The Son of God

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Sammo @ May 16 2006,10:32)

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?

I don't think I have enough information to make a definitive call on that one Sammo. Like I said previously the points I raised are 'provocative' to me….

[Artizan007]

Back to the topic I digressed – sorry:

Why does John 1 have to be The Word and not the word. The word was spoken and it became flesh in the past (not human but a creature), God breathed and that breath “became” a living creature in the past – God's word is an active, creative force – the word of God created the heavens in Psalm 33:6, the stary hosts by the breath (same word as spirit) of his Mouth. So then why not the “word was God” in John 1. If God's word acts, divides, sharpens, lives, is active, instructs, strenghtens, heals… then why can that word not be with Him and is Him… his word does not return void… so it is who He is… it was the what God spoke that brought into being plants, fish, heavenly bodies, etc. why then can it not be said, the word “became” flesh… it did in the past why not in John 1… it created the world in the past Psalm 33:6 why not John 1?

[Artizan007]

Some say Jesus is God, so why is it kept hush hush in the Scriptures… A dogma can only be built on many direct statements repeated throughout scripture: It states he is the Son of God, Son of Man over and over, but not once is it stated he is God the Son or God the Man?

In fact can you find any of these words and phrases in the bible:
Trinity, Triune, Triad, God the Son, God the Spirit, God the Holy Ghost, Yehovah Jesus, God Man, God Mediator, God Incarnate, 1st Person, 2nd Person, 3rd Person, Three in One, One in Three, Three Equal persons in the Godhead, Three-One God, Sacred Three, Eternal Three, Two Natures, Dual Nature, Human and Divine Nature, Very God Very Man, Coequal, Co-eternal, Co-essential, Eternally Begotten, Eternal Son of God, Eternal Son

Nope – I cant find any of them – but I do find of the Christ: Jesus, the Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus Christ, Lamb of God Lord Jesus Christ, (Though not before his resurrection) Lord Christ Jesus, Lord Jesus, the Word of God, Son of Man, Son of God, Teacher, Lord, Son of David, Son of Joseph, Son of Mary, High Priest, Apostle, Brother, Mediator, Prophet, Messiah, Saviour, Jesus Christ the Righteous One and many many more – etc

[Artizan007]

In the geneologies of Jesus, Matthew and Luke; Why is only Adam called the son of God. Jesus himself was not given this title, but son of David and Son of Joseph (as was supposed) – did they even have parenthesis in those days, or did some scribe insert his thoughts in later – hehe? it is a strange way to write. Why not just write the truth and say Son of God? It is after all the Truth, the Word of Truth. A little strange don't you think – kind of evasive? Jesus is not ashamed to call the Samaritan woman a dog, and account it as such, but when it comes to the most important issues that are pivotal to our faith it is only by parenthasis that we can see an implied meaning… luke 3 geneology.

Matthews is interesting too:
Matthew 1:16

Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the F16 Messiah (hehe – called the Super Fighter Messiah. It had this on the NAS version on the net, so I kept it in for all to enjoy the treasure I found – maybe I will put if forward to the US Airforce if they upgrade)

Notice Joseph is the subject – the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Christ. by whom refers to Joseph… the Husband of Mary… i think… I am not an expert on grammar, so if you know better then let me know.

If I said “let me introduce you to Kendle the Husband of Wendy, by whom five kids were born… who would I be talking about? Certainly not Wendy…

Your thoughts…

[Artizan007]

En arxh hn (5713) o logov, kai o logov hn (5713) prov ton qeon, kai qeov hn (5713) o logov.

Why do we translate it “and the Word was God”, should it not be “and God was the Word”…

[Artizan007]

En arxh hn (5713) o logov, kai o logov hn (5713) prov ton qeon, kai qeov hn (5713) o logov.

Or could it say, in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and divine was the word.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God , and the Word was God .

Can anyone tell me what the 4 3588 numbers are for at the beginning of the sentence. It is the word for HO – # this, that, these, the etc…

[NickHassan]

Quote (Artizan007 @ May 16 2006,08:32)

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?

Indeed Artizan 7,
The SON through whom He made the World.
How can this be?

