- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 09 2008,20:45) Hi David Quote (david @ Oct. 09 2008,11:52)
IT IS FALSE LOGIC AND JUST WRONG THINKING TO ASSUME THAT BECAUSE THERE IS “ONLY ONE TRUE GOD” THAT EVERYONE ELSE THAT IS CALLED GOD IS EITHER A PART OF THAT GODHEAD OR FALSE.Ok, but I have asked you and t8 to present your unambiguous scriptural evidence for this statement without any reply.
Here Ill post it again…
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 07 2008,13:14) Can you tell me where this definition for “theos” comes from? Since t8 believes the same as the JWs here then maybe you can list some scriptures to prove these statements.
t8 only list John 10 which can be read as a derogatory statement about evil and wicked kings. Ambiguous.
I would like to see how you come to this opinion using scriptures.
Thanks! WJ
Please spare me of pages of apologetics and just give me some scriptures.
Thanks WJ
WJ, I'm not sure what you're asking for. You falsely state that because the Father is the only “true” God, anyone else called a god must be a false god. This is simply wrong, and it is wrong according to scripture.
If you think the angels were false gods, or that human judges in Israel were false gods, well….do you believe this? They are certainly not spoken of as false gods. We have to consider how 'god' is used in all of scripture. We have to understand what that word actually means. And we have to understand what “true” actually means, and that it doesn't have to mean “the opposite of false.”Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 10 2008,19:34) Quote listen carefully to what I am saying…..and equally carefully to what I am not saying… I am NOT saying that Jesus is not the Son of God…. I am saying that He is NOT the Son of God 1) in the same we any other human is called a son or daughter of the most high and 2) that He is not the Son in the same way a human has a Son…..
Sounds good in theory – but how can I have any concept of a son that is not like any son or offspring in the natural except that the dissimilarities be explicitly outlined to me. I don’t see statements in the scripture to that end, indicating that he is the son of God in some ways but in others not a son like us.
Perhaps it would be helpful to examine these dissimilarities as you say
(1) Dissimilar in the sense that he is not the son of God in the same way we (the sons of God) are called sons.
By this I assume you are meaning that because Jesus is the uniquely begotten son he is different.
I would say that this denotes a difference in the way he came to be manifest in flesh – i.e. he (unlike us) had a pre-existence in the form of Spirit, and a former knowledge of his Father which we lacked until the rebirth. Also he came into flesh without the need of sexual reproduction which was introduced after the fall when man took on the nature of beasts. Adam was formed by God apart from sex as was Eve. Christ was of the same pattern as are the reborn – who are not born of the will of the flesh or of man but born of God by the Spirit of God.
Also this uniqueness extends to his status as that of a firstborn and as such the principle heir to his Father. (A difference of role – not an intrinsic difference)
In any other sense I see no dissimilarity – he is a son not of Flesh but manifest in flesh, as are the sons of God, born in this world but not of it, born of the same Spirit of God.
Jesus in fact removes most of the obstacles that we as humans would tend to place before ourselves as a way of distancing ourselves from him as a son.
He unashamedly calls us brethren, not servants.
He teaches us that we can have an intimate relationship with the Father as he has.
We obtain a degree of equality with him that is likened to that of Eve – the bride of Adam, who was equal with him before the transgression. She was taken from his side, and was given to him. So is Christ the head of the Church. But this is a difference of role, not an intrinsic difference.
(2) that He is not the Son in the same way a human has a Son
Obviously we understand that any true son of God is not born by the regular human way of reproduction but by the Spirit of God. How are we different to him in this respect? Remember we are speaking here of sons of God, we are not born in flesh as sons of God but with a contrary spirit and nature to God. This is why we must be born again of the Spirit.
Only difference here between us and Jesus as a son was that he did not require a rebirth to be son of God, but was (as Adam) a son of God from birth. (imo)
So GOD does not require a process of sexual reproduction in order to produce a son of God. Instead of begetting sons by sex he begets us by His Spirit. That stands to reason considering God is Spirit and not flesh and bone.
It was GOD who set the pattern for life natural as well summarized in Gen 1:11 and whether by sex or botanic reproduction we see this pattern applies. Why did God set such unchanging patterns into His physical creation?
Because the natural shadows and types to the Spiritual. Thus we are able to draw upon natural analogies as scripture does to illustrate the way of God. (imo)
It was God who chose this use of language: Father and Son, and nowhere does he show us that this relationship is exceptional to that of a natural Father and Son, except it is obvious that there are differences in the way God achieves the bringing forth of sons, and human beings or other animals do.
Also there are differences of role and therefore position and status.
