- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi TT,
Surely being a son is not a PRIZE for success?Did Jesus not become a Son when he was anointed and began to share the powers of God?
God said he was a son then.Lk3
21Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,22And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
Quote (thethinker @ April 25 2009,19:53) Seeking said: Quote I regret that you find God's plan for reproduction to be “grotesque” and “repulsive.” Do you believe the biblical account of the birth of Jesus? Would you concede that if, as the account spells out, Mary was impregnated by other than natural means, the birth was miraculous? Seeking,
Where did I say that God's plan for human reproduction was grotesque? I said that God's reproducing Himself was grotesque. And yes Mary was indeed impregnated by other than natural means. Through this Jesus became the offspring of David– not the offspring of God. Jesus was also the ROOT of David. Therefore, He pre-existed David.At any rate, the miraculous conception of Jesus had nothing to do with His title “Son of God.” This was the title He EARNED AFTER He purged our sins and was exalted (Rom. 1:1-3; Heb. 1:1-5).
NKJV: “You are my Son; TODAY I have begotten You.”
NIV: “You are My Son; TODAY I have become your Father.”
God became the “Father” of Jesus AFTER He had earned the title “Son of God.”
Therefore, the title “Son of God” has no reference at all to Christ's supposed beginning or God reproducing or anything else like that. For He existed BEFORE He acquired the name. It is the NAME that Jesus EARNED. And it is ABOVE EVERY NAME. And by “above” the Father means far above.
thinker
Thinker,
Hmmm , I wonder when this was said…before resurrection or after?Luke 9:35-36
35 Then a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!” 36 And when the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silent, and reported to no one in those days any of the things which they had seen.
NASUI think it is should make you curious that the Jews were wanting to kill Him because He made Himself out to be the Son of God since they considered even themselves to be sons of God. They must have understood that He was making Himself out to be a different kind of “Son of God” than they were.
John 19:7
The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God.”
NASUThere are over 30 times that either the Son is called the Son of God by others or that He calls Himself the Son of God and many of them are spoken before His resurrection. It is amazing to me that you think that He wasn't given that name before the resurrection.
What He wasn't given before the resurrection was “the power” that gave Him all authority over all things except the Father since He ALWAYS was greater than Him. So after the resurrection He became the Son WITH POWER, not merely the Son of God but the Son with POWER. The power is what He received as well as the position above angels and as mediator between us and the Father. The Father has never been in a position below the Son, it has ALWAYS been the other way around obviously because the Father is above the Son. If you think differently back it up.
LU
Quote (kerwin @ April 25 2009,20:31) To All, Does anyone know what the various Greek words translated Son are?
Hi Kerwin,
There seems to be two different words:NT:5207 (377 times in the NT)
ui(o/$
huios (hwee-os'); apparently a primary word; a “son” (sometimes of animals), used very widely of immediate, remote or figuratively, kinship:NT:5043 (used 99 times in the NT)
te/knon
teknon (tek'-non); from the base of NT:5088; a child (as produced):(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
I hope that helps, do you have a concordance Kerwin?
KathiLightenup(Kathy)
Quote I hope that helps, do you have a concordance Kerwin?
I do not. I use online resources but am not completely familiar with their use which causes me difficulties.
Thank you for your help. It is my understanding though that there are more than two words that are translated Son.
Can anyone say whether or not my understanding is correct?
