidence that came out at the trial of Jesus Christ.

John 19:5-7. Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate said unto them, Behold the man! When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.
Pilate said unto them, you take him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.


At a public trial, the testimony of His accusers was that Jesus must die for claiming to be the Son of God. Now the man who was previously persecuting the church, one of high esteem among the religious leadership, was preaching this very thing! This is an extraordinary turn of events, that the one who was identified and accepted by the original disciples as the "apostle to the gentiles", would first boldly preach in the synagogues of every place he visited.

For many have come before and after claiming to be a messiah, a fact of which has often been attested. For messianic Jews to simply proclaim Yeshua haMashiach in Israel or anywhere in the world is nothing new under the sun. If you want to stir up the status quo, preach the Son of God.
 

Josheb

Christian
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
2,176
830
NoVa
✟159,759.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acts 9:20. At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.

How much significance should be placed on this point that Paul immediately began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God? First, consider the evidence that came out at the trial of Jesus Christ.

John 19:5-7. Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate said unto them, Behold the man! When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.
Pilate said unto them, you take him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.


At a public trial, the testimony of His accusers was that Jesus must die for claiming to be the Son of God. Now the man who was previously persecuting the church, one of high esteem among the religious leadership, was preaching this very thing! This is an extraordinary turn of events, that the one who was identified and accepted by the original disciples as the "apostle to the gentiles", would first boldly preach in the synagogues of every place he visited.

For many have come before and after claiming to be a messiah, a fact of which has often been attested. For messianic Jews to simply proclaim Yeshua haMashiach in Israel or anywhere in the world is nothing new under the sun. If you want to stir up the status quo, preach the Son of God.
Point of clarification: The Jews believed he should be killed because Jesus made himself equal to God. Int their thiking/tradition to claim to be the son of God was to make a claim of equivalency. This is something much different than claiming to be a mere "messiah" or "anointed one."

John 5:10-18
"Now it was the Sabbath on that day. So the Jews were saying to the man who was cured, 'It is the Sabbath, and it is not permissible for you to carry your pallet.' But he answered them, 'He who made me well was the one who said to me, 'Pick up your pallet and walk.' They asked him, 'Who is the man who said to you, 'Pick up your pallet and walk'?' But the man who was healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had slipped away while there was a crowd in that place. Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, 'Behold, you have become well; do not sin anymore, so that nothing worse happens to you.' The man went away, and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. But He answered them, 'My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.' For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."

This is important because there is some misperception about this passage. Jewish history prior to and subsequent to the first century contained many reports,, many affirming reports, of Jewish leaders healing and doing good on the Sabbath so the Jews' judgment of Jesus was not about that. It was this combination of Sabbath-breaking as an equivalent of God that they found provoking and worthy of death.


This, in tunr, is core to the gospel and the use of the term, "gospel" because the term does not merely mean "good news." The word "euangelion" was Roman term, not a Hebraic, Aramaic, or Greek term. A euangelion was an official proclamation that Caesar or a general had won a great victory. A euangelion was issued, for example, when a Caesar was deified. However, deification in the Greek and Roman cultures did not mean a human was literally made into a god. It simply meant the person's status was elevates such that he no longer had to go to Hades or Hell when dead and could live outside Mt. Olympus in the Elysian Fields.

The gospel writers usurped this term to declare Jesus God Himself; God made flesh. This Jesus who is God did in fact win a very great victory - a victory not even Casar could accomplish...

Jesus defeated death!

So Jesus' teachings and conduct not only confronted the Jews from the Jewish pov; he also provoked the Jews from all perspectives, Jewish and Gentile. Jesus was not deifying himself; he was implying he was/is God. Big "G," not little "g."


These are the contexts of John 19. This is clearly stated by John in the preamble of his gospel, his euangelion. This preamble is likely a reference to something the Jewish philosopher Philo had written a few centuries earlier about Alexander the Great as the mediator between God and man. John was also bluntly confronting the Hellenism prevalent in Judaism in the first century.



In other words, more than any of the other gospel writers John was confronting all worldviews and confrontationally declaring Jesus as God.... not just someone equal to God.
How much significance should be placed on this point that Paul immediately began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God?
Is this question about Paul preaching in the synagogues, or is this question about Jesus teaching Jesus is the Son of God?

Paul taught in the synagogues (first) because Christianity (as it eventually was named) was originally a Jewish sect. All of the early leaders were Jews. Not former Jews, just Jews. Jews who believed the Jewish Messiah had come. In this sense they were... apocalyptic Jews! It was only as a consequence of Jewish persecution that the apostles began preaching outside of the synagogues. It was then the conflict with the Gentile cultures began because Jesus wasn't a son of a god like Hercules or Perseus; Jesus was THE Son of God that is God, the monogene sarx egeneto. (single-source made flesh).

