The Son of God

Participant

Hey Nick,

you said:
Hi A7,
I think the key scripture about the Fatherhood of God is Ps 2. God exults in the Son He, and I believe He alone, has begotten. No mention of the role of the dust of man as in the conception within Mary's womb.
The Son relates what He has heard the Father say;

1. Son relates what He has heard the Father say; – hold on, David said it, prophetically of a day still not come…

2. No mention of begetting of the Father in some distant past either. Adam begat Seth, Abraham begat Isaac, Jesse begat David – no mention of Eve or Sarah etc, why because the generations were given from the Father. SO I see no problem with the verse above being when Christ was conceived in the Womb of Mary by the power of the Most High.

“He said to me
'You are My Son. Today I have begotten you'”

I don't see how you can say from the above that Jesus is an existent being from the past. Firstly it is prophetic future prophecy and the whole passage is about future dont you think?

Verse 1,2&3: Sounds like a battle is brewing! It is not something that has happened yet but will happen – the Armageddon battle in Rev.
Verse 5&6: This is still to happen, Christ has not come back as King, but he has gone to heaven to receive a kingdom. He will rule as king but has not done so as of yet.
Verse 7,8 & 9: Are all future events… all nations do not at this point belong to Christ, Satan is still the god of this world. This will happen at the 7th trumpet according to – Rev 11:15

Verse 7 Cannot be in a period prior when all the rest of the Psalm is in the future.
Verses10,11 & 12 Again this is future not sometime in the past.

I believe this passage is future, therefore cannot be past… however you must see it differently but I am not sure how…

You also said:
What natural infant could remember the words of his father at his natural birth or conception? Were those words heard at his birth? They are not recorded. No.This is different.

I dont see this as a valid arguement… it does not state anything to prove either past – or future, but a day it happened – the references in Acts and Hebrews do not speak of a time in the past…

Acts 13:32 – At his resurrection
Heb 1:5 b – nothing is stated, so you can imply anytime to this one I guess – it is not arguing a time but stating that not one of the angels was called Son and that God was their Father.
Heb 1:5c – going back to read 2 Samuel 7:14 is very interesting…A word to Solomon I understand but used here of Christ – I do not know how this applies to the Christ because it talks about “when [not if] he does wrong” he will be punished with a rod weilded by human beings, with floggins inflicted by human hands… (sound familiar – Christ was beaten with rods on the head, and was sent to be flogged… mmm don't like that) however, God would never take his love from him but would establish his Kingdom forever… I cannot find any place where this happened to Solomon when he was king in Israel. Do you know of any.

Heb 5:5-7 I feel: shows that he was a son not from some distant past but “during his days on earth” as it states at the beginning of v7 and it also says he learned obedience from what he suffered and once made perfect he [became] the source of eternal salvation and the he was [designated to be high priest BY GOD] in the order of Melchizedek.

SO verse 5 & 6 to me seem to apply to the time when he was made perfect. Received a heavenly body maybe. Just a thought.

What does it mean to be made perfect. I have noticed it in many places where it talks about eternal life, or resurrection. What do you think?

Take care…

May 16, 2006 at 4:39 am#13634

Participant

God has a form but is invisible to men, according to scripture. His throne is in heaven but it too has been manifested in visible form as shown in Ez 1-10 and seems to be composed of living spiritual beings… with wheels!

I agree… not visible to men but God has a form. I can go with that.

I just struggle to understand he is Spirit yet does not have a spirit body. He must have a body of some sort to have form. We cant see angels unless they somehow appear to us, yet they are there all around us according to Scriptures.

Heavenly bodies; maybe angelic but Christ has a heavenly body too, so is it feasible to say God does too for Christ to be the exact representation of the Father. To worship something you can't see is one thing as humanity on earth but in eternity I believe we will see God and fall down in worship because He is great and greatly to be praised.