Blessings
Malcom, it takes hard work and study, thats all there is to it.Let me give you and example, lets look at the word “Firstborn”. Now we think that we all have a good handle on that word, pretty simple right? JW's and others who deny the deity and eternalty of Christ, those who say, whatever their other beliefs, that Jesus is a created being, they have all looked at this term (firstborn) and thought that:
“HA! here is proof that Jesus is not eternal!! That Jesus is a created being!! How can Jesus be called the “Firstborn” unless He came into being at a point in time, just like any other and every other “firstborn”?”
Well the answer to that question comes with some study. First we look at Gen 41:51-52 esv Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh. For, he said, God has made me forget all my hardship and all my father's house. (52) The name of the second he called Ephraim, For God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction.”
Pretty straightforward right? Manasseh is Joseph's firstborn. But wait….
Jer 31:9 esv With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.
Whats this….!!!?? A direct contradiction? Of course not. Why? Because our understanding of the term “firstborn”needs to be informed by the rich background of the Hebraic mind. As it turns out, when the term is applied to Jesus, it turns out that its not really a term denoting any temporal beginning at all, for Jesus is not a “firstborn: in the way we are used to thinking about the term at all, instead the term denotes a position of honor. Just as Manasseh was the firstborn, and as such received his father's inheritance and place of honor, but then lost it due to disobedience, making Ephraim “firstborn”. Of course their chronological birth order did not change, but their place of honor did. Now when it comes the term “Son”, Jesus, not having a human father, immediately is seen to not be a “Son” in the same way a human son is. So if it doesn't mean “progeny: or “physical descendant what does it mean? Well, it turns out the the phrase “Son of God” is actually a Messianic title and much more should be understood when we see the phrase then merely some vague reference supposedly meaning that Jesus is not eternal merely because He is a Son. Vine's writes “* The Son of God
In this title the word “Son” is used sometimes (a) of relationship, sometimes (b) of the expression of character. “Thus, e.g., when the disciples so addressed Him, Mat_14:33; Mat_16:16; Joh_1:49, when the centurion so spoke of Him, Mat_27:54, they probably meant that (b) He was a manifestation of God in human form. But in such passages as Luk_1:32, Luk_1:35; Act_13:33, which refer to the humanity of the Lord Jesus, the word is used in sense (a).
“The Lord Jesus Himself used the full title on occasion, Joh_5:25; Joh_9:35 [some mss. have 'the Son of Man'; see RV marg.]; Joh_11:4, and on the more frequent occasions on which He spoke of Himself as 'the Son,' the words are to be understood as an abbreviation of 'the Son of God,' not of 'the Son of Man'; this latter He always expressed in full; see Luk_10:22; Joh_5:19, etc.
“John uses both the longer and shorter forms of the title in his Gospel, see Joh_3:16-18; Joh_20:31, e.g., and in his E
pistles; cp. Rev_2:18. So does the writer of Hebrews, Heb_1:2; Heb_4:14; Heb_6:6, etc. An eternal relation subsisting between the Son and the Father in the Godhead is to be understood. That is to say, the Son of God, in His eternal relationship with the Father, is not so entitled because He at any time began to derive His being from the Father (in which case He could not be co-eternal with the Father), but because He is and ever has been the expression of what the Father is; cp. Joh_14:9, 'he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.' The words of Heb_1:3, 'Who being the effulgence of His (God's) glory, and the very image of His (God's) substance' are a definition of what is meant by 'Son of God.' Thus absolute Godhead, not Godhead in a secondary or derived sense, is intended in the title.” * [* From Notes on Galatians, by Hogg and Vine, pp. 99, 100.]Other titles of Christ as the “Son of God” are: “His Son,” 1Th_1:10 (in Act_13:13, Act_13:26, RV, pais is rendered “servant”); “His own Son,” Rom_8:32; “My beloved Son,” Mat_3:17; “His Only Begotten Son,” Joh_3:16; “the Son of His love,” Col_1:13.
“The Son is the eternal object of the Father's love, Joh_17:24, and the sole Revealer of the Father's character, Joh_1:14; Heb_1:3. The words, 'Father' and 'Son,' are never in the NT so used as to suggest that the Father existed before the Son; the Prologue to the Gospel according to John distinctly asserts that the Word existed 'in the beginning,' and that this Word is the Son, Who 'became flesh and dwelt among us.'” * [* From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine pp. 46,47.]
In addressing the Father in His prayer in John 17 He says, “Thou lovedst Me before the foundation of the World.” Accordingly in the timeless past the Father and the “Son” existed in that relationship, a relationship of love, as well as of absolute Deity. In this passage the “Son” gives evidence that there was no more powerful plea in the Father's estimation than that coeternal love existing between the Father and Himself.