There were also logistical and political aspects alarming the John 19 and Acts 9 Jewish audiences. Jesus and Paul (and the other apostles) first taught in the courtyards of the temple and synagogues because Gentiles were not allowed in the inner parts. Gentiles that came to do business with the temple and the towns' Jews were converted to Christ and the conversion ritual for the Christians broke with that of traditional Judaism by emphasizing baptism and faith, not the other Judaic rituals. There's was justification and righteousness by faith, not works. This too was provocative, heretical, apostate, and worthy of persecution, if not death. This didn't change much when the gospel began being preached in the Gentile marketplaces because idols were repudiated. little "g" gods are not God. Logically, it is impossible to have more than one sovereign and almighty God. Silver markets were adversely affected. The offerings in the pagan temples were adversely affected.


All because of this claim Jesus, the dead Jew, was/is big-G God, not just an equivalent of a god.
 
Upvote 0

Mr. M

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2020
8,129
3,211
Prescott, Az
✟36,927.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Point of clarification: The Jews believed he should be killed because Jesus made himself equal to God. Int their thiking/tradition to claim to be the son of God was to make a claim of equivalency. This is something much different than claiming to be a mere "messiah" or "anointed one."
I provided the "transcript" from the trial. This was their testimony.
Pilate said unto them, you take him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
This is something much different than claiming to be a mere "messiah" or "anointed one."
Exactly my point, that Paul was not preaching a Messiah.
Acts 9:20. At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.
As you can see, no mention of Messiah. Just what had been declared blasphemy, of which Messiah was charged. The key point of the post:
For many have come before and after claiming to be a messiah, a fact of which has often been attested. For messianic Jews to simply proclaim Yeshua haMashiach in Israel or anywhere in the world is nothing new under the sun. If you want to stir up the status quo, preach the Son of God.
John 10:36. Do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
This is a True Gospel.
John 20:31. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,
and that believing you may have life in His name.
Paul taught in the synagogues (first) because Christianity (as it eventually was named) was originally a Jewish sect. All of the early leaders were Jews. Not former Jews, just Jews. Jews who believed the Jewish Messiah had come. In this sense they were... apocalyptic Jews! It was only as a consequence of Jewish persecution that the apostles began preaching outside of the synagogues. It was then the conflict with the Gentile cultures began because Jesus wasn't a son of a god like Hercules or Perseus; Jesus was THE Son of God that is God, the monogene sarx
egeneto. (single-source made flesh).
This is excellent. Many overlook the fact that Paul always spoke at the synagogue first, whenever one existed, in every city he visited. What is also overlooked is that Gentiles were in attendance at these synagogues, that there were many converts to Judaism, who "listened as Moses was read every Sabbath", but there was "a wall of separation" at that time. The first Gentile believers were most often already worshippers of the Holy One of Israel.
My focus was on what the Message was from the beginning. You are correct, the fact that he was proclaiming this message in the synagogue is highly relevant, for what he was proclaiming had been declared to be blasphemy by the authorities in Jerusalem.
Here is the rest of the essay, posted in its entirety in "Daily Devotionals."

Before appearing at the judgment seat of Pilate, Jesus was examined by the High Priest, along with the scribes and elders. Many false witnesses came forward to accuse Jesus, but none of the charges held. Then the High Priest played his trump card:

Matthew 26:63-66. But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What do you think? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

And so the religious authorities found Jesus guilty of blasphemy and worthy of death for claiming to be the Son of God. Then Saul, upon his conversion immediately preached this in the synagogues, thereby, bringing the same charge against himself. Then he gave this testimony of himself before his conversion.

1 Tim 1:13. Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

This is his conversion, to embrace what was called blasphemy, and reject what was before:
Acts 22:3. I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

The Lord Jesus Christ expects us to preach His Blasphemy, for this is the most excellent glory that He received:

2 Peter 1:17. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.







 
Upvote 0

Mr. M

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2020
8,129
3,211
Prescott, Az
✟36,927.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Something has been bothering me. Did Jesus say he is the son of God or did he say he is a son of God? Does the Greek allow for both translations?
John 1:18. No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
By Him, through Him, in Him, we have gained authority to become sons and daughters of God.
John 1:12. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
Only the firstborn [prototokos] has been declared by the Father to be The Son of God.
Romans 8:29. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Colossians 1:15-17. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
 
Upvote 0

Noxot

anarchist personalist
Supporter
Aug 6, 2007
8,191
2,450
37
dallas, texas
Visit site
✟231,339.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
John 1:18. No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
By Him, through Him, in Him, we have gained authority to become sons and daughters of God.
John 1:12. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
Only the firstborn [prototokos] has been declared by the Father to be The Son of God.
Romans 8:29. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Colossians 1:15-17. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
Does the also translate as a?
 
Upvote 0

Mr. M

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2020
8,129
3,211
Prescott, Az
✟36,927.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Does the also translate as a?
I do not have the background in Greek grammar to give a definitive answer to what you are asking. The scriptures that I quoted should support the Truth that only the Messiah is referred to as The Son of God, and those who believe in Him gain the authority to be spoken of as a child of God.
 
Upvote 0

Noxot

anarchist personalist
Supporter
Aug 6, 2007
8,191
2,450
37
dallas, texas
Visit site
✟231,339.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I do not have the background in Greek grammar to give a definitive answer to what you are asking. The scriptures that I quoted should support the Truth that only the Messiah is referred to as The Son of God, and those who believe in Him gain the authority to be spoken of as a child of God.
The difference between a and the is huge. If the correct translation is a, then the Bible is trying to express something very specific. I already know of those other verses. If it is a I will say a. Looks like I will be the one to be a bigger blasphemer than you. It's your loss.
 