The angels come into his presence, worship before him, receive instruction, deliver information of what is happening on earth. Christ sits at his right hand and God speaks, searches and acts from heaven – etc

As for being seen in visible form – Ez 1-10 is a vision, Dan 7 was a vision; The Scriptures state; no man has seen God at any time (Jesus and Paul). Jesus always addressed the Father as being in Heaven…

those are my thought so far…

May 16, 2006 at 4:52 am#13635

NickHassan

Participant

Quote (Artizan007 @ May 16 2006,05:39)

I agree… not visible to men but God has a form. I can go with that.

those are my thought so far…

Hi A7,
Who knows.
All we know is that God is spirit.
And Jesus now has a heavenly body.
Are spiritual bodies visible always, or sometimes? Who knows?

May 16, 2006 at 4:52 am#13636

Participant

Quote (Artizan007 @ May 16 2006,05:12)

Heb 1:5c – going back to read 2 Samuel 7:14 is very interesting…A word to Solomon I understand but used here of Christ – I do not know how this applies to the Christ because it talks about “when [not if] he does wrong” he will be punished with a rod weilded by human beings, with floggins inflicted by human hands… (sound familiar – Christ was beaten with rods on the head, and was sent to be flogged… mmm don't like that) however, God would never take his love from him but would establish his Kingdom forever… I cannot find any place where this happened to Solomon when he was king in Israel. Do you know of any.

SO verse 5 & 6 to me seem to apply to the time when he was made perfect. Received a heavenly body maybe. Just a thought.

What does it mean to be made perfect. I have noticed it in many places where it talks about eternal life, or resurrection. What do you think?

Take care…

Hi Artizan007, hope you are well.
It's not that unusual for NT writers to take a verse in the OT that ostensibly deals with one subject and apply it to another in the NT. OT scriptures are often applied in reference to Yahshua but come from a passage that, in its entirety, doesn’t appear messianic at all. In some instances just a few words from one particular verse are quoted this way. 2 Samuel 7:14a is a good example of this:

2 Samuel 7:14
14I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

Hebrews 1:5
5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

On the surface 2 Sam 7:14a seems to have a direct application to king Solomon, but the writer of Hebrews applies it to Christ. I think it’s far more important to look at the context that the writer of Hebrews put 2 Sam 7:14a into, than the context of the passage it came from. The writer applied it to Jesus – therefore, by default, it is a messianic verse, the front half anyway. I suppose it's important to bear in mind that the Holy Spirit has inside knowledge on OT texts that we aren't privy to.

Hope this help.
Blessings

May 16, 2006 at 5:14 am#13637

Participant

HI A7

Quote

I believe you are right God does have a spirit body, He is called the father of Lights, His Son is called the Light of the world, and we are lights of the world in his absense.
His Son was called the Word.
I believe Like begets like, so although His form may not be visible to human senses, yet he can be manifest in many forms. As a light (pillar of fire), in and through men…
Light is not visible unless it is reflected or refracted off some substance so that fits with the thought that He is a great being of Light.

Just my 2 cents worth

May 16, 2006 at 5:45 am#13638

Sammo

Participant

Hi Artizan007

You're on the right track

Here are a few questions that might help you gather your thoughts – they all have very easy answers, but this is as complicated as it needs to get!

Why is Jesus called “the Son of God”?
In that case, where in the Bible do we read about the birth of Jesus?
And when was that?

Based on a natural, simple reading of scripture, was Jesus 'begotten' at the beginning of the gospels, or at some indeterminate time before Genesis 1?

Does it make sense to you that Jesus, a pre-existent divine being, could somehow empty himself of all his knowledge, experience, glory, and power, to be born a helpless human child, and yet still be the same Jesus? If yes, in exactly what sense would he still be the same?

Do the gospel stories of the birth of Jesus explain the fact that, actually, he had already existed for thousands of years? Do they use the language of incarnation, or simply describe the birth of a newborn child?

