- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi Is 1.18,
My father was greater than I when I was a child under his God given authority. He is still greater than me in many ways. Since I must honour him as a son he will always be greater than me.But it was not just as a child that Jesus said ” the Father is greater than I “. It was as an adult.
Jesus was only a vessel for the Spirit of God who lived in Him , revealed Himself and worked through him.
Quote Is this truly what you believe? The only word consistent with what you have said you believe in this verse is the word “called”.
Please explain exactly what you mean by this. You've lost me.Quote Your [catholic in origin] trinitarian faith states that there are three persons in the one God.
Actually I have a Christian faith. I would describe myself as an unorthodox trinitarian simply because I believe it best accounts for ALL of the biblical data we are given on the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Whoever else holds to this doctrine is irrelevent to me.Quote Again the [catholic in origin]doctrine that you have espoused here of 'incarnation' states that 'God came in flesh' as a man.
The literal meaning of this word 'incarnation' is 'enfleshment' (source). The Word became flesh, didn't He? (John 1:14). That is also what I mean when I use the word.Quote So you must believe surely that Jesus is not the Son of God but is only “called” the Son of God.
I do believe Jesus is the Son of God, AND have a biblical understanding of what this means. I take my cues from the NT writers.Quote It must only be a title to you because you do not believe he was ever separate from God as an individual being with life in himself, before, during or after he was on earth
What have I written to give you this impression??Quote Such a view runs contarary to scripture in many ways.
First Jn 5 says the Son has been given to have life in himself. He has a will and a spirit of his own according to scripture and those things designate one as a separate being.
I agree. It does run contrary to scripture.Quote Scripture also teaches that Jesus Christ, and not God Himself, came in the flesh. This is in fact shown in 1Jn as the litmus test for antichrist belief so that should cause some alarm.
NT scripture teaches that the Word was with God and WAS God, and that this Word became flesh (John 1:1, 14).Quote Scripture also teaches that Jesus Christ, and not God Himself, came in the flesh. This is in fact shown in 1Jn as the litmus test for antichrist belief so that should cause some alarm.
Hmmmm….was “Jesus” sent? He wasn't given this name until after His birth (Luke 1:31, Matt. 1:21, 25). It's His earthly name.1 John 4:2 is a contentious verse. John's first letter was written in a background of gnostism and John strongly refutes their false notion that Jesus only appeared to have a physical body, but was in fact a spirit being (gnostics associate materialism with evil). Many Bibles render the verse “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God”. This rendering would be in keeping with the strong gnostic theme of the letter. The Greek word used is “erchomai”; it is the middle voice of a primary verb used only in the present and imperfect tenses. The middle voice is that use of the verb which describes the subject as PARTICIPATING in the RESULTS of the action. The present tense may be used to describe an action that began in the past, CONTINUES in the present, but the emphasis is on the PRESENT time. The imperfect is often used to describe continuous action IN PROGRESS. This verb is not necessarily descriptive of a past event that is finished or completed; nor is it descriptive of an event that is yet to be. It is describing something that began with the incarnation, and continues perpetually. Or put another way; it emphasises that the flesh assumed by the Son of God in the incarnation has become His permanent possession, the Christ actually came in the flesh and has never laid it aside. So no 1 Joh 4:2 does not cause me too much alarm.
Quote God is a Father
Jesus is the Son of God.If you have not seen that message in scripture then you have yet to find the key to full life in God.
Where is it written that we must believe that Jesus was a son in the anthropomorphic sense of the word “to find the key to full life in God”? It is plainly unscriptural to assume that Jesus was birthed by His Father in eternity. Nowhere in scripture is this recorded. Is it not better to allow the Bible to speak for itself on this matter?Quote Jesus was only a vessel for the Spirit of God who lived in Him , revealed Himself and worked through him.
Are not all christians “vessels for the Spirit of God”?Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 05 2006,21:24) Hi Is 1.18.