Upvote 0

Josheb

Christian
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
2,176
830
NoVa
✟159,759.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I provided the "transcript" from the trial. This was their testimony.
Pilate said unto them, you take him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
Yep, and I added to the understand of the meaning of those words based on what else the scriptures state about that indictment.
Exactly my point, that Paul was not preaching a Messiah.

Except that is not the point at all and you are arguing a false dichotomy. Jesus is both the Son of God and the Messiah. Jesus is both God and the Son of God. Jesus is all three: God, the Son of God, and God's anointed one (messiah). Pitting one against another creates a false dichotomy.

Suggesting, implying, insinuating Paul did not assert Jesus as the Messiah is completely false. The Greek term for the Jewish "anointed one" is "Christ," and Paul referenced Jesus as "Christ" more than 350 times in his epistles. Similarly, he referenced Jesus as the "Son of God" repeatedly. Paul asserted Jesus as both! Taking a single verse from Acts 9 and making an over-generalized statement about Paul's position is called proof-texting and proof-texting is always bad exegesis.

So 1) the statement "Paul was not preaching a Messiah," is factually incorrect, and 2) your point is not my point.
This is excellent. Many overlook the fact that Paul always spoke at the synagogue first, whenever one existed, in every city he visited. What is also overlooked is that Gentiles were in attendance at these synagogues, that there were many converts to Judaism, who "listened as Moses was read every Sabbath", but there was "a wall of separation" at that time. The first Gentile believers were most often already worshippers of the Holy One of Israel
I did not overlook it.
My focus was on what the Message was from the beginning. You are correct, the fact that he was proclaiming this message in the synagogue is highly relevant, for what he was proclaiming had been declared to be blasphemy by the authorities in Jerusalem.
Yes, and I explained, using other passages from the exact same authors, how and why that message was deemed worthy of capital punishment (based on the law to which those Jewish leaders claimed to subscribe).
Here is the rest of the essay, posted in its entirety in "Daily Devotionals."
...The Lord Jesus Christ expects us to preach His Blasphemy, for this is the most excellent glory that He received:

2 Peter 1:17. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Is that colored text part of the "daily devotional"? Is this "daily devotional" a book from which you are quoting or is this a "daily devotional" you are authoring?

I ask because the question is begging a rhetorical or biased definition of blasphemy. Jesus as God, Jesus as the Son of God AND Jesus as God's anointed one is not blasphemy. It might be blasphemy to the Jews but they don't define blasphemy for God! As a consequence of their inability to define blasphemy for God they cannot and do not define blasphemy for Christians. What is actually factually truth and orthodoxy from God's sovereign and almighty position, may be blasphemy to the first century Jewish leaders but their thinking it blasphemy does not make it blasphemy.


So we do not teach blasphemy.

We preach truth: The logos of God that is God made flesh crucified and resurrected.
 
Upvote 0

Noxot

anarchist personalist
Supporter
Aug 6, 2007
8,191
2,450
37
dallas, texas
Visit site
✟231,339.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The reason I'm making a big deal out of the difference between a & the is to draw attention to it so that someone may tell me if it could be either or if it is more correct one way or the other.

Further I'm trying to see if God makes a specific distinction. I don't want to lose one jot or tittle. Angels are called sons of God as well. So I want to see if Jesus both calls himself a son of God and in the other verses as a more important the only begotten son of God, which I'm not trying to deny it at all. Because obviously if he is like us then he would also be made in the image of the son of God, which is the only begotten son of God.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mr. M

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2020
8,129
3,211
Prescott, Az
✟36,927.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Suggesting, implying, insinuating Paul did not assert Jesus as the Messiah is completely false.
I did none of these.. I am aware of everything that Paul spoke concerning the Messiah. The verse in question makes a particular point about who Paul believed the Messiah to be. I was not excluding all his other testimony.
Yes, and I explained, using other passages from the exact same authors, how and why that message was deemed worthy of capital punishment (based on the law to which those Jewish leaders claimed to subscribe).
No argument here. I am aware of the statement "made himself equal to God". In the trial, the charge was blasphemy.
So 1) the statement "Paul was not preaching a Messiah," is factually incorrect, and 2) your point is not my point.
Again, my statement was in reference to the scripture quoted, which was consistent with your original post.
Point of clarification: The Jews believed he should be killed because Jesus made himself equal to God. Int their thiking/tradition to claim to be the son of God was to make a claim of equivalency. This is something much different than claiming to be a mere "messiah" or "anointed one."
"mere Messiah" was your words, never mine.