The declaration “Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee,” Psa_2:7, quoted in Act_13:33; Heb_1:5; Heb_5:5, refers to the birth of Christ, not to His resurrection. In Act_13:33 the verb “raise up” is used of the raising up of a person to occupy a special position in the nation, as of David in Act_13:22 (so of Christ as a Prophet in Act_3:22; Act_7:37). The word “again” in the AV in Act_13:33 represents nothing in the original. The RV rightly omits it. In Act_13:34 the statement as to the resurrection of Christ receives the greater stress in this respect through the emphatic contrast to that in Act_13:33 as to His being raised up in the nation, a stress imparted by the added words “from the dead.” Accordingly Act_13:33 speaks of His incarnation, Act_13:34 of His resurrection.
In Heb_1:5, that the declaration refers to the Birth is confirmed by the contrast in verse 6. Here the word “again” is rightly placed in the RV, “when He again bringeth in the Firstborn into the world.” This points on to His Second Advent, which is set in contrast to His first Advent, when God brought His Firstborn into the world the first time (see FIRSTBORN). * [* The Western text of Luk_3:22 reads “Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee,” instead of “Thou art My beloved Son, in Thee I am well pleased.” There is probably some connection between this and those early heresies which taught that our Lord's Deity began at His baptism.”
Thayer says “Term (Son of God) used preeminently of Jesus Christ, as enjoying the supreme love of God, united to him in affectionate intimacy, privy to his saving councils, obedient to the Father’s will in all his acts”
The important thing, or one of the important things to take from all this is to simply not take it for granted that one knows what a certain phrase or word means without first doing at least a little research.
blessings,
KenQuote These men who presume to be gods, those who deal unjustly with the people, and show partiality to the wicked, who fail to give justice to the weak and fatherless, nevertheless, they will fall, they will die, just like any other human prince, so they are not really gods at all. Hi Epy. So, you're definition of “god” would be someone who cannot die? I'm not talking about what the definition or who the “god” of the Bible is, as I think some on here (not you) get confused about. I'm talking about what that word “god” actually means. I don't think it means one who cannot die. I think it is a word that like many other words can be used relatively. And relatively speaking, the Israelite judges had power. Of course, they weren't powerful to Jehovah and that is the point of that verse. But “I said, You are gods,” to some degree.
Quote A second reason I believe this is the case is because of these passages: Deu 4:35 esv To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him.
Obviously, there are others besides him. Yet, many scriptures say things like: ““I am Jehovah, and there is no one else.” (Is 45:18)
I believe what this means is this:
1 SAMUEL 2:2
“There is no one holy like Jehovah, for there is no one but you; And there is no rock like our God.”It's an interesting verse, above, because I see you also put this one down:
Isa 44:8 esv Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.One scripture says: “there is no rock.” And one says “there is no rock like our God.” One says: “Is there a God besides me.” And another says: ““Who among the gods is like you, O Jehovah?” (Ex 15:11)
You know these Isaiah scriptures you show, are showing and comparing actual false idol gods with Jehovah God. That's what the whole chapters are about. So in context, (comparing Jehovah to these things of wood) it's obvious that Jehovah is the true God, and these things are nothing.
Quote Here we are told in clear unambiguous terms that there is no other god besides Jehovah I think if we read those chapters, and take the context into account and then understand what the word “god” means, we can easily understand why Jehovah can say that. To him, there are no other gods, none, not any. To Jehovah, the Almighty, there are no “mighty ones” or “powerful ones” or “strong ones” or however you want to understand what that word actually means. And, especially when we consider who Jehovah is being compared to, it's easy to understand his statements.
Quote So in light of these clear didactic passages, when the bible refers to other “gods”, the term is used either of false gods, eg demons, powers and principalities, or is used sarcastically, as a literary device. So the angels are “false gods” then?
If I said: “Epy, you're the only true man on this forum,” how would that be understood?
Would people think that all other men on this forum were false? Or could it be understood to mean that you display the qualities of a man to a higher degree than any other man on this forum?–because that is how we would of course understand it.
When we are told that Jehovah is the only true God, it's obvious that he is, for he is 43 times called “Almighty” in scripture. “God” means a strong/powerful/mighty one. And since there are none mightier than He, yes, he is the only true God. There is no one that can be called his God.
Jesus of course, is extremely powerful as well, hence the word fits. But, he too has a God, and about 5 times in scripture, we're told that the Father is 'his God.' (We are never told the reverse of course, for that would be silly.)
Quote (Tiffany @ Oct. 11 2008,00:59) Since you believe that the Holy Spirit is a person, is He then Jesus's Father? It is by God's Holy Spirit that Maria became with Child?
I only know what the Scripture says:Mat 1:18 esv Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.
Luk 1:35 esv And the angel answered her, The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy the Son of God.
