January 9, 2017 at 8:07 pm #818446
Yes, that is why I questioned you because you had in the past been claiming belief that He was the son even before creation.
There are some scriptures that tend to support the view that the son of God existed as the son even before being born as the son of God in Bethlehem.
Born as the son:
Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord.
The above scripture also fits under the heading below. So being born the son can also mean that he was already the son and was born into this world as the son. But yes, I can certainly agree that he was the son when he was born as a baby.
Came as the son:
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.…
The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined… For to us a child is born, to us A SON IS GIVEN;January 12, 2017 at 8:21 am #818461
Thank you for those verses. I agree that those verses seem to show that He has always been the Son of God. Seems impossible to send a son if you do not have a son to send and also for the ‘image of God’ and the ‘firstborn over all creation’ to create all things, He would have to be that ‘image’ and ‘firstborn’ before creation. Those are terms indicating that He was already a son before creation and before He came in the flesh.
Now for this question:
Since you agree that the Son is the image of the Father and that the Son has the Father’s nature, do you believe that the Son who becomes Jesus, is the ONLY son that has the same nature as the Heavenly Father?January 12, 2017 at 11:52 pm #818464
No. I believe that we can also participate in divine nature. Further, we are clearly told in scripture that we will have a body like his even if we are not sure what he looks like. Finally, Jesus calls us brethren. That is of like kind. We are sons as he is the son. The difference between him and his brethren is he is the prototype son.January 19, 2017 at 6:01 pm #818529
Thanks for your answer. Do you agree that the Son is the only son who has always had the same nature of the Father?February 3, 2017 at 6:05 am #818595
What is your response to the last question above?February 12, 2017 at 5:04 pm #818661
You have a response to the last question, don’t you?February 20, 2017 at 3:07 pm #818711
Thanks for your answer. Do you agree that the Son is the only son who has always had the same nature of the Father?
We can be sons and participate in divine nature. We are told by Paul (I think) that we will have a body like Jesus has now and he calls us brethren.
He is the son and we are sons.
Of course he is the first and he is the only one that reflects the complete glory of God while we individually reflect in part.
Basically he is the prototype son and firstborn among many,
As for always having the same nature. He emptied himself for a time and came in the flesh. He is now in the glory he had with the Father before the cosmos. Whereas we were born of the flesh and have the opportunity to be born from above. In short, Jesus became one of us so we could be one of him.February 21, 2017 at 9:12 am #818721
You seem to be confused. Jesus is the firstborn of many brethren from death. That is regarding the manhood of Jesus, not His Godhood. Also, He never gives up His original essence to come in the flesh. You have no scriptural backing for that.February 27, 2017 at 11:10 am #818762
You seem to be confused. Jesus is the firstborn of many brethren from death.
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities.
Let’s see. He is the firstborn of all creation and all things were made through him. When did he die? Before all creation? But yes, he is the firstborn from the dead too. He is in fact both.
And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning AND the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
‘AND’ means that he is both. It doesn’t say ‘OR’. There is not a single choice here. Both statements are true. Further, he is first on other things too.February 27, 2017 at 5:47 pm #818776
Yes, you are correct that He is both the firstborn over all creation and also the firstborn from among the dead. I am not challenging that. When He became ‘firstborn over all creation’ and when He became ‘firstborn from among the dead’ are two different events separated by many years. He obviously became the firstborn over all creation…before creation. Much later, after He became flesh and then died and was buried, He was resurrected to become the firstborn from among the dead.
As ‘firstborn over all creation’ His essence was and is of the highest order, equal to the Father’s essence. This essence never changed. His form changed when He became flesh to that of a human bondservant but His essence did not change. He emptied Himself in order to become flesh and to be like us, but He did not empty Himself of His essence.
Believers do not become like the Son according to the Son’s divine essence. Believers become like the Son regarding His glorified flesh body and also partake in eternal life but believers do not receive His divine essence. The Son is the prototype in that He was the first to be born from the dead and receive an eternal glorified body. He is not the prototype son to have divine essence as if many sons were also going to gain divine essence after Him. He is the only Son to ever have divine essence. He never emptied Himself of that essence.
You seem to think that He emptied Himself of His divine essence in order to become flesh. Do you think that?February 27, 2017 at 9:08 pm #818778
You seem to think that He emptied Himself of His divine essence in order to become flesh. Do you think that?
I think he emptied himself of his former position, place, and power to be born as an innocent baby and grow up learning as he goes as we all do. For sure he learned obedience through this experience, he learned to relate to us in our suffering, and it is nice to know that he understands what we go through. Of course he came here to save us more so than for the personal benefits he received. He came to us as one of us, so we could be one of him. This was all God’s plan.
Whatever Jesus was, he didn’t empty himself of his own person. That would probably be death. He took on a different nature which is our nature. He became a little less than the angels, but in reality was, is, and always was above them. And perhaps he was always able to grasp this at anytime but remained humbled for our sake.February 28, 2017 at 9:56 am #818786
Thank you for your response, t8. I agree with some things you said. Although, regarding what He emptied Himself as…I think He emptied Himself of His memories and gave them to the Father for safe keeping. Little by little, Jesus grew in wisdom and received His memory back a portion at a time. Perhaps like if someone volunteered to go into amnesia for the sake of becoming completely clueless as to who they were and their ability to do what they can do.
For example, consider the prince of the country of xyz. What if this prince was kidnapped and beaten up and randomly placed in an undiscovered jungle somewhere. His beatings left him with severe amnesia. He no longer realized that he was the prince of the country xyz and no longer knew about the country xyz or about anything from his past, including his position, place and power or anything at all, like a newborn. Would that make him no longer the prince of the country xyz, NO. He still is the prince of the country xyz, just no one knows it where he is, including himself. Then little by little the prince begins to remember things from his past as he heals until he eventually remembers everything. He grows in wisdom, the wisdom that he had from the past.
That analogy seems reasonable to me. What do you think?February 28, 2017 at 12:20 pm #818795
Thank you for your response, t8. I agree with some things you said. Although, regarding what He emptied Himself as…I think He emptied Himself of His memories
Yup, I pretty much hinted at that in being born innocent meaning no prior knowledge but having to learn everything like we do. He may even had to learn who he really was.
🙂March 9, 2017 at 9:32 am #818842
It seems like we agree 🙂 🙂 🙂 on the possibility that the Son emptied Himself of His memory which the Father released back to Him as He grew in wisdom, a portion at a time.
He may even had to learn who he really was.
Does it seem to you that after Jesus rose and sent the Holy Spirit, that knowledge of who Jesus actually was increased beyond what Jesus said about Himself?March 20, 2017 at 11:36 am #818931
Yes I agree. While Jesus taught his disciples in parables and directly, many things came clear to them after the resurrection.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.