Lightenup said:
Quote Thinker…
There are over 30 times that either the Son is called the Son of God by others or that He calls Himself the Son of God and many of them are spoken before His resurrection. It is amazing to me that you think that He wasn't given that name before the resurrection.Kathi,
You fail to see that the person of Christ was revealed progressively over a half century of time. Christ defined His sonship differently than the apostles defined it. The apostles give a more full understanding of Christ's sonship. Christ defined His sonship in terms of the works He did. And it should be noted that He defined the sonship of ALL MEN in those terms.Quote Jesus said, if God were your Father you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God….You are of your father the devil and the works of your father you want to do.(John 8:42-44) We see from this that Christ defined their sonship to God in terms of works. Jesus defined His sonship in these terms also,
Quote I told you, and you do not believe, “the works that I do bear witness of Me.” (John 10:25). The idea of sonship as Christ explained it had nothing at all to do with a man's origin or with God begetting or reproducing Himself. Therefore, the sonship of Christ as He explained it had no reference at all His origin or God's begetting Him. Christ knew Himself as the Son of God in terms of the words He spoke and the works He performed. He did not inherit the title “begotten” or “firstborn” UNTIL He completed our redemption. The apostles are very clear about this,
Paul clearly says that Jesus was decreed the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness through the resurrection. And Hebrews clearly says that God became Christs Father when He had purged our sins and sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
Hebrews says “TODAY I have begotten You.” So far all on this board are just sweeping these words under the carpet. Jesus was NOT begotten UNTIL He finished the plan of redemption and was then exalted to God's right hand which meant in jewish thought that he was equal with God. The apostles give us the whole account. Truth was revealed progressively over a half century like I said.
Lightenup said:
Quote The Father has never been in a position below the Son, it has ALWAYS been the other way around obviously because the Father is above the Son. If you think differently back it up. I have never said that the Father was in a position below the Son. And I have never heard of any Trinitarian who said this. In fact, there is a non-trinitarian sect called “Jesus only” that teaches this.
Hebrews says “TODAY I have begotten You.” Therefore the expression “begotten Son” has no reference to Christ's origin or to God's supposed reproduction of Himself. It is a TITLE He EARNED!
thinker
Hi TT,
Then why was this TITLE GIVEN FOR WORKS applied to him by God at the Jordan before he had done any?Quote (thethinker @ April 25 2009,19:53) Seeking said: Quote I regret that you find God's plan for reproduction to be “grotesque” and “repulsive.” Do you believe the biblical account of the birth of Jesus? Would you concede that if, as the account spells out, Mary was impregnated by other than natural means, the birth was miraculous? Seeking,
Where did I say that God's plan for human reproduction was grotesque? I said that God's reproducing Himself was grotesque. And yes Mary was indeed impregnated by other than natural means. Through this Jesus became the offspring of David– not the offspring of God. Jesus was also the ROOT of David. Therefore, He pre-existed David.At any rate, the miraculous conception of Jesus had nothing to do with His title “Son of God.” This was the title He EARNED AFTER He purged our sins and was exalted (Rom. 1:1-3; Heb. 1:1-5).
NKJV: “You are my Son; TODAY I have begotten You.”
NIV: “You are My Son; TODAY I have become your Father.”
God became the “Father” of Jesus AFTER He had earned the title “Son of God.”
Therefore, the title “Son of God” has no reference at all to Christ's supposed beginning or God reproducing or anything else like that. For He existed BEFORE He acquired the name. It is the NAME that Jesus EARNED. And it is ABOVE EVERY NAME. And by “above” the Father means far above.
thinker
Thinker,Thinker you say:
Quote Seeking,
Where did I say that God's plan for human reproduction was grotesque? I said that God's reproducing Himself was grotesque. And yes Mary was indeed impregnated by other than natural means. Through this Jesus became the offspring of David- not the offspring of God. Jesus was also the ROOT of David. Therefore, He pre-existed David.You should read the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1:
Matt 1:1-161 The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers. 3 Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez was the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram. 4 Ram was the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon. 5 Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab, Boaz was the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse. 6 Jesse was the father of David the king.
David was the father of Solomon by Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah. 7 Solomon was the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asa. 8 Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah. 9 Uzziah was the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah. 10 Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, and Amon the father of Josiah. 11 Josiah became the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.
12 After the deportation to Babylon: Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel. 13 Zerubbabel was the father of Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor. 14 Azor was the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud. 15 Eliud was the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob. 16 Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.