It is no more difficult to imagine the Holy Spirit to be the cause of Jesus' conception then it is for the Father, they are both spirit and incorporeal; and both the Holy Spirit and the Father are God. Here again, just like we have the Scriptures telling us the Father raised Jesus from the dead, and yet we have Jesus claiming that it is He who would raise himself from the dead, and yet the biblical writers seem to be conscience of no contradiction, so too we have the Scriptures on the one hand saying that it was the Holy Spirit who “overshadowed” Mary resulting in the conception of Jesus, yet we also have many instances of Jehovah/Yahweh being Jesus' Father eg resulting in Jesus' conception. Here again we can see how difficult a seemingly simple term like “Father” can be. So which is it, the Holy Spirit or Yahweh? The answer is “both” since the Holy Spirit is God.
Hope this helps.
blessings,
KenHi E,
So if God is a trinity was the son his own father?
No scripture says God is a trinity so that should be the end of discussion.Hi LU
Regarding the references in Genesis 6 where the scripture says the sons of God saw the daughters of men..
This does not say it is angels – that is an assumption arrived at based upon Jewish historians such as Josephus
and upon the recently discovered ‘book of Enoch’Job 38:7 Where the morning star sang and the sons of God shouted for joy,
this also does not say definitively that it is angels being referred to …The most mysterious references to me are those found in Job 1 & 2
Where the sons of God come to present themselves before the LORD and Satan also presents himself.I am not 100% sure what this is referring to but once again it does not say that they are angels.
Certainly Satan is not in the same place (Heaven) as Angels.
Also as I understand it angels dwell in heaven and worship God there continuously
So it would seem incongruent to make these sons of God angels therefore
As they are always present before the LORD and hardly need to come and present themselves…
(imo)Ken
Quote Malcom, it takes hard work and study, thats all there is to it.
I don’t see where Jesus or his disciples needed scholars to back them up.
They are our examples to follow not a bunch of “experts”.
Jesus talked to plenty of religious experts in his day
and the only ones who benefitted were those who were also sensitive to the Spirit of God.Agreed we should study to show ourselves workman approved of God
who are able to rightly divide the truth.
But how is this study accomplished?
By contemplation of scriptures and prayer primarily.
Other resources may have their place also but not before this.As for hard work being required – we are not saved by hard work but Grace.
If God deems us worthy of knowing He graciously shows us.
We need only ask in earnest through diligent prayer.
(imo)Hi MF,
Angels are frequently found on earth.
One third of them find themselves thrown from heaven.
So on what are you basing these statements and how is satan different??He did seem to do his own thing .
Hi Ken
With all due respects to your apparent vast knowledge of this subject I humbly submit the following remarks and observations:Quote Whats this….!!!?? A direct contradiction? Of course not. Why? Because our understanding of the term “firstborn”needs to be informed by the rich background of the Hebraic mind. As it turns out, when the term is applied to Jesus, it turns out that its not really a term denoting any temporal beginning at all, for Jesus is not a “firstborn: in the way we are used to thinking about the term at all, instead the term denotes a position of honor.
I disagree, just because you can show that the word ‘Firstborn’ does have a broader meaning in a few isolated scriptures in the Old Testament does not prove that this broader meaning is the only applicable meaning in the new.
Quote Just as Manasseh was the firstborn, and as such received his father's inheritance and place of honor, but then lost it due to disobedience, making Ephraim “firstborn”. Of course their chronological birth order did not change, but their place of honor did.
I agree with you that this example here was a birth right issue, we see the same situation in the story of Jacob and Esau.
I do not think you can use a few isolated examples however to discount the otherwise consistent meaning of the word ‘Firstborn’ as used in the Old Testament. The majority of cases are clearly referring to a ‘first born child’.
It certainly is no proof that the son of God did not have a beginning, as all of these who were termed ‘Firstborn’ in the Old Testament had beginnings, even the nation Israel which God calls His firstborn, has a beginning.Quote Now when it comes the term “Son”, Jesus, not having a human father, immediately is seen to not be a “Son” in the same way a human son is.
We have covered this in another post, God is Spirit – Spirit begets Spirit, Flesh begets Flesh…Quote In addressing the Father in His prayer in John 17 He says, “Thou lovedst Me before the foundation of the World.” Accordingly in the timeless past the Father and the “Son” existed in that relationship, a relationship of love, as well as of absolute Deity. In this passage the “Son” gives evidence that there was no more powerful plea in the Father's estimation than that coeternal love existing between the Father and Himself.
He also loved us before the foundation of the world, he chose us as a result and our names were put on the Lamb’s book of life. The Lamb is also said to have been slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8) yet clearly Jesus was not slain until he came in flesh at a much later time, so this is obviously a reference to the foreknowledge of God. This prayer is no proof of the eternality of the Son.Quote In Heb_1:5, that the declaration refers to the Birth is confirmed by the contrast in verse 6. Here the word “again” is rightly placed in the RV, “when He again bringeth in the Firstborn into the world.” This points on to His Second Advent, which is set in contrast to His first Advent, when God brought His Firstborn into the world the first time (see FIRSTBORN).