[Cubes]

Quote (Artizan007 @ May 16 2006,12:50)

Some say Jesus is God, so why is it kept hush hush in the Scriptures… A dogma can only be built on many direct statements repeated throughout scripture: It states he is the Son of God, Son of Man over and over, but not once is it stated he is God the Son or God the Man? In fact can you find any of these words and phrases in the bible: Trinity, Triune, Triad, God the Son, God the Spirit, God the Holy Ghost, Yehovah Jesus, God Man, God Mediator, God Incarnate, 1st Person, 2nd Person, 3rd Person, Three in One, One in Three, Three Equal persons in the Godhead, Three-One God, Sacred Three, Eternal Three, Two Natures, Dual Nature, Human and Divine Nature, Very God Very Man, Coequal, Co-eternal, Co-essential, Eternally Begotten, Eternal Son of God, Eternal Son Nope – I cant find any of them – but I do find of the Christ: Jesus, the Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus Christ, Lamb of God  Lord Jesus Christ, (Though not before his resurrection) Lord Christ Jesus, Lord Jesus, the Word of God, Son of Man, Son of God, Teacher, Lord, Son of David, Son of Joseph, Son of Mary, High Priest, Apostle, Brother, Mediator, Prophet, Messiah, Saviour, Jesus Christ the Righteous One and many many more – etc

Hey A007:

As usual, great post but you are increasing my gray hairs upon me, dude!

Fascinating find! Are you saying that to your knowledge you didn't see the word “Lord” applied to our Lord until after his resurrection? If so, that all the more confirms that Phil 2:5f could not have intended Jesus to be equal to the Father as that and other several scriptures clearly show that he was highly exalted AFTER his mission. Have you had a chance to look also in the OT?

I have posted that Jesus is A God/god, based on Is 9:6 and the few NT scriptures such as Hebrews 1:8-9. Consider that the Father made Moses as a God to Pharoah and that the ones to whom the word of the Lord came, HE called Gods… and here we speak of the Son of God who is the only begotten. Hope that helps.

I am with you on the rest!

Secondly, regarding your post on the word/Word of God. You explained but I don't quite follow so could you come again?

Are you saying: God spoke and said “let there be light” and there was light. So he spoke, let there be Jesus and there was Jesus. And in this case the light is not the Word and so Jesus may not be the Word any more than any thing that was spoken into being, but that the “word” is just the Father talking and his words are with and in him? Have I understood you correctly? I considered that in times past and ruled it out based on the following:

My believe is that John meant Jesus to be the Word. It would make sense out of Colossians 1:16f and ?Hebrews 1:4; that a case is made for two persons in John 1:1 because of the fact that the Word was WITH God. Similar language is used in the epistle of John when speaking of the Eternal Life… This union of two persons and beings is furthermore confirmed by scriptures like: YHWH said to my Lord, sit at my right hand….; Hebrews 1:8-9; Rev 5 when we see the Lamb with the Father, and ?Rev 22:1. Soon, that number would increase to contain all that are found in Christ. God would remain God and so shall the Christ remain the Christ, and his disciples and other greats rulers with him of kingdoms.

We know that the Father alone is eternal in origin. Christ gains his eternal life from him (he said so), and through Christ we receive of the same eternal life which is from the Father.

I do not know when the Son became a son and I lean towards the fact that he came from heaven. Perhaps coming from heaven refers to the Holy Spirit of God that comes from the Father in Heaven…? I do not know. So we don't know his birthdate or the “country” of his birth. Don't we know a lot of people like that? Does our lack of info change the fact that they do exist fully? He says he came from heaven. He could not say so unless he did and the above is one way to consider it.

I am an immigrant. My kid could say I am “African” or from “Africa” because she identifies strongly with my origins and heritage and perceives herself to be African (particularly if race plays into it), though she may have never been to Africa before/yet. Does that make her a liar in the essential meaning? In fact children may even be conceived in one nation and born in another. That is our limited scenarios of earth. What of the Christ?

Could similar things be true of him or not be true? And does our lack of understanding due to lack of details change the fact that he really is begotten of God, is the Son of God who comes FROM the Father (whether pre-existent 2 ions or millenia or centuries or hours ago or in the form of the new born babe in Bethlehem approx 2,000 years ago), by whom God reconciles the world to himself?

