The Biblical Teachings On The Person Of Jesus Christ

[TheBibleSays]

1. Jesus Christ as Almighty God, 100% coequal, coeternal, and coessential, to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Neither Person is more important, or powerful, than the other. There are no degrees in their Deity.
2. As Almighty God, Jesus has always coexisted with the Father and Holy Spirit, and never was He in any way brought into being.
3. Jesus Christ was never "generated" as to His Deity, by the Father. This is an impossibility as they are both equally Almighty God.
4. In the Old Testament, Jesus Christ is distinctly called Yahweh, as in passages like Genesis chapters 18-19. Where in 19:24, He and another Person (the Father), and called Yahweh. This Name is also that of the Angel of the Lord, Who tells Moses in Exodos 3:14-15, that He is Yahweh. The Name Yahweh has its root meaning in the Hebrew, as "eternal, self-Existent".
5. Jesus Christ, at His Incarnation/Human Birth, "bacame human", that is, took upon Himself the complete nature of humans, apart from any sin. This He did by not giving up His Deity, but was 100% fully God and 100% fully Man, as the God-Man.
6. Jesus' human birth is the Divine work of God the Holy Spirit, whereby ensuring that Jesus' human nature, though completely derived from the Virgin Mary, was yet without any sinfullness, and 100% Holy and Blameless.
7. While Jesus Christ was on earth, He, though 100% Almighty God, for this time, subordinated Himself to the Authority of God the Father. This is as the God-Man, and not as Almighty God.
8. As God-Man, Jesus Christ possessed a rational human soul, and body, which was subject to our human limitations. His human nature was in no way just a phantom, but 100% real, and consubstatnual with our human nature, from Mary, sin excepted.

 

[hedrick]

3. Jesus Christ was never "generated" as to His Deity, by the Father. This is an impossibility as they are both equally Almighty God.

I think this sentence is dangerous, as it sounds like it's a rejection of the Nicene Creed, when I think you probably don't actually disagree with it. Nicea uses "begotten" simply as a way of characterizing the relationship between Father and Son. It doesn't mean that there was a time when the Son didn't exist, and the Father "generated" him. Indeed that would be heretical.

Traditionally, at least in the East, the Son was said to be "begotten" by the Father and the Spirit "proceeds" from the Father. It was the primary way to distinguish between Son and Holy Spirit. Since they are all of the same essence, the only thing that can distinguish them is their relationship to each other. "Begotten" in this context is somewhat of an analogy. With humans, someone is begotten by a specific act at a specific time. Obviously that's not true for Christ, since he is just as eternal as the Father. It's really just a way to characterize the Son's dependence on the Father.

 

[hedrick]

I actually think the language of the revised Nicene Creed, "begotten of the Father before all worlds" is potentially misleading. It suggests that the Son was created at a specific time; the time was just before all worlds. That is surely not what they meant. That would be Arianism, which is what the Creed was created to reject.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

1. Jesus Christ as Almighty God, 100% coequal, coeternal, and coessential, to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Neither Person is more important, or powerful, than the other. There are no degrees in their Deity.

Can you show from scripture where the Father was subject to the will of Jesus. I read that Jesus can do nothing of Himself but only the will of the Father. That is a heirarchy. Also, Jesus instruct us to pray to the Father in His name. No where are we instructed to pray to the Spirit. This is not coequal.

2. As Almighty God, Jesus has always coexisted with the Father and Holy Spirit, and never was He in any way brought into being.

Please explain the following verses which seem to counter this point.

Prov 8:22-27
22 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
Notice a couple of things from the verses above. In verse 23 the term "from the beginning "is qualified as "ever the earth was" not the beginning of eternity.
Also note that at the creation, He was there in contrast to being "brought forth" before creation.

3. Jesus Christ was never "generated" as to His Deity, by the Father. This is an impossibility as they are both equally Almighty God.

Let's look at few more verses..
John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Heb 1:2,5
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
5 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?
In verse 2 we see that the Son was appointed Heirship and that by the Father Jesus created all things. This clearly shows authority of the Father.