NASUYou can see by reading through this genealogy that Joseph was a descendant of the line of David. Therefore, all of Mary's children are the offspring of David. Immaculate conception did not make Jesus the offspring of David, the immaculate conception made Him the HOLY offspring of David and the Son of GOD in flesh.
I seem to remember that Mary was a descendant of David as well but I can't put my finger on it. Never-the-less, we see that Joseph and Mary could have had Jesus just like they had their other children to get an offspring of David. Obviously there is a bigger reason that immaculate conception was necessary…to make the child HOLY and without sin…and to make the child the Son of GOD in the flesh as well as the Son of GOD before all creation.
He is the Firstborn twice…once, of all creation
secondly, of the dead.
So, when Hebrews speaks of “Today I have begotten thee” it could be referring to the birth from the dead, the second time He is Firstborn.If you believe that the Son was “begotten” after resurrection, that is true and is in line with being the “firstborn from the dead” but what you seem to wipe under the rug is that way before He was firstborn from the dead, He was firstborn of all creation. You embrace one but not the other is grotesque to you. I wonder why.
LU
Quote (thethinker @ April 22 2009,05:31) Lightenup said: Quote I believe in a literal Son of God and you don't. When I started seeing a literal Son of God who existed from before creation, I started to understand the message of the New Testament. It changed my life 16 years ago. To All,
Though I have a great love for our sister Kathi she commits the ultimate Unitarian error in her statement that Christ was the literal Son of God. Jesus Himself said that “God is spirit“. This in turn infers that Jesus is a “son” in a spiritual sense. Or does God have a penis?And she says that she saw a “literal Son of God before creation.” This means that the Father consummated with a female God that always existed. So the Father is NOT the only true God. There is another female God who had sex with the Father and they begat Jesus, the lesser “god.”
Can you see the similiarity that Unitarianism has with the ancient doctrines of the pagans? The lesser “gods” were generated by the sexual acts of higher gods.
Unitarianism shows it pagan roots.
thinker
Greetings Thinker……Although you make a valid point and your argument has merit….I must say,at least it appears to me that you might have lost sight of some fundamental facts…that being that Gods ways are higher than ours,his reasoning is unmeasurable,and to put it in the venacular…He has forgotten every thing we think we know….His power dictates that he can reproduce any way he pleases…he does not have to adhere to a protocol that he assigned to man…Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,23:51) Quote (thethinker @ April 25 2009,19:53) Seeking said: Quote I regret that you find God's plan for reproduction to be “grotesque” and “repulsive.” Do you believe the biblical account of the birth of Jesus? Would you concede that if, as the account spells out, Mary was impregnated by other than natural means, the birth was miraculous? Seeking,
Where did I say that God's plan for human reproduction was grotesque? I said that God's reproducing Himself was grotesque. And yes Mary was indeed impregnated by other than natural means. Through this Jesus became the offspring of David– not the offspring of God. Jesus was also the ROOT of David. Therefore, He pre-existed David.At any rate, the miraculous conception of Jesus had nothing to do with His title “Son of God.” This was the title He EARNED AFTER He purged our sins and was exalted (Rom. 1:1-3; Heb. 1:1-5).
NKJV: “You are my Son; TODAY I have begotten You.”
NIV: “You are My Son; TODAY I have become your Father.”
God became the “Father” of Jesus AFTER He had earned the title “Son of God.”
Therefore, the title “Son of God” has no reference at all to Christ's supposed beginning or God reproducing or anything else like that. For He existed BEFORE He acquired the name. It is the NAME that Jesus EARNED. And it is ABOVE EVERY NAME. And by “above” the Father means far above.
thinker
Thinker,Thinker you say:
Quote Seeking,
Where did I say that God's plan for human reproduction was grotesque? I said that God's reproducing Himself was grotesque. And yes Mary was indeed impregnated by other than natural means. Through this Jesus became the offspring of David- not the offspring of God. Jesus was also the ROOT of David. Therefore, He pre-existed David.You should read the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1:
Matt 1:1-161 The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers. 3 Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez was the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram. 4 Ram was the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon. 5 Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab, Boaz was the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse. 6 Jesse was the father of David the king.