Keep thinking, and God be with you

Sam

May 16, 2006 at 6:22 am#13639

Participant

Hi Is 1:8,

Thanks for your reply…

I am well, thanks for asking…

I know that is how you are supposed to understand these “messiahanic” verses but it still seems to be taken out of context by chosing a half verse and ignoring the rest of the sentence…Some are simply way out… ie: Heb 1:7 cf Deut 32:43 (nothing like that in my TNIV or NKJV) Kind of what we do to prove many of our so called doctrines we have today… On this site we call it Proof Texting… yet we must accept that this was not so from the writers of the NT inspired by the HS… 😉

If they did it then, used half a verse out of context to prove Christ, then why are we taught that we cannot do the same to the word today? Just a question? Instead, we are taught never to do this. We are always to read a verse in the context and apply it accordingly.

It just seems like preachers license to me. Lucky dip…

If I were to do that today to say create some obscure doctrine to say we are aliens and back it up with half a verse of scripture for eg: where Jesus says “We are not of this world” – you would cry heresy, and what about the rest of what it says in the verse or passage – read the context, rightly divide the truth … would you not.

However, you said it yourself, they pick seemingly random verses that do not even seem to apply to the Messiah, out from various places and say they point to the Christ when it has nothing to do with him at all. So it seems 😉

I hear what you say but it still goes against everything we are taught at college about rightly dividing the Word of Truth… context context context is stated all the time – yet not here to the writers of the NT.

Isaiah 7:14 is a classic too. Jesus never ate curds and honey, I never see it documented that he was once called Immanuel but Jesus was his name o – well not that i can find, yet we take the first verse and say oh this predicts the Christ because it is used in Matthew, yet the rest of the passage is not as it is not relevant to him.

The verse here talks about a virgin, or young woman – we know the son produced was a natural conception like every other person that has walked this planet, but when depicting the Christ it suddenly changes to the incarnation of the Christ… born to a Virgin.

All i can do right now is by faith accept this as true, for my logic and how we are trained to think, says it is foolishness… taking something that applies to one thing and making it state something it was never meant to state goes against how we are taught to think.

I love the Scriptures but it can be frustrating at times as you work through the hard questions … Just when you think you have it – then something else is highlighted and you have to rethink your position throught yet again. I guess it is the wonder of it – and i would not change anything and must keep digging … hehe

May 16, 2006 at 6:29 am#13641

Participant

Thanks Sammo,

That is where my understanding seems to be taking me too… but I will keep seeking and praying to understand this Truth.

May 16, 2006 at 6:33 am#13642

Participant

Malcom,

I will take your two cents worth… I bet there is more in the piggy bank where those came from…

Keep seeking

May 16, 2006 at 6:39 am#13643

Sammo

Participant

Hi Artizan007

Quote (Artizan007 @ May 16 2006,07:22)

Some are simply way out… ie: Heb 1:7 cf Deut 32:43 (nothing like that in my TNIV or NKJV)

It's usually a quote from the Septuagint in those cases, although probably you already knew that. Certainly raises its own questions about how inspired the Seputuagint is though, doesn't it (Am open to ideas.)

Quote (Artizan007 @ May 16 2006,07:22)

Thanks for bringing that up – had never thought about that. My best guess is that maybe honey here is intended as a symbol of God's word? (ie Psa 119:103, Prov 24:13-14, Psa 19:10, Ex 16:31 etc) But that's a total stab in the dark, will ask around.

Sam

May 16, 2006 at 6:52 am#13645

Participant

Malcom,

You dont think that the light and pillars of fire, clouds, lightenings etc are more like the result of God in action rather than God himself. Just a thought.

If I am made in God's image, I would find it disconcerting to think that I am really serving a pillar of fire, or a light… yes He is Light, and a fire goes before him, but is that produced as a result of who he is rather than God being light or fire Himself?