4. In the Old Testament, Jesus Christ is distinctly called Yahweh, as in passages like Genesis chapters 18-19. Where in 19:24, He and another Person (the Father), and called Yahweh. This Name is also that of the Angel of the Lord, Who tells Moses in Exodos 3:14-15, that He is Yahweh. The Name Yahweh has its root meaning in the Hebrew, as "eternal, self-Existent".

In Gen 19:24 the word used if Yehovah not Yahweh. In Exodus 3 the word translated "I AM' is haw-yah' which means "to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass". This word haw-yah' ia also the root of the word Yehovah.

5. Jesus Christ, at His Incarnation/Human Birth, "bacame human", that is, took upon Himself the complete nature of humans, apart from any sin. This He did by not giving up His Deity, but was 100% fully God and 100% fully Man, as the God-Man.

Agreed.. scripturally sound.

6. Jesus' human birth is the Divine work of God the Holy Spirit, whereby ensuring that Jesus' human nature, though completely derived from the Virgin Mary, was yet without any sinfullness, and 100% Holy and Blameless.

I will point out that no where in the Bible is the term "God the Holy Spirit". He is always referred to a the Spirit of God.

7. While Jesus Christ was on earth, He, though 100% Almighty God, for this time, subordinated Himself to the Authority of God the Father. This is as the God-Man, and not as Almighty God.

While there is no evidence of this "subordination" as the Christ, we do read that the Son is seated on the right hand of the throne of God. This reference denotes a hierarchical structure. The One seated on the throne gives to the One seated on the right an exalted position.
To sit at the right hand of an earthly king was a place of honor, denoting special trust, authority from, and relationship with the king. It was something that was understood without needing explanation at the time it was written.

8. As God-Man, Jesus Christ possessed a rational human soul, and body, which was subject to our human limitations. His human nature was in no way just a phantom, but 100% real, and consubstatnual with our human nature, from Mary, sin excepted.

Agreed...

 

[TheBibleSays]

I actually think the language of the revised Nicene Creed, "begotten of the Father before all worlds" is potentially misleading. It suggests that the Son was created at a specific time; the time was just before all worlds. That is surely not what they meant. That would be Arianism, which is what the Creed was created to reject.

If you to look at the history of the Nicene Creed, you will see that its basis was the Creed of Caesarea, by Eusebius, who was no doubt a Semi-Arian:

"We believe in one God, the Father All Governing, Creator of everything visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, the only-begotten Son, the first born of all creation, begotten of the Father before all time, by whom also everything came into being, who for our salvation became incarnate and lived among men. He suffered, and rose on the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.
We believe also in one Holy Spirit."

The language used here, was designed to show that the Father is Primary God, and Jesus Christ, Secondary God. The terms "God from (literally, "out of") God" and "begotten of the Father before all time", were to show the Son "derived" His Deity from the Father, as the rays Jesus) of the sun (the Father). In what sense do we allow "monogenes" in such statements? Its only purpose was to show Jesus Christ as an inferior Deity to the Father.

 

[hedrick]

If you to look at the history of the Nicene Creed, you will see that its basis was the Creed of Caesarea, by Eusebius, who was no doubt a Semi-Arian:

"We believe in one God, the Father All Governing, Creator of everything visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, the only-begotten Son, the first born of all creation, begotten of the Father before all time, by whom also everything came into being, who for our salvation became incarnate and lived among men. He suffered, and rose on the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.
We believe also in one Holy Spirit."

The language used here, was designed to show that the Father is Primary God, and Jesus Christ, Secondary God. The terms "God from (literally, "out of") God" and "begotten of the Father before all time", were to show the Son "derived" His Deity from the Father, as the rays Jesus) of the sun (the Father). In what sense do we allow "monogenes" in such statements? Its only purpose was to show Jesus Christ as an inferior Deity to the Father.

No doubt the Nicene Creed was based on earlier confessions, but I remain skeptical of Eusebius' claim.