Look at the tense in Heb 1:5-6
A question posed: to which angel did GOD ever say ‘you are My son today I have begotten you’?
And again: to which angel did he say: ‘I will be to him a Father and he will be to me a son’?
And a third proof: when GOD brings the firstborn into the world HE says ‘let all the angels of GOD worship him.’
And they did at his birth as witnessed by the shepherds.
First question is showing us that: unlike any angel – this one is called the Son of God.
It is the first question and also first in sequence of time (imo) and the tense declares that he is his Son (not will be), and that he is begotten at that time.
Second question asks which angel did God ever say he would be a Father to him and the angel would be a son to Him.
Showing that clearly angels do not qualify for the classification of sons of God. (imo)
Also the tense here lets us know that this one spoken of (the preincarnate son) is not yet openly declared or known in an active role of Son yet.
Third and summary statement in this 3 part proof that angels do not classify as sons of God: when God now brings this one (called the firstborn) into the world the angels are commanded to worship him.
So this one brought into the world is already the firstborn before he is brought into the world. (imo)Perhaps you could show me where the word Begotten as used in the scripture does not mean to bear forth in birth an offspring of your own kind, or refer to that offspring…
Hi MF,
You say
“The Lamb is also said to have been slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8) “Not so.
The KVJ seems to show this but all others versions make it clear that the book of life is being spoken of as does a similar verse in Rev 17.8Hi Nick
Yes Satan and his angels seem to be in the lower heavens I think it is called.Not an expert on this subject by any means but as I understand it Satan was one called Lucifer and was an angel of God,
he was anointed to minister in the worship of God and he got on an ego trip and fell taking a bunch of angels with him.You are right angels are frequently found on earth,
the word angel actually translates as messenger
and there are instances in the scriptures where an earthly minister is called an angel in this context.As I understand it though an angel is a spirit being and though they may be sent to earth to deliver messages
they generally dwell in the heavenly realm.Heb 1:5-6 also sheds a little light on the fact that angels and sons of God are not the same,
as I briefly commented upon in my last reply to Ken.Hi Nick
I still believe the language of the KJV holds true in this case.
I believe that God foreknew this situation and had made prior provision for it.Rev 13:8 (NASB)
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.It is still called the book of life of the Lamb, so when did God first conceive of this book of life of the Lamb and why?
Acts 2:23 (NASB)
this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.A firstborn can lose his birth right and given to another.
All firstborns were literally speaking the firstborn.
With the following exception: It could be lost and given/transferred to another.
So why isn't Jesus literally the firstborn of all creation?
Why isn't he the first act of the Father?What makes a person think that Yeshua wasn't actually the first born of or over all creation, but only in status?
Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 11 2008,01:40) Hi LU Regarding the references in Genesis 6 where the scripture says the sons of God saw the daughters of men..
This does not say it is angels – that is an assumption arrived at based upon Jewish historians such as Josephus
and upon the recently discovered ‘book of Enoch’Job 38:7 Where the morning star sang and the sons of God shouted for joy,
this also does not say definitively that it is angels being referred to …The most mysterious references to me are those found in Job 1 & 2
Where the sons of God come to present themselves before the LORD and Satan also presents himself.I am not 100% sure what this is referring to but once again it does not say that they are angels.
Certainly Satan is not in the same place (Heaven) as Angels.
Also as I understand it angels dwell in heaven and worship God there continuously
So it would seem incongruent to make these sons of God angels therefore
As they are always present before the LORD and hardly need to come and present themselves…
(imo)
H Malcolm,
The commentaries I read that commented on the “sons of God” in these verses in Job (I didn't research the commentaries on the other verses) agree that they are the angels. Who else could it have been? IMO it seems obvious.Job 2:1-6
…I. The court set, and the prosecutor, or accuser, making his appearance (v. 1-2), as before, Job 1:6-7. The angels attended God's throne and Satan among them….
(from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright  1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)Job 2:1
A day – appointed for the angels giving an account of their ministry to God. The words to present himself before the Lord occur here, though not in Job 1:6, since Satan now has a special report to make regarding Job….
(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright  1997 by Biblesoft)LU
Hi E,
Quote
I only know what the Scripture says:Mat 1:18 esv Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.
Luk 1:35 esv And the angel answered her, The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy the Son of God.