I am not making a dichotomy at all. I am arguing that this point is neglected. As I stated in the essay, many preach Yeshua haMashiach, without any mention of the Son of God. I am trying to restore the unity of that message. There is no dichotomy to speak of, so it is clearly a false one, and not at all one that I was making. I NEVER stated that Paul did not preach Yeshua is Messiah, you make that assumption, when my point was to insist that His being the only begotten Son of God.
Let me make this even more clear to you. I once found a listing of all Messianic Congregations in Israel. I went to each and every website for those congregations. They all proclaimed Yeshua is the Messiah. Only one proclaimed that He is the Son of God. My point is that this is a serious omission. You have said nothing that contradicts my concern. As I wrote in the OP:
For many have come before and after claiming to be a messiah, a fact of which has often been attested. For messianic Jews to simply proclaim Yeshua haMashiach in Israel or anywhere in the world is nothing new under the sun. If you want to stir up the status quo, preach the Son of God.

I did not overlook it.
Good for you. I am well aware of these facts. If you wanted to add them to the thread, I did not object, although it was not the point of the essay. Again...the omission of the Son of God from many presentations of the Gospels was the focus of the essay. You wanted to discuss that he was in the synagogues. Yep, that is what the verse points out, so you were only bringing up the obvious. It is not my fault or yours if many choose to be oblivious to the facts contained in the testimony of Acts.
Is that colored text part of the "daily devotional"? Is this "daily devotional" a book from which you are quoting or is this a "daily devotional" you are authoring?

I ask because the question is begging a rhetorical or biased definition of blasphemy. Jesus as God, Jesus as the Son of God AND Jesus as God's anointed one is not blasphemy. It might be blasphemy to the Jews but they don't define blasphemy for God! As a consequence of their inability to define blasphemy for God they cannot and do not define blasphemy for Christians. What is actually factually truth and orthodoxy from God's sovereign and almighty position, may be blasphemy to the first century Jewish leaders but their thinking it blasphemy does not make it blasphemy.


So we do not teach blasphemy.

Yes, I wrote the essay. No, we are not preaching blasphemy, we are preaching what the accusers of Yeshua defined as blasphemy. It was not a rhetorical or biased definition friend, it was a False Accusation. The point is that evangelists should once again be bold in preaching the full Gospel, and not avoid a key element because some false accusers will call it blasphemy. If you go to Israel tomorrow and start preaching that Yeshua is the Son of God, do you think that someone might accuse you of blasphemy? So be it.
John 3:16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Every comment you have made only demonstrates your lack of comprehension of what was written.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mr. M

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2020
8,129
3,211
Prescott, Az
✟36,927.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Every comment you have made only demonstrates your lack of comprehension of what was written. I am still waiting for you to make some clear point over 'a' versus 'the'. Is there a mistranslation of a particular verse that you would like to point out for clarification?
My error here. Apologies.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Noxot

anarchist personalist
Supporter
Aug 6, 2007
8,191
2,450
37
dallas, texas
Visit site
✟231,339.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
My error here. This was Noxot's concern, not yours. Apologies.
I just want to get my christology right.
does Jesus make a distinction between being a son of God and being the only begotten Son of God - God the Son.

I am a son of God.
I am the son of God.
I am a son of man.
I am the son of man.
I am the only begotten son of God.

Those are all different descriptions. I want to know what Jesus said, not what people's doctrinal assumptions about what he means.

To be the son of God and to be a son of God in the only begotten son of God is an important distinction.
It has huge implications. It means that mainstream Christianity could be in error. So it's important to know.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Mr. M
Upvote 0

Mr. M

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2020
8,129
3,211
Prescott, Az
✟36,927.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
To be the son of God and to be a son of God in the only begotten son of God is an important distinction.
It has huge implications. It means that mainstream Christianity could be in error. So it's important to know.
The only safe way out of the 'mainstream', is to "Study to show yourself approved."
The forum may offer some answers to your concerns. The focus of the essay was that many evangelists omit "The Son of God" from their message entirely, only preaching "Accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior". This presents what He is without announcing who He is, as Paul did in Acts 9.
 
Upvote 0

Josheb

Christian
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
2,176
830
NoVa
✟159,759.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Exactly my point, that Paul was not preaching a Messiah.
Suggesting, implying, insinuating Paul did not assert Jesus as the Messiah is completely false.
I did none of these...
Well, the posts state what the posts state and what the post actually factually undeniably irrefutable states you stating is "Paul was not preaching a Messiah."


You may have meant Paul was preaching Jesus as both the Son of God and the Messiah, but that's not what was posted. The opportunity to affirm that fact was provided.
I am aware of everything that Paul spoke concerning the Messiah. The verse in question makes a particular point about who Paul believed the Messiah to be. I was not excluding all his other testimony.
Again: The posts state what the posts state and what the posts actually factually undeniably irrefutable state you stating is, "Paul was not preaching a Messiah." You cannot have it both ways. Either Paul was preaching Jesus as God, Jesus as the Son of God, AND Jesus the Christ (Messiah, anointed one) or he wasn't. It cannot be said, "Paul was not preaching a Messiah," and "I was not excluding all [Paul's] other testimony."
Again, my statement was in reference to the scripture quoted, which was consistent with your original post.
No, it is not consistent. Just because the quoted scripture does not mention the word "Messiah" does not mean "Paul was not preaching a Messiah." I have already explained how and why this is necessarily so: No single sentence any of the NT speakers/writers are reported to have said or written can be separated from all else that the said or wrote. Furthermore, the Acts 9:20 text is not an exhaustive verbatim record of all Paul taught in the synagogue. It is a simple summary.