Nicea was, of course, a political compromise, intended to be acceptable by moderates on both sides. "Of the same substance" was a carefully chosen wording, which could be (and was) understood both in the sense of numerically one and of the same kind. Eusebius could understand the creed as consistent with his theology. But given the history I doubt it was intended to mandate semi-Arianism.

Note that the phrase I referred to "before all worlds," while present in the Creed you quote, was not present in the original Nicene Creed. It was added later, in the version accepted at
Constantinople. So it's not so clear that it was inherited from whatever creed(s) Nicea used.

Monogenes, however, was present in the original. But it is used in John 3:16. In John, I believe it just means "only," and thus is not subordinationist. I don't understand it differently in the Creed.

Personally I understand the Christological language of Nicea as simply a restatement of John. No doubt others understood it differently. That's the magic of statements that are political compromises. I'm pretty sure that in making Nicea a standard, CF does not intend to mandate semi-Arianism.

 

[TheBibleSays]

No doubt the Nicene Creed was based on earlier confessions, but I remain skeptical of Eusebius' claim.

Nicea was, of course, a political compromise, intended to be acceptable by moderates on both sides. "Of the same substance" was a carefully chosen wording, which could be (and was) understood both in the sense of numerically one and of the same kind. Eusebius could understand the creed as consistent with his theology. But given the history I doubt it was intended to mandate semi-Arianism.

Note that the phrase I referred to "before all worlds," while present in the Creed you quote, was not present in the original Nicene Creed. It was added later, in the version accepted at
Constantinople. So it's not so clear that it was inherited from whatever creed(s) Nicea used.

Monogenes, however, was present in the original. But it is used in John 3:16. In John, I believe it just means "only," and thus is not subordinationist. I don't understand it differently in the Creed.

Personally I understand the Christological language of Nicea as simply a restatement of John. No doubt others understood it differently. That's the magic of statements that are political compromises. I'm pretty sure that in making Nicea a standard, CF does not intend to mandate semi-Arianism.

So, what reason was behind the use of "monogenes" in these creeds? They did not understand it as it sould be, "of a single kind, unique", but followed the Latin Vulgate change from "Unicus (Unique)", which was the Old Latin, to "unigenitus", which would require the Greek to be, "μονογέννητος" and not as it is, "μονογενής". many of the church "fathers" held to the "eternal generation of the Son from the Father", a heresy from the time of Origen.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

If you to look at the history of the Nicene Creed, you will see that its basis was the Creed of Caesarea, by Eusebius, who was no doubt a Semi-Arian:

"We believe in one God, the Father All Governing, Creator of everything visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, the only-begotten Son, the first born of all creation, begotten of the Father before all time, by whom also everything came into being, who for our salvation became incarnate and lived among men. He suffered, and rose on the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.
We believe also in one Holy Spirit."

The language used here, was designed to show that the Father is Primary God, and Jesus Christ, Secondary God. The terms "God from (literally, "out of") God" and "begotten of the Father before all time", were to show the Son "derived" His Deity from the Father, as the rays Jesus) of the sun (the Father). In what sense do we allow "monogenes" in such statements? Its only purpose was to show Jesus Christ as an inferior Deity to the Father.

If Christ came from the Father, why would that make Him less Divine? Was Eve, taken from Adam less human? Your reasoning doesn't make sense.

 

[TheBibleSays]

If Christ came from the Father, why would that make Him less Divine? Was Eve, taken from Adam less human? Your reasoning doesn't make sense.