David was the father of Solomon by Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah. 7 Solomon was the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asa. 8 Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah. 9 Uzziah was the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah. 10 Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, and Amon the father of Josiah. 11 Josiah became the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.
12 After the deportation to Babylon: Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel. 13 Zerubbabel was the father of Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor. 14 Azor was the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud. 15 Eliud was the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob. 16 Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.
NASUYou can see by reading through this genealogy that Joseph was a descendant of the line of David. Therefore, all of Mary's children are the offspring of David. Immaculate conception did not make Jesus the offspring of David, the immaculate conception made Him the HOLY offspring of David and the Son of GOD in flesh.
I seem to remember that Mary was a descendant of David as well but I can't put my finger on it. Never-the-less, we see that Joseph and Mary could have had Jesus just like they had their other children to get an offspring of David. Obviously there is a bigger reason that immaculate conception was necessary…to make the child HOLY and without sin…and to make the child the Son of GOD in the flesh as well as the Son of GOD before all creation.
He is the Firstborn twice…once, of all creation
secondly, of the dead.
So, when Hebrews speaks of “Today I have begotten thee” it could be referring to the birth from the dead, the second time He is Firstborn.If you believe that the Son was “begotten” after resurrection, that is true and is in line with being the “firstborn from the dead” but what you seem to wipe under the rug is that way before He was firstborn from the dead, He was firstborn of all creation. You embrace one but not the other is grotesque to you. I wonder why.
LU
Kathi,
I have no problem at all with your commentary on Jesus' birth and the miraculous conception. It is on the word “firstborn” that we sharply disagree. Jesus is indeed the firstborn “every creature.” The Greek is “pasa ktisis” and refers exclusively to mankind. Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to “every creature” (pasa ktisis). In Colossians 1:23 Paul said that the gospel had been preached to “every creature” (pasa ktisis) under heaven. So I want to establish first of all that Christ's being the “firstborn” has reference to mankind only and not to animals or the rest of creation.The second point is that the term “firstborn” simply means that He is sovereign and supreme over all mankind (Colossians 1:18). It has nothing whatsoever to do with His supposed beginning. You say that He is firstborn literally from God. Yet if you look at Christ's geneaology in Luke you will note that Christ's geneaology is traced back to Adam who is called the son of God.
Adam qualifies as God's firstborn literally rather than Jesus. Paul calls Adam the first man. Luke says he was the son of God. Seeing therefore that Jesus is NOT the firstborn of all mankind literally, but He is indeed the “firstborn” of all mankind truly, the word “firstborn” in reference to Jesus simply means that He is supreme over all mankind. (Col. 1:1:18).
The “firstborn” Son held the suremacy in the family. Ishmael was Abraham's FIRST son. hH was banned from the covenant and Isaac was given the title and the supremacy. It had nothing to do with his being Sarah's firstborn. Isaac was Abraham's SECOND born. And after Ishamael was kicked out of the covenant Isaac was called the “ONLY begotten son.” Ishmael was still Abraham's FIRSTBORN son literally. History don't change. But another history called “redemptive history” counts instead.
As Isaac pre-existed the title “only begotten ” and “firstborn.” So Jesus also pre-existed these titles. Hebrews explicitly says “TODAY I have begotten You.” These expressions have nothing to do with Jesus supposed begi
nning or God's supposed reproducing Himself. The expression “only begotten Son” was a title Jesus EARNED.thinker
To All,
Let's not forget about Esau and Jacob. Esau sold his birthright to Jacob and so Jacob became the “firstborn.” Then God adopted Jacob and changed his name to Israel. Then God told Moses to command the pharoah to let Israel go saying,Quote Israel is my son, even My firstborn (Ex. 4:22) Jacob existed BEFORE he acquired the name “firstborn son.” So it is with Jesus.
thinker
Quote (kerwin @ April 25 2009,16:59) To All, Is it not written “The righteous will live by faith” and was not Jesus righteous? Since it is true then we must conclude Jesus was righteous because of his faith just as he calls us to be. Are we not told in scripture that the righteousness that is like God's is obtainable by living by the Spirit and in no other way. As we know this is true then we know that Jesus lived righteously because he lived by the Spirit and he lived by the Spirit through faith as the firstborn of those that would live by the Spirit. He is our teacher and it is through obeying his teachings that we too can live by the Spirit.