Paul was preaching a Messiah.
I am not making a dichotomy at all.
That ay not be the intent but that is the facts currently in evidence and the matter is easily resolved with a single plain, simple clear sentence: "Yes, Paul was preaching a Messiah!"

"Yes, you're completely correct, Josh, forgive me for not making that clearer," or "Yep. I should have clarified that earlier. Yes, of course Paul was preaching Jesus as both God and Messiah," or any number of agreeing, uniting, mutually affirming statements but that is not what you're doing. You are claiming 1) "Paul was not preaching a Messiah" and 2) you never suggested, implied, nor insinuated Paul did not assert Jesus as Messiah.

I'm pointing out the contradiction so it will be corrected so we can have collaborative unity but you're denying the problem's existence.
I am arguing that this point is neglected.
By whom?
As I stated in the essay, many preach Yeshua haMashiach, without any mention of the Son of God. I am trying to restore the unity of that message. There is no dichotomy to speak of, so it is clearly a false one, and not at all one that I was making.
Yes, I understand all that and completely agree and affirm it.

However, there's a problem in the posts. In the process of restoring the unity of Jesus as both Messiah and the Son of God it was plainly stated, "Paul was not preaching a Messiah." That is what was stated. That is what was posted. The sentence is right there in post #3, your second post in this discussion. Two posts; one glaring contradiction! It warrants correction.
I NEVER stated that Paul did not preach Yeshua is Messiah...
Post #3 proves otherwise.
...you make that assumption...
No, I am standing firmy on what is explicitly, specifically, actually, factually, undeniably, and irrefutably posts in post #3. No assumptions whatsoever on my part.
...when my point was to insist that His being the only begotten Son of God.
Yep. I got that. I completely agree.

We're not disagreeing Jesus was both Son of God and Messiah. We're disagreeing over a pair of contradictory points: 1) Paul was preaching Jesus as the Son of God and 2) Paul was not preaching a Messiah. Or, if you prefer: 1) Paul was not preaching a Messiah, and 2) I am aware of all that Paul said about Jesus as the Messiah.
Let me make this even more clear to you. I once found a listing of all Messianic Congregations in Israel...
Not interested in an anecdotal digression.
Good for you. I am well aware of these facts. If you wanted to add them to the thread, I did not object, although it was not the point of the essay. Again...the omission of the Son of God from many presentations of the Gospels was the focus of the essay. You wanted to discuss that he was in the synagogues....
It should be the point of the essay, Minister! You create a false dichotomy when ignoring one of the two! Jesus is God, Jesus is the Son of God, and Jesus is the Messiah and all the preaching by all the NT writers scripturally and logically inextricably implies all three simultaneously.

And the reason this is important is because the "Son of God" isn't an arbitrary phrase; it necessarily includes equivalence with God AND his fulfillment as God's holy (separate) one, His anointed one. Not one of the many anointed ones in scripture, but THE anointed one who is from God, was with God in the beginning and was God, was the full image of God, the knowledge, wisdom, and power of God, and all the rest that is necessarily included within the phrase "Son of God."

Paul was preaching Jesus as Messiah.

Fix that and I'll affirm this op without reservation and expand on its assertion and defense just as I have already done in my op-reply.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mr. M

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2020
8,129
3,211
Prescott, Az
✟36,927.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Well, the posts state what the posts state and what the post actually factually undeniably irrefutable states you stating is "Paul was not preaching a Messiah."
Asked and answered. When I wrote this, it was not in my post but in response to yours:
Point of clarification: The Jews believed he should be killed because Jesus made himself equal to God. Int their thiking/tradition to claim to be the son of God was to make a claim of equivalency. This is something much different than claiming to be a mere "messiah" or "anointed one."
"mere Messiah" was your words, never mine.
All I was pointing out was that Acts 9:20 makes no mention of Messiah. I was using that verse to point out on a Christian forum that there is more to preaching Jesus Christ or Yeshua haMashiach. Paul is said to immediately preach The Son of God.
Why am I making this point?
Galatians 1:8, 9. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
So the point of the essay was to point out the need to include this statement in their presentation. To go beyond "Confess Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior". Does that sound familiar? I have heard it many, many times. The word "Christ" is there, but even that would require an explanation to the uninitiated. If I was posting on 'discipleship' or many other forums other than 'controversial Christianity" I might have felt the need to explain the word Christ or Messiah. What you are suggesting is that to avoid confusion or a false dichotomy, I should have pointed out "Hey, I am talking about the same Jesus known as Christ, or the Messiah, to avoid confusion. Thus far, you are the only person to have that difficulty.
I merely stated that Acts 9:20 makes no reference to Messiah, and I was using this statement to argue the need to include this statement "Jesus Christ is the Son of God" in an evangelical presentation of the Gospel. I was not writing an essay for an unbeliever. You used your knowledge in the exact opposite way that every other mature Christian who has read this essay has, that we know who the significance of Christ or Messiah. The question proposed to these believer's: Can we omit "Son of God"? Do we save it for later, after we "get them saved?" Now we get to a bigger issue.
1 Corinthians 12:3. Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.
What are the implications of Paul's statement here brother?
John 3:7. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’
Well, how is that accomplished?
1 John 4:15. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.
1 John 5:4, 5. For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
Furthermore, in order for the Gospel to convict a sinner of sin, righteousness, and judgment, The Holy Spirit must be at work. Do you think that the Holy Spirit conviction is present when someone prays a repeat after me sinners prayer? When you lead an unbeliever to salvation, do you preach that Jesus is the Son of God? Do you use John 3:16 in your presentation of the Gospel? Do you inform of the need to confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? That is the issue here. So much of what you posted was totally outside the scope of the OP. Would you like to review?
This, in tunr, is core to the gospel and the use of the term, "gospel" because the term does not merely mean "good news." The word "euangelion" was Roman term, not a Hebraic, Aramaic, or Greek term. A euangelion was an official proclamation that Caesar or a general had won a great victory. A euangelion was issued, for example, when a Caesar was deified. However, deification in the Greek and Roman cultures did not mean a human was literally made into a god. It simply meant the person's status was elevates such that he no longer had to go to Hades or Hell when dead and could live outside Mt. Olympus in the Elysian Fields.