It is no more difficult to imagine the Holy Spirit to be the cause of Jesus' conception then it is for the Father, they are both spirit and incorporeal; and both the Holy Spirit and the Father are God. Here again, just like we have the Scriptures telling us the Father raised Jesus from the dead, and yet we have Jesus claiming that it is He who would raise himself from the dead, and yet the biblical writers seem to be conscience of no contradiction, so too we have the Scriptures on the one hand saying that it was the Holy Spirit who “overshadowed” Mary resulting in the conception of Jesus, yet we also have many instances of Jehovah/Yahweh being Jesus' Father eg resulting in Jesus' conception. Here again we can see how difficult a seemingly simple term like “Father” can be. So which is it, the Holy Spirit or Yahweh? The answer is “both” since the Holy Spirit is God.
Hope this helps.
blessings,
KenDid it ever occur to you that the Holy Spirit of the Father could be the actual inner spirit of the Father and if the Father's inner spirit does something the Father is the one doing the thing through His spirit. This is not an odd idea that the mind would control the spirit within. Therefore, the child conceived by the Holy Spirit would be the child of the Most High God of which that said spirit indwelt.
Also, in reference to the passage regarding Jesus raising Himself and the Father raising Jesus, I have this to point out to you as an easy way to reconcile this.
This passage refers to the Father's part in raising Jesus, IMO:
Matt 28:4-7
5 The angel said to the women, ” Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. 6 “He is not here, for HE HAS RISEN, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. 7 “Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you.”
NASUAnd this is where Jesus raises Himself up on the third day:
John 20:16-18
17 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.'”
NASUThere you have it, two different raising ups both on the third day.
LU
Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 11 2008,00:17) Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 10 2008,19:34) Quote listen carefully to what I am saying…..and equally carefully to what I am not saying… I am NOT saying that Jesus is not the Son of God…. I am saying that He is NOT the Son of God 1) in the same we any other human is called a son or daughter of the most high and 2) that He is not the Son in the same way a human has a Son…..
Sounds good in theory – but how can I have any concept of a son that is not like any son or offspring in the natural except that the dissimilarities be explicitly outlined to me. I don’t see statements in the scripture to that end, indicating that he is the son of God in some ways but in others not a son like us.
Perhaps it would be helpful to examine these dissimilarities as you say
(1) Dissimilar in the sense that he is not the son of God in the same way we (the sons of God) are called sons.
By this I assume you are meaning that because Jesus is the uniquely begotten son he is different.
I would say that this denotes a difference in the way he came to be manifest in flesh – i.e. he (unlike us) had a pre-existence in the form of Spirit, and a former knowledge of his Father which we lacked until the rebirth. Also he came into flesh without the need of sexual reproduction which was introduced after the fall when man took on the nature of beasts. Adam was formed by God apart from sex as was Eve. Christ was of the same pattern as are the reborn – who are not born of the will of the flesh or of man but born of God by the Spirit of God.
Also this uniqueness extends to his status as that of a firstborn and as such the principle heir to his Father. (A difference of role – not an intrinsic difference)
In any other sense I see no dissimilarity – he is a son not of Flesh but manifest in flesh, as are the sons of God, born in this world but not of it, born of the same Spirit of God.
Jesus in fact removes most of the obstacles that we as humans would tend to place before ourselves as a way of distancing ourselves from him as a son.
He unashamedly calls us brethren, not servants.
He teaches us that we can have an intimate relationship with the Father as he has.
We obtain a degree of equality with him that is likened to that of Eve – the bride of Adam, who was equal with him before the transgression. She was taken from his side, and was given to him. So is Christ the head of the Church. But this is a difference of role, not an intrinsic difference.
(2) that He is not the Son in the same way a human has a Son
Obviously we understand that any true son of God is not born by the regular human way of reproduction but by the Spirit of God. How are we different to him in this respect? Remember we are speaking here of sons of God, we are not born in flesh as sons of God but with a contrary spirit and nature to God. This is why we must be born again of the Spirit.
Only difference here between us and Jesus as a son was that he did not require a rebirth to be son of God, but was (as Adam) a son of God from birth. (imo)
So GOD does not require a process of sexual reproduction in order to produce a son of God. Instead of begetting sons by sex he begets us by His Spirit. That stands to reason considering God is Spirit and not flesh and bone.
It was GOD who set the pattern for life natural as well summarized in Gen 1:11 and whether by sex or botanic reproduction we see this pattern applies. Why did God set such unchanging patterns into His physical creation?
Because the natural shadows and types to the Spiritual. Thus we are able to draw upon natural analogies as scripture does to illustrate the way of God. (imo)
It was God who chose this use of language: Father and Son, and nowhere does he show us that this relationship is exceptional to that of a natural Father and Son, except it is obvious that there are differences in the way God achieves the bringing forth of sons, and human beings or other animals do.
Also there are differences of role and therefore position and status.