I hope I am serving the Creator, a being of somekind, with form, shape who has some resemblence to His Creation. I guess I would get used to it over time if that were not so… I just can't imagine bowing down to some Fire or Light when we are taught to bow to God alone, however, I can see myself bowing to God who is spirit and has a spirit body… that probably shines so bright, and is magnificiently beautiful and awe inspiring … enough for me to say Holy, Holy, Holy for all eternity!!!

May 16, 2006 at 7:06 am#13647

Participant

Its a form that shows God's presence, like the shekinah glory that is attendant upon the throne.
Heb 1 expresses it well: God in different ways at different times – in many different forms and for differing purposes.
In the old testament in one of the books of the prophets we are told that in the vision of the throne of God a being of light is seen, looking like a man…
I would say that the image of God we are made after the likeness of – although not flesh looks like a man of flesh.

May 16, 2006 at 7:32 am#13649

Participant

Hi Malcom,

I see it says God SPOKE to us through our ancestors and prophets at many times and in various ways, not revealed Himself to us… in differing forms and for differing purposes… in the last says he has spoken through his Son.

Do you agree?

May 16, 2006 at 7:41 am#13650

Participant

Yes, that's true
Also when He speaks to us it is usually in order to reveal Himself to us, to show us more of Himself, of His ways, His will, His purpose. To draw nigh unto us by condescending to speak to us . We are told that Moses saw God face to face, the people heard His voice through Moses.

May 16, 2006 at 7:45 am#13651

Participant

Quote (Sammo @ May 16 2006,07:39)

It's usually a quote from the Septuagint in those cases, although probably you already knew that. Certainly raises its own questions about how inspired the Seputuagint is though, doesn't it

(Am open to ideas.)

Hi Sammo
Here's a few:

1. Jesus didn't seem to have an issue with it, the one time we are told that He read Scripture in the synagogue, the text he read followed the LXX (Luke 4:16-19).

2. When Yahshua was tempted by Satan in Matt. 4 didn't He quote the Greek Scriptures back to him? Matthew 4:4 says, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” The Hebrew Scriptures render it “The mouth of the Lord”, but the Greek Old Testament records “The mouth of God.”

3. the NT writers generally quoted from the LXX. In their “inspired” opinions it was obviously OK.

I don't know if this authenticates the “inspiration” of the LXX, but I find these points provocative.

May 16, 2006 at 8:52 am#13652

Participant

Hi Malcom,

When it says Moses spoke “face to face”, is it literal or is it another way of saying Moses was a friend of God and had an intimate relationship with the LORD. A divine encounter… For in the next verses it says, you cannot see my face and live… so it was a up close and personal, but probably His presence, not His essence was seen.

What is the verse about the people hearing God's voice through Moses? That is scary if it does actually say that… I have never seen it but it did frown first and then it made me smile as I thought about it.

Hehe can you imagine; “Please welcome to the stage, Moses the Reed Sea Opener, Bitter/Sweet Water Maker, Desert Hard Rock Cafe Owner – now turned Ventriloquist”… 😉 sorry could not resist that…

Can I ask why you say God has to condesend to talk to us? Condescending to me talks of aloofness… I don't see God as being that at all… was that what you were trying to say or did i read that wrong?

May 16, 2006 at 9:19 am#13653

Participant

Hi A7

Perhaps a better translation might be lip to ear.
We are told that no man can see God and live, so we have to console ourselves with the ways in which He reveals Himself.
When I say condescend I am only referring to the fact that unless he does come down to our level He is absolutely beyond us.

EXODUS 20:18-22
And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off.
And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.
And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not.
And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.
And the LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.

This whole experience was so fearful to the people that they requested that God speak to them through Moses instead.

ISAIAH 55:8-9
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

See its not aloofness, just a need to identify with us at our level.

May 16, 2006 at 9:22 am#13654

Participant

Quote

Hi Is 1:8,
I am well, thanks for asking…

Glad to hear it.