The gospel writers usurped this term to declare Jesus God Himself; God made flesh. This Jesus who is God did in fact win a very great victory - a victory not even Casar could accomplish...
Not at all interesting or relevant. Maybe you should write your own OP and discuss with someone else.
Paul taught in the synagogues (first) because Christianity (as it eventually was named) was originally a Jewish sect. All of the early leaders were Jews. Not former Jews, just Jews. Jews who believed the Jewish Messiah had come. In this sense they were... apocalyptic Jews! It was only as a consequence of Jewish persecution that the apostles began preaching outside of the synagogues. It was then the conflict with the Gentile cultures began because Jesus wasn't a son of a god like Hercules or Perseus; Jesus was THE Son of God that is God, the monogene sarx egeneto. (single-source made flesh).
I approved of you writing this for the sake of pointing out the significance of the location, being in the synagogues, in spite of the fact that it was outside of the scope of my OP, and I had to include much more that you omitted:
I am well aware of these facts. If you wanted to add them to the thread, I did not object, although it was not the point of the essay. Again...the omission of the Son of God from many presentations of the Gospels was the focus of the essay. You wanted to discuss that he was in the synagogues. Yep, that is what the verse points out, so you were only bringing up the obvious. It is not my fault or yours if many choose to be oblivious to the facts contained in the testimony of Acts.
For the last time, my only point was that Paul made no mention of the term Messiah in Acts 9:20. I never at any time said that Paul did not preach that Jesus is the Messiah. I merely pointed out the absence in that one verse, to emphasize what he himself was pointing out to, as you pointed out, was preaching to a primarily Jewish audience. That Yeshua was reported to be the Messiah was also a well established fact.
As it is on this forum.
 
Upvote 0

Josheb

Christian
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
2,176
830
NoVa
✟159,759.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
For the last time, my only point was that Paul made no mention of the term Messiah in Acts 9:20.
You do not know that.

All you know is Luke made no mention of what else Paul may have taught in Damascus. Luke's report is not exhaustive. All Luke said that Paul preached Jesus as the Son of God. There's nothing in that sentence that precludes anything else from Paul's preaching. Since we know Paul preached Jesus as the Messiah much more than he preached Jesus as the Son of God it is incorrect to assume Paul preached ONLY Jesus as the Son of God in the synagogues of Damascus. You've inserted an "only" where none can rationally or exegetically be inferred. And since you've already acknowledged Paul's preaching of Jesus as the Messiah what you've done is assume something in spite of your knowing better.

Paul preached Jesus as the Messiah (Christ) more than 350 times in his epistles but he taught Jesus as the Son of God less than a dozen times!!!!! and yet you are now teaching Paul did not teach Jesus as the Messiah in Damascus and you are teaching this solely because there's no mention of it in the verse - a verse you have removed from its context and all else that Paul taught.
I never at any time said that Paul did not preach that Jesus is the Messiah.
Minister Monardo in post #3 said:
Exactly my point, that Paul was not preaching a Messiah.
The evidence proves otherwise. There it is in black and white for any and all to see. You stated quite plainly, "Paul was not preaching a Messiah," and now you have the temerity to tell me and the other readers, "I never at any time said that Paul did not preach that Jesus is the Messiah." Post 3 proves otherwise.

And ow, instead of correcting your mistake you're arguing with me.

"My bad, Josh, you're right. I misspoke. I did in fact say, 'Paul was not preaching a Messiah,' and I shouldn't have because we don't know what else Paul preached. We know only that Luke reported Paul preached Jesus as the Son of God and given the fact Paul definitely did preach Jesus as both the Messiah and the Son of God and preached the former fifty! times more than the former in his epistles it was unreasonable of me to assume no mention of Jesus as the Messiah was made preaching to the Jews in Damascus."

You wrote what you wrote, Minister.
What you wrote was, "Paul was not preaching a Messiah."
AND what you wrote was "I never at any time said that Paul did not preach that Jesus is the Messiah."