Blessings
Malcom, it takes hard work and study, thats all there is to it.Let me give you and example, lets look at the word “Firstborn”. Now we think that we all have a good handle on that word, pretty simple right? JW's and others who deny the deity and eternalty of Christ, those who say, whatever their other beliefs, that Jesus is a created being, they have all looked at this term (firstborn) and thought that:
“HA! here is proof that Jesus is not eternal!! That Jesus is a created being!! How can Jesus be called the “Firstborn” unless He came into being at a point in time, just like any other and every other “firstborn”?”
Well the answer to that question comes with some study. First we look at Gen 41:51-52 esv Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh. For, he said, God has made me forget all my hardship and all my father's house. (52) The name of the second he called Ephraim, For God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction.”
Pretty straightforward right? Manasseh is Joseph's firstborn. But wait….
Jer 31:9 esv With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.
Whats this….!!!?? A direct contradiction? Of course not. Why? Because our understanding of the term “firstborn”needs to be informed by the rich background of the Hebraic mind. As it turns out, when the term is applied to Jesus, it turns out that its not really a term denoting any temporal beginning at all, for Jesus is not a “firstborn: in the way we are used to thinking about the term at all, instead the term denotes a position of honor. Just as Manasseh was the firstborn, and as such received his father's inheritance and place of honor, but then lost it due to disobedience, making Ephraim “firstborn”. Of course their chronological birth order did not change, but their place of honor did. Now when it comes the term “Son”, Jesus, not having a human father, immediately is seen to not be a “Son” in the same way a human son is. So if it doesn't mean “progeny: or “physical descendant what does it mean? Well, it turns out the the phrase “Son of God” is actually a Messianic title and much more should be understood when we see the phrase then merely some vague reference supposedly meaning that Jesus is not eternal merely because He is a Son. Vine's writes “* The Son of God
In this title the word “Son” is used sometimes (a) of relationship, sometimes (b) of the expression of character. “Thus, e.g., when the disciples so addressed Him, Mat_14:33; Mat_16:16; Joh_1:49, when the centurion so spoke of Him, Mat_27:54, they probably meant that (b) He was a manifestation of God in human form. But in such passages as Luk_1:32, Luk_1:35; Act_13:33, which refer to the humanity of the Lord Jesus, the word is used in sense (a).
“The Lord Jesus Himself used the full title on occasion, Joh_5:25; Joh_9:35 [some mss. have 'the Son of Man'; see RV marg.]; Joh_11:4, and on the more frequent occasions on which He spoke of Himself as 'the Son,' the words are to be understood as an abbreviation of 'the Son of God,' not of 'the Son of M
an'; this latter He always expressed in full; see Luk_10:22; Joh_5:19, etc.“John uses both the longer and shorter forms of the title in his Gospel, see Joh_3:16-18; Joh_20:31, e.g., and in his Epistles; cp. Rev_2:18. So does the writer of Hebrews, Heb_1:2; Heb_4:14; Heb_6:6, etc. An eternal relation subsisting between the Son and the Father in the Godhead is to be understood. That is to say, the Son of God, in His eternal relationship with the Father, is not so entitled because He at any time began to derive His being from the Father (in which case He could not be co-eternal with the Father), but because He is and ever has been the expression of what the Father is; cp. Joh_14:9, 'he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.' The words of Heb_1:3, 'Who being the effulgence of His (God's) glory, and the very image of His (God's) substance' are a definition of what is meant by 'Son of God.' Thus absolute Godhead, not Godhead in a secondary or derived sense, is intended in the title.” * [* From Notes on Galatians, by Hogg and Vine, pp. 99, 100.]
Other titles of Christ as the “Son of God” are: “His Son,” 1Th_1:10 (in Act_13:13, Act_13:26, RV, pais is rendered “servant”); “His own Son,” Rom_8:32; “My beloved Son,” Mat_3:17; “His Only Begotten Son,” Joh_3:16; “the Son of His love,” Col_1:13.
“The Son is the eternal object of the Father's love, Joh_17:24, and the sole Revealer of the Father's character, Joh_1:14; Heb_1:3. The words, 'Father' and 'Son,' are never in the NT so used as to suggest that the Father existed before the Son; the Prologue to the Gospel according to John distinctly asserts that the Word existed 'in the beginning,' and that this Word is the Son, Who 'became flesh and dwelt among us.'” * [* From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine pp. 46,47.]
In addressing the Father in His prayer in John 17 He says, “Thou lovedst Me before the foundation of the World.” Accordingly in the timeless past the Father and the “Son” existed in that relationship, a relationship of love, as well as of absolute Deity. In this passage the “Son” gives evidence that there was no more powerful plea in the Father's estimation than that coeternal love existing between the Father and Himself.