[NickHassan]

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

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) 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. 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

Hi sammo,
The verse has a double significance and the 'curds and honey' apply to the contemporaneous fulfullment and not the prophetic aspect concerning Christ, as the continuation of the verse shows.
Why would you cast doubt on the Septuagint?

[Sammo]

Quote (Artizan007 @ May 16 2006,12:50)

Back to the topic I digressed – sorry: Why does John 1 have to be The Word and not the word. The word was spoken and it became flesh in the past (not human but a creature), God breathed and that breath “became” a living creature in the past – God's word is an active, creative force – the word of God created the heavens in Psalm 33:6, the stary hosts by the breath (same word as spirit) of his Mouth. So then why not the “word was God” in John 1. If God's word acts, divides, sharpens, lives, is active, instructs, strenghtens, heals… then why can that word not be with Him and is Him… his word does not return void… so it is who He is… it was the what God spoke that brought into being plants, fish, heavenly bodies, etc. why then can it not be said, the word “became” flesh… it did in the past why not in John 1… it created the world in the past Psalm 33:6 why not John 1?

Read Genesis 1. “God said…God said…God said”

[NickHassan]

Hi,
Some say Jesus is not really the son of man, or the son of Mary, or the son of David, or the son of Abraham and relegate these biblical references to being simply titles, like the title given to disciples as the “sons of Thunder”.

I have yet to meet a son of someone who was not really their son, by fact or by adoption and I do believe all these biblical claims are true because the bible says they are true, even if we do not have all the facts at our fingertips to prove them yet.

Do we approach the bible with a mindset to make it prove every claim it makes, or do we find what it says and then look for clarification of that truth from other verses? The bible is truth and we should respect it as such and not judge it and use it to bolster our understandings.

But those who espouse and base their beliefs on a trinity God have to relegate “Son of God” to be just a title to try to fit even the claims of God Himself within their doctrinal foundation.

That is a far more serious matter.

[Artizan007]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 16 2006,20:32)

Do you agree?[/quote] Indeed Artizan 7, The SON through whom He made the World. How can this be?

Hey Nick,

I will try to answer to the best of my understanding as I keep looking 😉

The word for “world” should be “ages” – it is plural of aion

The Greek word translated “universe” (or “world” in many translations) is the plural of the Greek word aion, and actually means “ages.” There are other Greek words that mean “world,” such as kosmos and oikoumene, and when the Devil tempted Jesus by showing him all the kingdoms of the “world,” these words are used. This verse is referring to the “ages,” not the “world.” Vine’s Lexicon has, “an age, a period of time, marked in the N.T. usage by spiritual or moral characteristics, is sometimes translated ‘world;’ the R.V. margin always has ‘age.’” Bullinger’s Critical Lexicon has:

Aion – ahee-ohn'

1. for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity
2. the worlds, universe
3. period of time, age

KJV (128) – age, 2; eternal, 2; ever, 71; evermore, 4; misc, 5; never + (3364 + 1519 + 3588), 6; world, 38;

NAS (95) – age, 20; ages, 6; ancient time, 1; beginning of time, 1; course, 1; eternal, 2; eternity, 1; ever, 2; forever, 27; forever and ever, 20; forevermore, 2; long ago, 1; never, 1; old, 1; time, 1; world, 7; worlds, 1;

“Aion [age], from ao, aemi, to blow, to breathe. Aion denoted originally the life which hastes away in the breathing of our breath, life as transitory; then the course of life, time of life, life in its temporal form. Then, the space of a human life, an age, or generation in respect of duration. The time lived or to be lived by men, time as moving, historical time as well as eternity. Aion always includes a reference to the filling of time” (E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance, under “world.”)

Since most translators think that Jesus was the one who made the original heavens and earth, they translate “ages” as “world” in this verse. But the actual word in the Greek text means “ages,” and it should be translated that way.

Jesus' own words as to who created us…

Matthew 19:4
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he [GOD] which made them at the beginning made them male and female

Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation [God] made them male and female.