I ask again. Is Jesus Christ really the Son of God or not?
Yes, He is. I have never denied this.Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 05 2006,21:41) Hi Is 1.18,
My father was gretaer than I when I was a child under his God given authority. He is still greater than me in many ways. Since I must honour him as a son he will always be greater than me.But it was not just as a child that Jesus said ” the Father is greater than I “. It was as an adult.
In the first you make the point that submission to an authority applies regardless of age (“…he will always be greater than me…”). But you contradict this in the in your second paragraph where you stipulate that age IS important. I'm confused as to what point you are trying to make here.BTW, you've already stated that “greatness” has nothing to do with ontology on page 3 (“”Greater” is not an theological or ontological word. “). Do you stand by this?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 05 2006,21:13) Hi Is 1.18,
He is the beloved only begotten Son of God who was with God in the beginning. With no mother, as the image of God he is derived directly from God as the firstborn in separate life as in all things
HEBREWS 1:3
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image (5481; exact representation) of his person (5287 essence, substance).Yahshua is the exact representation of the Father's essence or substance. There is no mention in scripture of the Word being “derived” from the Father. That's an assumption.
Hi NH,
Hope your weekend is going well.Quote Paul used Psalm 2 in several different ways because he had little option.
Paul had the option of not quoting OT scripture at all. He was perhaps one of the most erudite and educated men of his time and was not clumsy with his words. He knew exactly what he was doing and would not cite an OT passage out of context, as to mislead his listeners in Acts 13:33. According to Paul Ps 2:7 has a resurrection context.Quote Scripture in the OT has few references to the sonship of Jesus Christ.
I don't think there are any OT passages that describe the Logos as a Son before His incarnation. I believe this is because “The Word” became “Son of God”. This is what Luke (Luke 1:35), Paul (Rom 1:4, Acts 13:33) and John (John 1:1-18) teach.Quote He is the secret hidden from men's eyes and seen only by those with spiritual eyes when he came.
What do you mean by this?Quote So here in Hebrews 1 he gives a chronological picture.
HEBREWS 1
1God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,
2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
3And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
4having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.
5For to which of the angels did He ever say,
“YOU ARE MY SON,
TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”?
And again,
“I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM
AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”?According to the chronology of the verse the Ps 2:7 declaration is made subsequent to the writer recording in the previous verse “having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they”. The inheriting obviously happaned post ascention as is show in Dan 7:13-14, Eph 1:20-21, Phil 2:9, Heb 2:9. So in the context of the Hebrews passage Ps 2:7 is again demonstrably post incarnation. Your thoughts?
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 05 2006,22:29) Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 05 2006,21:24) Hi Is 1.18.
I ask again. Is Jesus Christ really the Son of God or not?
Yes, He is. I have never denied this.
Hi Is 1.18,
“Is Jesus Christ really truly and literally the Son of God?” is still the issue you need to resolve between you and God. No amount of hedging about Gnosticism and anthropologicalism and such matters alters the simple truth of the Word of God.He does not give you any room to accept this except in the simple and obvious sense that God is his Father.
“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”
1Jn 4.15
“Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God. God abides in him, and he in God”Quote You write that Jesus had a beginning, meaning (I assume) that at some point He came into existence. Please give me scripture to verify the pre-incarnationbirth event. This is not an unreasonable request Malcolm. Pre-incarnate birth? – there is not preincarnation involved here. The fact is that a son is not eternal – the very word son means to issue forth from and therefore there is a point at which this begins – or else not issuing forth ever occurred and the term son is redundant and ridiculous.
I am sure that the great creator of all things could have found a word to give us to suitably represent the relationship of God to this one if it is not as a son. Yet He didn't he gave us the word son to understand this relationship and shows us the fact that this son had knowledge and therefore existence before his flesh and it was with the Father.