If Jesus is superior to us in any way then it is his superior faith that is the most important for without faith it is impossible to please God.
Hebrews 11:16(NIV) reads:
Quote And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
I do agree with this writing. The righteous shall live by faith. It is also true in reference to Jesus that “when we see him, we will be like him, for as he is, so are we in this world.He is our brother. The firsborn of many. If Jesus say's you are clean and righteous before God, if you believe it (faith) it is True. Not by works or deeds! Just believe, and its for whosoeve! There are so many power scriptures and Love and great good news in the Gospels I don't know why there is so much bickering about times, dates, names etc. The work of God is finished in Jesus. All we need to do is grow up in that Truth. Blessings to this quote and Love to all, TKTo All,
I would like to offer another Scripture that says that Christ became the the begotten Son at His exaltation. It is stated in Hebrews 5:5-6,Quote So also Christ did not exalt Himself to be made a High priest, but was appointed by Him who said to Him, “You are My Son, TODAY I have begotten You”;
as He says also in another place,
“You are a priest after the order of Melchizedek.”
Verse 8 goes on to say this,
Quote Although He was a son, He learned obedience through what He suffered. And being made perfect, He became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey Him, being designated a priest by God (Heb. 5:8-9) The text clearly says that Jesus became the “begotten Son” on the day He was exalted as our High Priest. “TODAY I have begotten You.” This is in accord with chapter one which says that God “begat” Him AFTER He had purged our sins and sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. These together are in accord with Paul who said that it was decreed that Christ become the Son of God through the resurrection (Rom. 1:3).
These Scriptures do not deny that He was a son beforehand. But He had to be perfected before He could become the “only begotten Son” (Heb. 5:8-9). He had to EARN this rank. Thus the idea that God begat a son for Himself by reproduction is disproven. For Jesus pre-existed long before He inherited the title “only begotten” and He became God's “begotten” through obedience. Therefore, the name “only begotten Son” does NOT prove that Jesus had a beginning.
thinker
thinker ………I agree with all you said with the exception of the very las Part, His preexistence. But you are right on IMO on the rest of your post brother.
Peace and love to you and yours…………………………gene
Quote (Gene @ April 27 2009,05:50) thinker ………I agree with all you said with the exception of the very las Part, His preexistence. But you are right on IMO on the rest of your post brother. Peace and love to you and yours…………………………gene
Gene,
I have two questions:
1.Would you agree that Jesus pre-existed the time He became the “begotten Son” though you deny that He pre-existed before coming to earth?2. Would you agree that “begotten” in reference to Jesus cannot mean that God reproduced Himself?
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ April 26 2009,08:54) Quote (Lightenup @ April 26 2009,23:51) Quote (thethinker @ April 25 2009,19:53) Seeking said: Quote I regret that you find God's plan for reproduction to be “grotesque” and “repulsive.” Do you believe the biblical account of the birth of Jesus? Would you concede that if, as the account spells out, Mary was impregnated by other than natural means, the birth was miraculous? Seeking,
Where did I say that God's plan for human reproduction was grotesque? I said that God's reproducing Himself was grotesque. And yes Mary was indeed impregnated by other than natural means. Through this Jesus became the offspring of David– not the offspring of God. Jesus was also the ROOT of David. Therefore, He pre-existed David.At any rate, the miraculous conception of Jesus had nothing to do with His title “Son of God.” This was the title He EARNED AFTER He purged our sins and was exalted (Rom. 1:1-3; Heb. 1:1-5).