If Jesus Christ, as Almighty God, derived His Deity from the Father, then He cannot be coequal to the Father, nor Almighty God, and therefore a lesser Deity. There is not even a hint in the Holy Bible, that says that Jesus is in any way, as God, inferior to the Father, or Holy Spirit. The Three Persons are Yahweh, which makes them, coequal, coessential, and coeternal, with advantage to neither. Remember, I am talking about the Persons in the Godhead, from all eternity, and not the God-Man, Jesus Christ, post Incarnation. There is a very big difference.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Ontologically (or in substance) the Trinity is the same, but in hierarchy or rank they are not the same. For one, we are given names in regards to the Trinity that suggest a hierarchy. The names "Father" and "Son" are suggestive of hierarchy because these are names we understand in a family relationship. A Father is above the Son, and the Holy Ghost is sent forth from Jesus by his breathing on His disciples. The Holy Ghost takes on a more silent and serving role like inspiring men to write Scripture and in being a special gift for believers. Jesus also spoke and took action based on God the Father's commands. Again, this implies a hierarchy. If there was no hierarchy, there would be no names like Father, Son, etc. and there would be no clear distinctions in roles or functions within the Godhead or the Trinity. Jesus would not be in submissive obedience to the Father if there was no hierarchy.

Second, Psalms 2:12 uses the name "Son" which existed before the Incarnation; And 1 Chronicles 29:10 uses the name "Father" which existed before the Incarnation. This means that the "Father" and "Son" relationship is eternal and not created or mentioned just in the Incarnation.

 

[TheBibleSays]

Ontologically (or in substance) the Trinity is the same, but in hierarchy or rank they are not the same. For one, we are given names in regards to the Trinity that suggest a hierarchy. The names "Father" and "Son" are suggestive of hierarchy because these are names we understand in a family relationship. A Father is above the Son, and the Holy Ghost is sent forth from Jesus by his breathing on His disciples. The Holy Ghost takes on a more silent and serving role like inspiring men to write Scripture and in being a special gift for believers. Jesus also spoke and took action based on God the Father's commands. Again, this implies a hierarchy.

If there was no hierarchy, there would be no names like Father, Son, etc. and there would be no clear distinctions in roles or functions within the Godhead or the Trinity.

In the Old Testament, the relationship between Father and Son is hardly ever mentioned. the most used Title for Jesus Christ, is The Angel of the Lord, Who is none other than Yahweh, as is clearly seen from the passage in Exodus chapter 3, and the Burning Bush. Where we read that the Angel Spoke to Moses in the first-person as Yahweh, and God, and went on to say that He is "I am that I am", which Jesus repeats to the Jews in John 8:58, "before Abraham came into existence, I AM" (as the Greek has it).

The use of Father and Son are purely "functional", so as to distinguish between the Persons, and must not be seen in the same way our earthly father and son relations are understood. The Trinity is of Three EQUAL Persons, Who are EQUALLY Almighty God. It was for the purpose of the Incarnation, that Jesus was made "lower than the angels", as we read in Hebrews 2:7-9. John 17:5, shows that from eternity past, the Father and Son have been EQUAL, and that it was only during the Incarnation, that the Father was "greater" than Jesus.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

In the Old Testament, the relationship between Father and Son is hardly ever mentioned.

But they are mentioned.

the most used Title for Jesus Christ, is The Angel of the Lord, Who is none other than Yahweh, as is clearly seen from the passage in Exodus chapter 3, and the Burning Bush. Where we read that the Angel Spoke to Moses in the first-person as Yahweh, and God, and went on to say that He is "I am that I am", which Jesus repeats to the Jews in John 8:58, "before Abraham came into existence, I AM" (as the Greek has it).

I agree.

The use of Father and Son are purely "functional", so as to distinguish between the Persons, and must not be seen in the same way our earthly father and son relations are understood. The Trinity is of Three EQUAL Persons, Who are EQUALLY Almighty God. It was for the purpose of the Incarnation, that Jesus was made "lower than the angels", as we read in Hebrews 2:7-9. John 17:5, shows that from eternity past, the Father and Son have been EQUAL, and that it was only during the Incarnation, that the Father was "greater" than Jesus.