The two sentence contradict one another; the former proves the latter false. So you've lost your own integrity by contradicting your own posts and refusing to correct the mistake.
I merely pointed out the absence in that one verse, to emphasize what he himself was pointing out to, as you pointed out, was preaching to a primarily Jewish audience.
Yes, that is what you did.

The problem is that conclusion is an argument from silence. It is exegetically incorrect and you've already acknowledged that fact.
That Yeshua was reported to be the Messiah was also a well established fact.
Yes. Well established.

So it should not be assumed Paul was not preaching a Messiah to the Jews in Damascus. Luke's is a third-hand summary report. Inspired, but still third-hand and summary.
 
Upvote 0

Mr. M

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2020
8,129
3,211
Prescott, Az
✟36,927.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
So it should not be assumed Paul was not preaching a Messiah to the Jews in Damascus. Luke's is a third-hand summary report. Inspired, but still third-hand and summary.
I have already addressed this twice. I have never tried to say that Paul was not preaching that Jesus Christ was the Messiah. I only pointed to Acts 9:20 to signal the importance of the fact that Jesus Christ, as you also have said, was not just Messiah, but the Son of God. The point was the need to address this fact in the evangelist presentation of the Gospel. You have created an argument that I will no longer participate in. Of course Paul preached Messiah. What he was also preaching in the synagogues, that Jesus is the Son of God, would have proven by the facts surrounding the crucifixion to be a provocation towards the very same religious authorities who sent him to Damascus to persecute The Way. If you cannot grasp that point, it is because you want to continue on this accusation that I was making a false dichotomy. On the contrary, I was trying to address something that is greatly ignored. Or have you never heard an evangelical Christian speak of "accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, without a mention of WHO HE IS...The Son of God.
This was the question posed from the very beginning. You derailed the whole OP with "points of clarification".

Acts 9:20. At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.
How much significance should be placed on this point that Paul immediately began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God?

Point of clarification: The Jews believed he should be killed because Jesus made himself equal to God. Int their thiking/tradition to claim to be the son of God was to make a claim of equivalency. This is something much different than claiming to be a mere "messiah" or "anointed one."
John 5:10-18
"Now it was the Sabbath on that day. So the Jews were saying to the man who was cured, 'It is the Sabbath, and it is not permissible for you to carry your pallet.' But he answered them, 'He who made me well was the one who said to me, 'Pick up your pallet and walk.' They asked him, 'Who is the man who said to you, 'Pick up your pallet and walk'?' But the man who was healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had slipped away while there was a crowd in that place. Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, 'Behold, you have become well; do not sin anymore, so that nothing worse happens to you.' The man went away, and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. But He answered them, 'My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.' For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."
This is important because there is some misperception about this passage. Jewish history prior to and subsequent to the first century contained many reports,, many affirming reports, of Jewish leaders healing and doing good on the Sabbath so the Jews' judgment of Jesus was not about that. It was this combination of Sabbath-breaking as an equivalent of God that they found provoking and worthy of death.
This, in tunr, is core to the gospel and the use of the term, "gospel" because the term does not merely mean "good news." The word "euangelion" was Roman term, not a Hebraic, Aramaic, or Greek term. A euangelion was an official proclamation that Caesar or a general had won a great victory. A euangelion was issued, for example, when a Caesar was deified. However, deification in the Greek and Roman cultures did not mean a human was literally made into a god. It simply meant the person's status was elevates such that he no longer had to go to Hades or Hell when dead and could live outside Mt. Olympus in the Elysian Fields.
The gospel writers usurped this term to declare Jesus God Himself; God made flesh. This Jesus who is God did in fact win a very great victory - a victory not even Casar could accomplish...
Jesus defeated death!
So Jesus' teachings and conduct not only confronted the Jews from the Jewish pov; he also provoked the Jews from all perspectives, Jewish and Gentile. Jesus was not deifying himself; he was implying he was/is God. Big "G," not little "g."
These are the contexts of John 19. This is clearly stated by John in the preamble of his gospel, his euangelion. This preamble is likely a reference to something the Jewish philosopher Philo had written a few centuries earlier about Alexander the Great as the mediator between God and man. John was also bluntly confronting the Hellenism prevalent in Judaism in the first century.
In other words, more than any of the other gospel writers John was confronting all worldviews and confrontationally declaring Jesus as God.... not just someone equal to God.

This is everything you wrote before even addressing the question, with a question.
Is this question about Paul preaching in the synagogues, or is this question about Jesus teaching Jesus is the Son of God?

Paul taught in the synagogues (first) because Christianity (as it eventually was named) was originally a Jewish sect. All of the early leaders were Jews. Not former Jews, just Jews. Jews who believed the Jewish Messiah had come. In this sense they were... apocalyptic Jews! It was only as a consequence of Jewish persecution that the apostles began preaching outside of the synagogues. It was then the conflict with the Gentile cultures began because Jesus wasn't a son of a god like Hercules or Perseus; Jesus was THE Son of God that is God, the monogene sarx egeneto. (single-source made flesh).