NKJV: “You are my Son; TODAY I have begotten You.”
NIV: “You are My Son; TODAY I have become your Father.”
God became the “Father” of Jesus AFTER He had earned the title “Son of God.”
Therefore, the title “Son of God” has no reference at all to Christ's supposed beginning or God reproducing or anything else like that. For He existed BEFORE He acquired the name. It is the NAME that Jesus EARNED. And it is ABOVE EVERY NAME. And by “above” the Father means far above.
thinker
Thinker,Thinker you say:
Quote Seeking,
Where did I say that God's plan for human reproduction was grotesque? I said that God's reproducing Himself was grotesque. And yes Mary was indeed impregnated by other than natural means. Through this Jesus became the offspring of David- not the offspring of God. Jesus was also the ROOT of David. Therefore, He pre-existed David.You should read the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1:
Matt 1:1-161 The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers. 3 Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez was the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram. 4 Ram was the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon. 5 Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab, Boaz was the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse. 6 Jesse was the father of David the king.
David was the father of Solomon by Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah. 7 Solomon was the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asa. 8 Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah. 9 Uzziah was the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah. 10 Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, and Amon the father of Josiah. 11 Josiah became the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.
12 After the deportation to Babylon: Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel. 13 Zerubbabel was the father of Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor. 14 Azor was the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud. 15 Eliud was the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob. 16 Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.
NASUYou can see by reading through this genealogy that Joseph was a descendant of the line of David. Therefore, all of Mary's children are the offspring of David. Immaculate conception did not make Jesus the offspring of David, the immaculate conception made Him the HOLY offspring of David and the Son of GOD in flesh.
I seem to remember that Mary was a descendant of David as well but I can't put my finger on it. Never-the-less, we see that Joseph and Mary could have had Jesus just like they had their other children to get an offspring of David. Obviously there is a bigger reason that immaculate conception was necessary…to make the child HOLY and without sin…and to make the child the Son of GOD in the flesh as well as the Son of GOD before all creation.
He is the Firstborn twice…once, of all creation
secondly, of the dead.
So, when Hebrews speaks of “Today I have begotten thee” it could be referring to the birth from the dead, the second time He is Firstborn.If you believe that the Son was “begotten” after resurrection, that is true and is in line with being the “firstborn from the dead” but what you seem to wipe under the rug is that way before He was firstborn from the dead, He was firstborn of all creation. You embrace one but not the other is grotesque to you. I wonder why.
LU
Kathi,
I have no problem at all with your commentary on Jesus' birth and the miraculous conception. It is on the word “firstborn” that we sharply disagree. Jesus is indeed the firstborn “every creature.” The Greek is “pasa ktisis” and refers exclusively to mankind. Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to “every creature” (pasa ktisis). In Colossians 1:23 Paul said that the gospel had been preached to “every creature” (pasa ktisis) under heaven. So I want to establish first of all that Christ's being the “firstborn” has reference to mankind only and not to animals or the rest of creation.The second point is that the term “firstborn” simply means that He is sovereign and supreme over all mankind (Colossians 1:18). It has nothing whatsoever to do with His supposed beginning. You say that He is firstborn literally from God. Yet if you look at Christ's geneaology in Luke you will note that Christ's geneaology is traced back to Adam who is called the son of God.
Adam qualifies as God's firstborn literally rather than Jesus. Paul calls Adam the first man. Luke says he was the son of God. Seeing therefore that Jesus is NOT the firstborn of all mankind literally, but He is indeed the “firstborn” of all mankind truly, the word “firstborn” in reference to Jesus simply means that He is supreme over all mankind. (Col. 1:1:18).