The declaration “Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee,” Psa_2:7, quoted in Act_13:33; Heb_1:5; Heb_5:5, refers to the birth of Christ, not to His resurrection. In Act_13:33 the verb “raise up” is used of the raising up of a person to occupy a special position in the nation, as of David in Act_13:22 (so of Christ as a Prophet in Act_3:22; Act_7:37). The word “again” in the AV in Act_13:33 represents nothing in the original. The RV rightly omits it. In Act_13:34 the statement as to the resurrection of Christ receives the greater stress in this respect through the emphatic contrast to that in Act_13:33 as to His being raised up in the nation, a stress imparted by the added words “from the dead.” Accordingly Act_13:33 speaks of His incarnation, Act_13:34 of His resurrection.
In Heb_1:5, that the declaration refers to the Birth is confirmed by the contrast in verse 6. Here the word “again” is rightly placed in the RV, “when He again bringeth in the Firstborn into the world.” This points on to His Second Advent, which is set in contrast to His first Advent, when God brought His Firstborn into the world the first time (see FIRSTBORN). * [* The Western text of Luk_3:22 reads “Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee,” instead of “Thou art My beloved Son, in Thee I am well pleased.” There is probably some connection between this and those early heresies which taught that our Lord's Deity began at His baptism.”
Thayer says “Term (Son of God) used preeminently of Jesus Christ, as enjoying the supreme love of God, united to him in affectionate intimacy, privy to his saving councils, obedient to the Father’s will in all his acts”
The important thing, or one of the important things to take from all this is to simply not take it for granted that one knows what a certain phrase or word means without first doing at least a little research.
blessings,
Ken
Hello again E,
So Jesus fulfilled the law in every way but didn't fulfill the requirements for being the perfect sacrifice in every way? I find that inconsistent. If He wasn't the actual “firstborn” but one given the title “firstborn” over another, btw who was the “other” that He took the rightful title away from, then He wasn't the perfect sacrifice. In the OT, the creme of the crop animal that met all the qualities of the best one to sacrifice was the one first out of the womb, unblemished, and spotless.Also, the term “firstborn” does not equal “first created.” I don't believe that is says that Adam is the firstborn man but he was the first created man. I don't believe that the Son came into existence as a created work but as by reproduction from an uncreated Father-God.
LU
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 11 2008,23:03) A firstborn can lose his birth right and given to another. All firstborns were literally speaking the firstborn.
With the following exception: It could be lost and given/transferred to another.
So why isn't Jesus literally the firstborn of all creation?
Why isn't he the first act of the Father?What makes a person think that Yeshua wasn't actually the first born of or over all creation, but only in status?
t8 Good question!! Those that do not believe in the preexisting of Jesus however, seem to not look at it like that.
Is it because God only calls a few to understand the Truth right now? Many are called and few are chosen. We can talk to them until you blue in the face and they just don't get. I have found that to be true with our Family too.
We do know that all truth will be taught in the Millenium and the truth will cover the earth like water covers the sea.
I believe time is short, all signs are here. For Christ return.
I for one am looking forward to that very much.
Peace and Love IreneHi LU
Good questions, like I say I do not have all the answers.
There is a hint in the Scriptures that a great deal had already transpired before the scene in Gen1:1.
And that the state of the Genesis 1 earth was the result of a great catastrophic event.I do not claim to know a lot about the subject as little is written concerning it in scripture.
Certainly this is an interesting topic,
perhaps it would be best continued on a different thread as it does tend to digress from the topic at hand.Suffice to say that I believe that angels are a different classification of being to sons of God.
Their primary role and purpose appears to be to worship God and to act as His messengers.
In Revelation we are told that the redeemed sing the song of the Lamb –
a song which angels are not entitled to sing as they cannot claim the experience of salvation.Also we learn from Jesus that friends are not as servants,
they are made privy to the Fathers’ business to a greater degree than are servants. (15:5)Paul tells us that angels desired to look into the things that we have been privileged to learn by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (1 Pet 1:12)
Also in 1 Cor 6:3 Paul tells us that we shall judge angels,
which suggests to me that a son of God holds a position and status in Heaven differing to that of angels.Looking at Heb 1:4 we find that Jesus is above the angels due to the fact that he,
by inheritance has a more excellent name than them.In other words he is a Son of God not a servant.
A servant does not inherit a Father’s estate in the normal course.I have already commented on the verses that follow in another post on this thread –
suffice to say that I believe ample distinction is made between angels and the Son of God.The same does not hold true to the same degree when looking at the distinctions made between the Son of God and men.
Upon redemption through rebirth we become his brethren.
Through Christ God does much to remove the differences we had with Him by conforming us into the image of His Son.
We are given a place in the shared throne of God’s administration, to rule and reign as kings and priests.
I do not see any mention of angels obtaining such positions.
(imo)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