Why did Jesus not say it plainly … which God created through me from the beginning?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

People use the verse in Hebrews to try to prove that Jesus Christ created the world as we know it, but the context of the verse shows that this cannot be the correct interpretation. Verses 1 and 2 show that God spoke through Jesus “in these last days,” whereas He had spoken “in the past” in various ways. If indeed it were through Jesus that the physical world was created, then one of the ways that God spoke in the past was through Jesus. But that would contradict the whole point of the verse, which is saying that God spoke in other ways in the past, but “in these last days” is speaking through the Son.

Likewise they use it to prove that Jesus is God:
The entire opening section of Hebrews, usually used to show that Christ is God, actually shows just the opposite. More proof of this is in verses 3 and 4. After Christ sat down at the right hand of God, “he became as much superior to the angels” as his name is superior to theirs. “God” has always been superior to the angels. If Christ only became superior after his resurrection, then he cannot be the eternal God. It is obvious from this section of Scripture that “the Man” Christ Jesus was given all authority and made Lord and Christ.

Blessings

[Sammo]

Spot on!

Look at the way the word 'aion' is used elsewhere – it's used in verse 8 of the same chapter:

“But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.”

Is that talking about the literal world that was created in Genesis, or about a period of time?

[NickHassan]

Hi A7,
So be it 'world' or 'period of time' who did it come into being through?
How does this tie in with Coll1.15-18. Jn 1.10?

“world” there really means “world”2889

[Artizan007]

How do you reconcile the words of Jesus in Matthew 19:4 & Mark 10:6? His words are direct, straight forward – From the beginning – GOD made male and female… cf Gen 1 In the Beginning GOD…

He is not saying in the beginning, God made male and female through an Eternal Son.. Jesus is direct yet not once does he mention he made the heavens and the earth along side the Father. I can't find one but you may know if there is one… I think this is very important – he would surely say something about it.

I will resond to Col 1:15-18 when I have finished my assignment that is due…

Take care…

[Artizan007]

Sammo,

I came across this and thought that you would find it an interesting read on the validity of the LXX ….

Why cant it be straight forward eh … changes, additions, deletions (is that a word) in words, phrases, chapter, content, book order all make for an endless task of serious digging… bring on the JCB's.

The Shape of the Septuagint

The translation habits of the Septuagint vary from book to book. In some cases (e.g., Ecclesiastes), the Greek is a very literal, almost wooden, translation of the Hebrew. In other cases (e.g., Proverbs), it is more periphrastic. The quality and kind of translation must be taken on a book by book basis.

In many cases, it seems the LXX is based on a version of the Hebrew different from the standard, Masoretic text (MT) of the 9th c. CE. There are a number of books where the differences between the LXX and MT are very striking. For instance:

LXX Jeremiah is shorter than MT Jeremiah by roughly one-eighth, and the order of its chapters is quite different.
LXX Job is about one-sixth smaller than MT Job, and includes an ending not extant in the Hebrew.
Almost half of the verses in LXX Esther are not found in MT Esther.
LXX Exodus and MT Exodus differ in many places according to order of verses, and inclusion / exclusion of words and material
Scholars vary as to their explanation for these differences, but in many cases, they suggest that the LXX reflects a very early Hebrew text no longer available to us. It is often difficult to say categorically how much in the LXX should correct the MT, since some books suggest more clear-cut changes to the Hebrew than others. This may frustrate some readers who would prefer a clear-cut account of the transmission of the Hebrew text, since close study of the LXX tends to raise more questions than answers. Nevertheless, this much seems certain: [the MT changed over time], and the LXX is a crucial witness to this process.