The “firstborn” Son held the suremacy in the family. Ishmael was Abraham's FIRST son. hH was banned from the covenant and Isaac was given the title and the supremacy. It had nothing to do with his being Sarah's firstborn. Isaac was Abraham's SECOND born. And after Ishamael was kicked out of the covenant Isaac was called the “ONLY begotten son.” Ishmael was still Abraham's FIRSTBORN son literally. History don't change. But another history called “redemptive history” counts instead.
As Isaac pre-existed the title “only begotten ” and “firstborn.” So Jesus also pre-existed these titles. Hebrews explicitly says “TODAY I have begotten You.” These expressions have nothing to do with Jesus supposed beginning or God's supposed reproducing Himself. The expression “only begotten Son” was a title Jesus EARNED.thinker
Thinker,
I noticed that you copied my post in full and thank you for that.You wrote:
Quote The “firstborn” Son held the suremacy in the family. Ishmael was Abraham's FIRST son. hH was banned from the covenant and Isaac was given the title and the supremacy. It had nothing to do with his being Sarah's firstborn. Isaac was Abraham's SECOND born. And after Ishamael was kicked out of the covenant Isaac was called the “ONLY begotten son.” Ishmael was still Abraham's FIRSTBORN son literally. History don't change. But another history called “redemptive history” counts instead. I haven't found any teaching with an emphasis on the word “firstborn” in the account of Ishmael and Isaac. I have found this that speaks of Isaac being the only begotten son and he was the ONLY begotten son in reference to the “descendants that shall be called.” The emphasis on the term “only begotten” ends there. The comparison of Isaac and Christ is not one regarding being “only begotten” or being “firstborn” and truthfully I believe it is a stretch to even say that the Bible makes a comparison between the two. If there is a comparison, it is more likely regarding Abraham receiving Isaac back from the dead so to speak and Christ was going to be received back to His Father also.
Read that here:Heb 11:17-20
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; 18 it was he to whom it was said, “IN ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS SHALL BE CALLED.” 19 He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type.
NASUIf you think that a teaching exists in the Bible using the actual term “firstborn” as it applies to Ishmael and Isaac which ALSO says applies to Christ would you please present your scripture account?
Thanks,
LUQuote (thethinker @ April 26 2009,13:39) To All,
I would like to offer another Scripture that says that Christ became the the begotten Son at His exaltation. It is stated in Hebrews 5:5-6,Quote So also Christ did not exalt Himself to be made a High priest, but was appointed by Him who said to Him, “You are My Son, TODAY I have begotten You”;
as He says also in another place,
“You are a priest after the order of Melchizedek.”
Verse 8 goes on to say this,
Quote Although He was a son, He learned obedience through what He suffered. And being made perfect, He became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey Him, being designated a priest by God (Heb. 5:8-9) The text clearly says that Jesus became the “begotten Son” on the day He was exalted as our High Priest. “TODAY I have begotten You.” This is in accord with chapter one which says that God “begat” Him AFTER He had purged our sins and sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. These together are in accord with Paul who said that it was decreed that Christ become the Son of God through the resurrection (Rom. 1:3).
These Scriptures do not deny that He was a son beforehand. But He had to be perfected before He could become the “only begotten Son” (Heb. 5:8-9). He had to EARN this rank. Thus the idea that God begat a son for Himself by reproduction is disproven. For Jesus pre-existed long before He inherited the title “only begotten” and He became God's “begotten” through obedience. Therefore, the name “only begotten Son” does NOT prove that Jesus had a beginning.
thinker
Thinker,
You wrote:Quote The text clearly says that Jesus became the “begotten Son” on the day He was exalted as our High Priest. “TODAY I have begotten You.” This is in accord with chapter one which says that God “begat” Him AFTER He had purged our sins and sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. These together are in accord with Paul who said that it was decreed that Christ become the Son of God through the resurrection (Rom. 1:3). These Scriptures do not deny that He was a son beforehand. But He had to be perfected before He could become the “only begotten Son” (Heb. 5:8-9). He had to EARN this rank. Thus the idea that God begat a son for Himself by reproduction is disproven. For Jesus pre-existed long before He inherited the title “only begotten” and He became God's “begotten” through obedience. Therefore, the name “only begotten Son” does NOT prove that Jesus had a beginning.