Quote HEBREWS 7:3
Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually
Of course given that The Logos existed “in the beginning” and was in fact the Creator of ALL THINGS, including time (which cannot exist without space and matter), its going to be difficult to convince me that He had a beginning IN TIME.All things were made BY him. All things were redeemed BY him …
You quote Heb 7:3 as if to say that Melchizedec was the son of God. But it does not say that he was, it tells you in fact that he was not, for sons have beginnings, this one had no beginning of days or end of life. Jesus had an end of life experience, he was cut off from amonst the land of the living for the transgressions of us.
Did GOD die? GOD cannot die and be ETERNAL – for Eternal means without beginning or end.It says of this mysterious person in Heb 7 that he was made like unto the Son of God – in the same kind of a likeness – human in appearance and form. Not that he was the son of God made in this likeness.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 05 2006,22:51) Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 05 2006,21:41) Hi Is 1.18,
My father was greater than I when I was a child under his God given authority. He is still greater than me in many ways. Since I must honour him as a son he will always be greater than me.But it was not just as a child that Jesus said ” the Father is greater than I “. It was as an adult.
In the first you make the point that submission to an authority applies regardless of age (“…he will always be greater than me…”). But you contradict this in the in your second paragraph where you stipulate that age IS important. I'm confused as to what point you are trying to make here.BTW, you've already stated that “greatness” has nothing to do with ontology on page 3 (“”Greater” is not an theological or ontological word. “). Do you stand by this?
Hi Is.1.18,
You have misquoted me. I said something a little different in relation to “ontological”meanings. Age deserves respect just as parentage does but Jesus was not claiming God was greater than he on the basis of these things. God is greater in every sense than the Son of God.God was before all, even His Son. Sons come after fathers and are from fathers. The Son is from everlasting and is eternal but he is the image of the original God.
The Son of God is like to Melchizedek who has no recorded parentage. The Son of God had no human parents either being begotten and derived from the original God alone so sharing in having divine nature with God.
Then he humbled himself under the authority of God, emptied himself and was sent to partake of flesh and be born like us.
“…whom no one has seen or can see.”
1 Timothy 6:1620 But He said, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.”
23 Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen.”
Exodus 33:20, 23It seems that our flesh bodies cannot survive after seeing the face of God. However, regarding the Son:
7Look, he is coming with the clouds,
and every eye will see him,
Revelation 1:7I'm scared to be taking these scriptures out of context, but I'm just looking at them in a literal sense. If I am, please forgive me. But it seems we're fully capable of seeing the Son of God in His heavenly form, but unable to see the Father.
This doesn't “prove” that the Father and Son are not co-powerful… though it can be used in argument against the motion…
Welcome jbl,
Good post.We are able to see the finger of God at work in Jesus Christ and his followers.
Hey Malcolm. How's things? Good I hope.
Quote Pre-incarnate birth? – there is not preincarnation involved here. The fact is that a son is not eternal – the very word son means to issue forth from and therefore there is a point at which this begins – or else not issuing forth ever occurred and the term son is redundant and ridiculous.
The word 'son' means “to issue forth from”? Really? I looked this up to verify it, but couldn't. Could you show me where you found this?Regarding the pre-incarnation birth; What I mean by this is the procreation event that resulted in the logos coming into existence. Perhaps, 'issuing forth' might have been better linguistically, although this is still unbiblical terminology. Regardless of the vocabulary, the core of my argument is this; this event is nowhere described in scripture. Yahshua doesn't say He “issued forth from God” (excluding Joh 8:42, which conveys a different meaning than you're proposing), nor do any of the OT or NT writers. You assume that Yahshua is a Son in the exact same sense as human sons are. Why? Should the infinite be held hostage to a finite limitation? The NT writers tell you exactly what it means that Yahshua is the “Son of God”. You don't need to import your own pre-suppositions.
Quote I am sure that the great creator of all things could have found a word to give us to suitably represent the relationship of God to this one if it is not as a son.