I agree that all three are EQUALLY Almighty GOD. For these three are one (1 John 5:7). I also agree that is functional as to why they are named Father and Son. This is a hierarchy. How they function is in hierarchy. The Father sent forth the Son, and the Son did not send the Father. The Son obeyed the Father, and it was not the other way around. The Holy Spirit appears to take on a more servant kind of role in the Godhead or the Trinity, and the Father appears to call a lot of the orders or commands within the Godhead. This suggests hierarchy or rank in order of function.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

In the Old Testament, the relationship between Father and Son is hardly ever mentioned. the most used Title for Jesus Christ, is The Angel of the Lord, Who is none other than Yahweh, as is clearly seen from the passage in Exodus chapter 3, and the Burning Bush. Where we read that the Angel Spoke to Moses in the first-person as Yahweh, and God, and went on to say that He is "I am that I am", which Jesus repeats to the Jews in John 8:58, "before Abraham came into existence, I AM" (as the Greek has it).

The use of Father and Son are purely "functional", so as to distinguish between the Persons, and must not be seen in the same way our earthly father and son relations are understood. The Trinity is of Three EQUAL Persons, Who are EQUALLY Almighty God. It was for the purpose of the Incarnation, that Jesus was made "lower than the angels", as we read in Hebrews 2:7-9. John 17:5, shows that from eternity past, the Father and Son have been EQUAL, and that it was only during the Incarnation, that the Father was "greater" than Jesus.

Another unique reason why each person of the Godhead are not exactly identical in every respect is that a person can never be forgiven if they speak bad words against the Holy Ghost; And yet, they can be forgiven if they speak bad words against the Son of Man. This suggests that there is a difference between the persons of the Trinity.

 

[TheBibleSays]

But they are mentioned.



I agree.



I agree that all three are EQUALLY Almighty GOD. For these three are one (1 John 5:7). I also agree that is functional as to why they are named Father and Son. This is a hierarchy. How they function is in hierarchy. The Father sent forth the Son, and the Son did not send the Father. The Son obeyed the Father, and it was not the other way around. The Holy Spirit appears to take on a more servant kind of role in the Godhead or the Trinity, and the Father appears to call a lot of the orders or commands within the Godhead. This suggests hierarchy or rank in order of function.

you don't seem to understand the Bible's Teaching on the Godhead and Holy Trinity

 

[Bible Highlighter]

you don't seem to understand the Bible's Teaching on the Godhead and Holy Trinity

I can say the same for you, but I wouldn't do so because it would not be nice. Disagreeing about whether there is a hierarchy within the Trinity does not change the basic concept of the Trinity. The Trinity or the Godhead is defined as: God is one God and yet He exists as three distinct persons (i.e. the Father, the Word (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost). While many verses allude to the Trinity, there is technically only one verse that clearly teaches the Trinity point blank; And that is 1 John 5:7 in the KJV (Which is wrongfully removed within Modern Translations).

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I actually think the language of the revised Nicene Creed, "begotten of the Father before all worlds" is potentially misleading. It suggests that the Son was created at a specific time; the time was just before all worlds. That is surely not what they meant. That would be Arianism, which is what the Creed was created to reject.

That is a really bad translation of τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, "begotten before all the ages"

 

[hedrick]

That is a really bad translation of τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, "begotten before all the ages"

But even that is potentially misleading. Either that or I don't understand the Trinity at all. The Son is coeternal with the Father. "begotten before all the ages" still suggests that he originated at a specific time. "before" is a word that describes a time sequence. I believe begotten in this context was intended to suggest a particular relationship between Father and Son, exactly parallel with proceeding. But I don't believe begotten (or proceeding) was intended to suggest a discrete action, whether before all worlds or before all ages.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

1 Cor 2:7 uses the same phrase πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων "But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages (πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων) for our glory."

 

[Rubiks]

If Christ came from the Father, why would that make Him less Divine? Was Eve, taken from Adam less human? Your reasoning doesn't make sense.

Christ being made out of the Father would make him contingent on the Father, and therefore not having every divine attribute.

Eternal generation seems like Semi-Arianism to me.

 

[hedrick]

I believe classically the relationships of begetting and proceeding are taken to be relations between the persons, not attributes. But whether that makes sense or not, if there isn't *some* distinction, you end up with 3 Fathers.