Quote

I understand where you're coming from. I suppose it's a matter of perspective. If you accept that the NT (i.e. the original manuscripts) is supernaturally-inspired and inerrant then the true context of these OT quotes is dictated by its authors. They obviously know something we don't, and even if they didn't understand it themselves when they applied the quote, The Holy Spirit guiding them did. If you don't accept the inspiration then your point is reasonably valid…..sound's like circular reasoning I suppose….

Quote

He he, another good point. To be fair to the NT authors in most of their writings they use a lot of OT Scripture and build a case for their argument. John, for example, wrote a 21 chapter treatise (with numerous OT citations) in order to impress upon His readers that Yahshua was the “Son of God” (Joh 1:34). So although a particular OT quote in isolation might strike us as strange, they are not building doctrine on this one verse. Many are usually cited along side it to convey a point, so i'm not sure that qualifies as prooftexting.

There is a tonne of OT quotes in Hebrews 1 but they, to me, appear to be variations on a theme. The vast majority of the first 14 verses in Hebrews 1 are, according to the writer, addressed to the Son BY THE FATHER. That is how He read them. And Artizan007, you know that there is a lot of predictive prophecy in the OT, and that it's not always immediately apparent that that is what it is. Maybe we underestimate the prophetic content in the OT in general? Just some random thoughts……..

Quote

I agree. But even if you totally reject the inspiration and inerrancy of the NT you still have to concede that the men that wrote it KNEW their scripture. Paul, who wrote most of the NT, was an intellectual giant of his era, had the best education possible, and was exceptionally well versed in OT Scripture – and of course all this shows in his linguistic excellence. So we can assume that He KNEW what he was doing in handling OT scripture. The other writers, while they might not be of Paul's calibre, still understood how to correctly handle OT scripture – certainly better than us anyway. Just my immediate thoughts….not sure if this addresses you question or not.

Quote

I think Malcolm has made the comment that he believe Yahshua was on every page of the OT (or words to that effect). I have to agree. The more I understand OT scripture the more I read into these verses:

Luke 24:25-27
Then said He unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself

John 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

John 5:46-47
For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?

Hebrews 10:5-7
5Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,
“(SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED,
BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME;
6IN WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE TAKEN NO PLEASURE.
7″THEN I SAID, 'BEHOLD, I HAVE COME
(IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME)
TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD.

Quote

Yes Artizan, it's hard to argue with that to a degree. But your statement assumes that we 100% understand the true contexts of the OT quotes. I know I don't. And I'm happy to lean on the understanding of the OT writers – Who I believe were inspired By the Holy Spirit and wrote inerrantly (as recorded in the original autographs).

Quote

I think Sammo said he would look into this for you, if he comes up empty (or I disagree with him :-)) I will have a look at it for you.

Quote

He he. Artizan007, you will NEVER see me advocating that someone abandon logic and reason with respect to scriptural exegesis. Again, i'll reiterate that I don't think there is any solid reason to assume that the OT quotes were without doubt non-messianic in nature, or at the very least dualistic.

Quote

It's great you are actively searching for truth. And that you haven't simply out-sourced your theology. I agree that it's frustrating at times, but the breakthroughs are exciting aren't they?

Blessings

May 16, 2006 at 9:32 am#13655

Sammo

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 16 2006,08:45)

Quote (Sammo @ May 16 2006,07:39)

It's usually a quote from the Septuagint in those cases, although probably you already knew that. Certainly raises its own questions about how inspired the Seputuagint is though, doesn't it

(Am open to ideas.)

Hi Sammo
Here's a few:

1. Jesus didn't seem to have an issue with it, the one time we are told that He read Scripture in the synagogue, the text he read followed the LXX (Luke 4:16-19).

3. the NT writers generally quoted from the LXX. In their “inspired” opinions it was obviously OK.

I don't know if this authenticates the “inspiration” of the LXX, but I find these points provocative.

Hi Is 1:18

Thanks, very interesting! Do you think that means the entire Septuagint is ok, or just the passages that get quoted in the NT?

May 16, 2006 at 9:37 am#13656