The Word “Son” is entirely appropriate to represent the relationship between Yahshua and His Father. I'm glad we agree on that one.Quote Yet He didn't he gave us the word son to understand this relationship and shows us the fact that this son had knowledge and therefore existence before his flesh and it was with the Father.
What makes you think I don't believe He had an existence before He took on flesh? Would I, in all seriousness, make an argument for His eternality if I thought this?Quote All things were made BY him. All things were redeemed BY him …
Amen Malcolm.Quote You quote Heb 7:3 as if to say that Melchizadek was the son of God. But it does not say that he was, it tells you in fact that he was not,
All I did was quote the verse. I did not give you my interpretation, and you are incorrect when you write “as if to say that Melchizadek was the son of God”. I understand that some hold that Melchizadek was a christophany. Personally, I don't. Perhaps typologically He was though.Quote for sons have beginnings, this one had no beginning of days or end of life.
Human sons have beginnings. Should this automatically apply to the Logos? If so, on what grounds?Quote Jesus had an end of life experience, he was cut off from amonst the land of the living for the transgressions of us.
Did GOD die? GOD cannot die and be ETERNAL – for Eternal means without beginning or end.
Oh, I was under the impression that nothing was impossible with God (Luke 1:37)? That's an argument for another day….. Did Jesus cease to exist when He died? As I understand it He suffered the first death, His body expired, His spirit returned to the Father (Luk 23:46) and yet he was said to have preached to the spirits in prison (1 Pet 3:18-20). That to me denotes a continuation of consciousness.Quote You have misquoted me. I said something a little different in relation to “ontological”meanings.
Hi NH,
I quoted you verbatim.Quote God is greater in every sense than the Son of God.
NH,
So in the passages that speak of the Father being “greater” than the Son do you understand this to mean 'superior in':- nature?
- essence?
- substance?
Is the Logos a 'lesser being' than His Father?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 05 2006,05:22) Hi,
“Greater” is not an theological or ontological word. It is a word in common usage that has a simple meaning that children can understand.
Hi is 1.18,
This is what I said.The Father is God. He is greater than the Logos because he begat him. Surely you do not suggest God begat a being who was greater than Himself?
Phil 2.5f tells us about Christ Jesus, the Word of God, who was with God in the beginning and came in the flesh;
“..who, though he existed in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself
taking the form of a bondservant,
and being made in the likeness of men.
Being found in appearance as a man
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to the point of death..”Compare 1 Jn 4.2
“By this you know the Spirit of God; every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God..”Both scriptures speak of Jesus Christ. He is called here Jesus Christ even before he was born and came in the flesh.
He is even not called the Logos or even the Son of God but Jesus Christ. Before he was born as man he is called Jesus Christ so there is no confusion as to who is being spoken of and there is no doubt it is also spoken as a guide for those who would misunderstand scripture and think God came in the flesh.
Phil 2.5f tells us he did not have equality and
He did not seek equality.So how come men now say he was and is equal to God?
Quote The word 'son' means “to issue forth from”? Really? I looked this up to verify it, but couldn't. Could you show me where you found this? Okay – son
Meanings that are relevant to what we are looking at:
Male descendant
Male child
Male progeny
Male offspringJust look up any of the following words –
Descendant, child, progeny or offspring
Here's the definition for progeny:-
prog·e·ny P Pronunciation Key (prj-n)
n. pl. progeny or prog·e·nies
1.
a. One born of, begotten by, or derived from another; an offspring or a descendant.
b. Offspring or descendants considered as a group.
2. A result of creative effort; a product.(taken from dictionary.com)
Hey Malcolm,
On pg 7 of this thread you wrote this:Quote the very word son means to issue forth from and therefore there is a point at which this begins
Is this true, or did you make it up?Hi Is 1.18,
The Phil 2 scripture also highlights another point.Jesus did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped.
Now do you not believe he is God?
If he is God as an equal person with the Father and the Spirit from everlasting how come it does not say he already had equality?
If He is God how could he gain equality with himself?
Confusion confusion confusion..
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