Pay attention to these things:
First here is what Romans 1:3 fully says:Rom 1:1-6
1 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake, 6 among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ;
NASU
He wasn't just the Son of GOD before and after the resurrection, He became the Son of GOD with power.Since you believe that Hebrews 1 regarding “Today” from “today I have begotten you is spoken upon His resurrection and I think that is probable. It is not hard to understand that the “day” which that was spoken to Him was the day He received life after He was buried for three days. That further explains what happened after Mary was told to stop clinging to Him after she saw Him alive after He died
John 20:17-18
Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'”
NASUAfter He said those words to Mary in the garden, He ascended and was told:
Heb 1:3-5
When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.5 For to which of the angels did He ever say,
“YOU ARE MY SON,
TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”?Being the firstborn from the dead fits in nicely with “today I have begotten you” i.e. today I have given you life from death and received you back to myself.
Col 1:18-19
He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
NASUBeing the firstborn of all creation AND ALSO firstborn from the dead infers being begotten twice, once to original life, the other to life from death. So just because it says He was “begotten” after He died doesn't mean that He wasn't begotten beforehand. I believe He WAS begotten beforehand. Jesus says He was. Read this:
(Jesus is speaking to Nickodemus here)
John 3:16-1816 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
NASULU
Thinker….I do believe GOD can not reproduce Himself, so he could not have begotten Jesus in the since of reproduction. As we know it to be. I believe GOD fills His creation With himself He indwells His creation , thats why we can know the hidden things of GOD by observing His creation. GOD himself is the life of all CREATION and FILLS all things, remember that GOD may (BE) ALL and in ALL. If we understand GOD is SPIRIT (intellect) or intelligent POWER and it his Spirit in in everything that cause it to exist and function. I think the lack of Knowing (WHAT) and (WHO) God is, is the problem. Scripture says a time will come when the mystery of GOD will be Known, and remember even Jesus said, he told the apostles about GOD in Proverbs, but a time will come when He shall show them openly about the FATHER. I believe this mystery is about to become apparent , and everyone may be surprised as to (WHAT and WHO) GOD really is Brother. IMO
And as to your other question, I believe Jesus was preexistence in the will and Plan of GOD from the foundations of the earth as Peter Said, He was foreordained (BUT) was manifested in (OUR) time. But did not actually exist or Manifested till he was born on earth. IMO
peace and love to you and yours brother………………..gene
Quote (Gene @ April 26 2009,14:59) Thinker….I do believe GOD can not reproduce Himself, so he could not have begotten Jesus in the since of reproduction. As we know it to be. I believe GOD fills His creation With himself He indwells His creation , thats why we can know the hidden things of GOD by observing His creation. GOD himself is the life of all CREATION and FILLS all things, remember that GOD may (BE) ALL and in ALL. If we understand GOD is SPIRIT (intellect) or intelligent POWER and it his Spirit in in everything that cause it to exist and function. I think the lack of Knowing (WHAT) and (WHO) God is, is the problem. Scripture says a time will come when the mystery of GOD will be Known, and remember even Jesus said, he told the apostles about GOD in Proverbs, but a time will come when He shall show them openly about the FATHER. I believe this mystery is about to become apparent , and everyone may be surprised as to (WHAT and WHO) GOD really is Brother. IMO And as to your other question, I believe Jesus was preexistence in the will and Plan of GOD from the foundations of the earth as Peter Said, He was foreordained (BUT) was manifested in (OUR) time. But did not actually exist or Manifested till he was born on earth. IMO
peace and love to you and yours brother………………..gene
Gene,You wrote:
Quote Thinker….I do believe GOD can not reproduce Himself, so he could not have begotten Jesus in the since of reproduction. Please tell us where you are told this in scripture and it would be even better if you could give three witnesses to that.
Thanks,
LU
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