Some of the differences between the LXX and MT crop up in the New Testament (NT), which draws extensively, but not exclusively, from the LXX. The meaning of the theological vocabulary of the NT is interlocked with that of the LXX, especially in the Pauline writings, and the peculiarities of the LXX are readily apparent in NT quotations. Notable is LXX Isaiah 7.14, which promises that a virgin will be with child. MT Isaiah 7.14 reports her merely as a “woman” (Heb: almah). Thus the argument behind Matthew 1.23, which cites this verse as a prophecy of Jesus Christ, only makes sense given the reading in the LXX. This, and examples like it, prompted early Christians to attribute to the LXX a special status, so as to safeguard the authority of the NT. As a result, the differences between the LXX and MT directly contributed to the distinct directions Judaism and Christianity took in Late Antiquity. [interesting – will have to look into that]

Although a factor for division, the LXX also constitutes common ground, since it bears witness to the way Greek-speaking Jews before the Christian era read and interpreted the Hebrew Scriptures. By their efforts, the Jews who produced the LXX established a certain vocabulary and set of ideas that markedly changed the literature of the Graeco-Roman world. Many of these peculiarly Jewish ways of reading the Bible filtered into the Christian community, often to the dismay of early pagan critics of Christianity (Celsus and Porphyry, notably), who saw in the LXX solecisms and myths. The early Christians who responded to these charges generally refused to be embarrassed by the LXX, and often sought to transform the sense and sensibility of the ancient world in favor of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Enjoy… now I really must go study…

[NickHassan]

Quote (Artizan007 @ May 17 2006,02:55)

How do you reconcile the words of Jesus in Matthew 19:4 & Mark 10:6? His words are direct, straight forward – From the beginning – GOD made male and female… cf Gen 1 In the Beginning GOD… He is not saying in the beginning, God made male and female through an Eternal Son.. Jesus is direct yet not once does he mention he made the heavens and the earth along side the Father. I can't  find one but you may know if there is one… I think this is very important – he would surely say something about it. I will resond to Col 1:15-18 when I have finished my assignment that is due… Take care…

Hi A7
Mk 10.6
“But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female”

Matt 19.4
“And he answered and said
'have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female”

God is the creator.
But He does not actually have to do the hands on hard work any more because His first move was to beget a son in the beginning who does everything in the name of the Father.
Why be God and have to work?
Get real.

[NickHassan]

Quote (Sammo @ May 17 2006,01:15)

Spot on! Look at the way the word 'aion' is used elsewhere – it's used in verse 8 of the same chapter: “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” Is that talking about the literal world that was created in Genesis, or about a period of time?

Hi sammo,
Does that mean you agree the Son of God was involved in the creation of aeons of time?
When?
How?

[NickHassan]

Quote (Artizan007 @ May 16 2006,12:50)

Back to the topic I digressed – sorry: Why does John 1 have to be The Word and not the word. The word was spoken and it became flesh in the past (not human but a creature), God breathed and that breath “became” a living creature in the past – God's word is an active, creative force – the word of God created the heavens in Psalm 33:6, the stary hosts by the breath (same word as spirit) of his Mouth. So then why not the “word was God” in John 1. If God's word acts, divides, sharpens, lives, is active, instructs, strenghtens, heals… then why can that word not be with Him and is Him… his word does not return void… so it is who He is…  it was the what God spoke that brought into being plants, fish, heavenly bodies, etc. why then can it not be said, the word “became” flesh… it did in the past why not in John 1… it created the world in the past Psalm 33:6 why not John 1?

Hi A.7,
And it is also true that to live spiritually we must feed on the Word of God. We must abide in the Word.
“Man cannot live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God”

Jesus stunned his audience and lost a considerable number of his disciples when he stated this about himself in Jn 6.

“Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall not have life in you”

Catholics thought they had grasped the meaning of this when they applied it to the bread and wine of communion and thus they teach that salvation is by regular mass attendance and receiving the bread and wine.

Many sincere but deceived people attempt self perfection by daily attendance at Mass, in the hope of achieving their own salvation by this easy fleshly road, following their blind leaders and ending in the pit. I was one of them for 36 years

What they fail to note is verse 63 of Jn 6

” It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words I have spoken to you are spirit and are life”

[Proclaimer]

“God said let us make man in our image.”
Who was God talking too?

“Now man has become like us, knowing good and evil.”
Who is 'us'.

God created all things through his son.

Hebrews 1:1-2
1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. (age/aion)

If God created all the age through him. That leads one to believe that he was in the beginning with God and God created all things through him as is written in John 1:1 and Colossians 1:15-16

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

Indeed Jesus origins are ancient.

Micah 5:2
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

Jude 1:25
to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

[Author]

Posts