There were also logistical and political aspects alarming the John 19 and Acts 9 Jewish audiences. Jesus and Paul (and the other apostles) first taught in the courtyards of the temple and synagogues because Gentiles were not allowed in the inner parts. Gentiles that came to do business with the temple and the towns' Jews were converted to Christ and the conversion ritual for the Christians broke with that of traditional Judaism by emphasizing baptism and faith, not the other Judaic rituals. There's was justification and righteousness by faith, not works. This too was provocative, heretical, apostate, and worthy of persecution, if not death. This didn't change much when the gospel began being preached in the Gentile marketplaces because idols were repudiated. little "g" gods are not God. Logically, it is impossible to have more than one sovereign and almighty God. Silver markets were adversely affected. The offerings in the pagan temples were adversely affected.


All because of this claim Jesus, the dead Jew, was/is big-G God, not just an equivalent of a god.
This is a legitimate question, that you proceed to answer yourself with two more paragraphs of information that had no bearing on the OP.
The discussion is now closed.

 
Upvote 0

Josheb

Christian
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
2,176
830
NoVa
✟159,759.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have already addressed this twice. I have never tried to say that Paul was not preaching that Jesus Christ was the Messiah.
Your own posts prove that incorrect.


Go back and correct post # 3. Correct it either to say, "Luke did not report Paul specifically mentioning Jesus as the Messiah (even though we know from his epistles that's what he believed)..." or "Paul definitely preached Jesus as the Messiah throughout his ministry but in Acts 9 Luke emphasizes Paul preaching Jesus as the Son of God..." or something that accurately reflects Acts 9:20 when whole scripture is considered and the verse isn't proof-texted.

Go back and clarify the op so that it does not set up a false dichotomy between Jesus as the Son of God and Jesus the Messiah. Yes, lot's of people assert one without the other. The cults do it routinely as a matter of their doctrine. Jesus is both and that is what Paul taught and it is both that make Jesus unique.

This isn't a hard thing to correct so there's no excuse for not doing so. There's absolutely no reason a dozen posts had to be spent on this matter.

James 3:1
"Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment."


And you need to pay attention to these details, Minister, because I've been reading through your ops and I see I am not the only one that finds these kind of errors. Every single one of us are responsible for what we post and how we handle what we post. You don't handle correction well.

This isn't personal, Minister. I want you to be a better poster.

Proverbs 27:6
"Faithful are the wounds of a friend..."
.
Proverbs 27:17
"Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another."
.
Proverbs 28:23
"He who rebukes a man will later find more favor than one who flatters with his tongue."
.
Psalm 141:5
"Let the righteous man strike me; let his rebuke be an act of loving devotion. It is oil for my head; let me not refuse it."

All scripture should have been used to understand Acts 9:20. All of Paul's epistles should have been used to understand Acts 9:20. All that the Law and the prophets said about Jesus should have been used to understand Acts 9:20.
.
2 Timothy 3:16
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."


You did, in fact, state "Paul was not preaching a Messiah," and you shouldn't have. Acts 9:20 should not be assumed to imply Paul taught Jesus only as the Son of God and made no mention of the Messiah.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Mr. M
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mr. M

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2020
8,129
3,211
Prescott, Az
✟36,927.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Your own posts prove that incorrect.


Go back and correct post # 3. Correct it either to say, "Luke did not report Paul specifically mentioning Jesus as the Messiah (even though we know from his epistles that's what he believed)..." or "Paul definitely preached Jesus as the Messiah throughout his ministry but in Acts 9 Luke emphasizes Paul preaching Jesus as the Son of God..." or something that accurately reflects Acts 9:20 when whole scripture is considered and the verse isn't proof-texted.

Go back and clarify the op so that it does not set up a false dichotomy between Jesus as the Son of God and Jesus the Messiah. Yes, lot's of people assert one without the other. The cults do it routinely as a matter of their doctrine. Jesus is both and that is what Paul taught and it is both that make Jesus unique.

This isn't a hard thing to correct so there's no excuse for not doing so. There's absolutely no reason a dozen posts had to be spent on this matter.

James 3:1
"Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment."


And you need to pay attention to these details, Minister, because I've been reading through your ops and I see I am not the only one that finds these kind of errors. Every single one of us are responsible for what we post and how we handle what we post. You don't handle correction well.

This isn't personal, Minister. I want you to be a better poster.

Proverbs 27:6
"Faithful are the wounds of a friend..."
.
Proverbs 27:17
"Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another."
.
Proverbs 28:23
"He who rebukes a man will later find more favor than one who flatters with his tongue."
.
Psalm 141:5
"Let the righteous man strike me; let his rebuke be an act of loving devotion. It is oil for my head; let me not refuse it."

All scripture should have been used to understand Acts 9:20. All of Paul's epistles should have been used to understand Acts 9:20. All that the Law and the prophets said about Jesus should have been used to understand Acts 9:20.
.
2 Timothy 3:16
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."


You did, in fact, state "Paul was not preaching a Messiah," and you shouldn't have. Acts 9:20 should not be assumed to imply Paul taught Jesus only as the Son of God and made no mention of the Messiah.
Is it lost on no one else but yourself that you have made 4 posts determined to make this correction. I defer to your wisdom.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.