A Method to Discern Doctrinal Authenticity
June 18th, 2009 by Sean
Yesterday, I was brainstorming in the car with a friend of mine and we were trying to come up with a list of criteria which can be used to determine which of two doctrines is biblically correct. Below is the list we came up with. I was also thinking that we could assign a value to each of the following which would enable us to tally up a score for each doctrinal position. I really think that methodology is important. If we just make our doctrinal decisions based on tradition, or because we are anti-tradition, or based on intuition, then there is too much room for error. Perhaps if we had a solid methodology, a check list if you will, we’d at least be able to argue better when sharpening our respective biblical understandings.
- A Method to Discern the Biblical Authenticity of a Doctrine
- Look up every verse on the subject and write down what is directly stated or implied by those texts. (Be careful to note textual variants, translation divergences, language/lexical usages, and follow the general principles of interpretation/hermeneutics).
- Find two good presentations on the doctrine–one from each side–and listen/read each of them taking notes as to what their arguments are. Here it is important not to confuse rhetorical skill with evidence.
- Has this doctrine been held by anyone in church history? If not then it is more likely to be incorrect. If so, then when did the idea originate? The more recently it appeared the less likely it is to be correct.
- The position with less difficult texts requiring explanation is more likely to be correct
- Did early post-biblical Christians hold to this doctrine? If not then it must be demonstrated how/when/why the mutation occurred.
- Does the doctrine fit within the historical context of the Bible or is it anachronistic (reading later ideas into the text)?
- Can the doctrine be derived directly from Scripture, or is it merely the case that Scripture can be used to support it?
- This method has two a priori assumptions
- the Christian Bible is authoritative
- logic/reason is valid
I would be interested in your thoughts on any of these criteria. Did I miss a big one? Should I combine/add/delete something? Would you be willing to test out this methodology on a doctrine you are considering?
Great list!
I would just add that some doctrines count on a certain reading of a certain text in a certain translation (cf. 1 John 5:7 in KJV/NKJV). Therefore, a good lexical study of the key words, determining manuscript evidence, and proper translations are just as critical (cf. John 1:18).
Just some thoughts.
Dustin
Dustin,
Thanks for the input. I have inserted a parenthesis into rule #1. I should also have mentioned that what I’m not doing is hermeneutics for the Biblical text so much as describing a method by which two opposing doctrinal positions may be assessed. Obviously these two are highly related. For example, step one–the Bible study part–could easily be expanded out greatly with all of the typical principles of interpretation one might find in a standard textbook (i.e. looking up lexical definitions for words, identifying idioms and figures of speech, fitting the verse into the context, etc.).
Your second assumption is going to cause problems with a lot of people. You might be surprised. I was on a discussion with some trinitarians on another blog and they flat-out said that logic does not apply (in certain cases) … these were seminary graduates, no less!
I think that the retort was: “which logical system do you use?”
I was dumbfounded and did not know what to say.
Indeed, what Tim encountered has been seen in many debates with Trinitarians. When the illogical nature of the doctrine is pointed out, they almost always respond with something to the effect that God’s ways are above our ways, and therefore His logic is above ours, so we can’t expect His “truth” to fit with our logic. They’ll say we can’t use “finite logic” to describe the “infinite.”
In addition, regarding #1, there are often vastly different opinions as to what a given verse states or implies, even when reading the same version. At times I have seen people quote a verse, and then state that the verse says something which it clearly does not say. This is particularly frustrating, as it becomes “my interpretation versus their interpretation” - at least in their eyes.
Tim,
Thanks for pointing that out. I remember a while back when I this blog was swamped with trinitarians. Every time we pointed out a logical contradiction within their doctrine they would fall back on the doctrine of incomprehensibility (originally developed by Dionysius). What was ironic, is that they were using logic to argue against our points, but retreated into “it’s all a mystery” when we returned the favor.
Also, Tim, you reminded me of how they used Scripture to support the Trinity, without ever deriving the Trinity from the Bible directly. As a result, I have added criterion #7 above. One can come up with all kinds of biblical theories that cannot be disproved, yet neither can they be derived from Scripture either.
Good idea Sean.
I’ve always thought that somewhere common sense, reason & logic MUST come into play. If you throw this baby out with the bathwater because it doesn’t fit your biblical position here or there, you start down a slippery slope that leads to all sorts of confusion - or just plain nonsense and lunacy.
For all the “God is a mystery” and “as finite humans we can’t really know the infinite God”, I would retort that we humans are indeed made in God’s image. And much more importantly (not to mention the plain - and repeated evidence shown in Scripture), He spent a whole lot of time and effort trying to get us to know and understand Him. Isn’t that one of the primary points of why Scripture exists in the first place?
So since He gave us the ability for conscious thought and what we often call “God given” common sense or reasoning abilities, it has to be an important and vital device. He gave us these so we could know and understand Him - otherwise how could He ever expect to be truly & freely loved? Therefore to throw up our arms and say we really can’t know Him (especially on the basic subject of how many He is and is not) flies directly against God’s basic intentions.
So again, shouldn’t logic and common sense (human abilities given to us by our Creator) be used to know Him?
And on a slightly different, yet related topic what about recorded History? Scripture itself is recorded history. What about other known and agreed upon facts/records of human history? Are these important to some degree? For example on the subject of the trinity,if the Hebrew people have always had a singular/non-trinitarian understanding of how many God was and is throughout their recorded history, how should that be used along with the Scriptural record (that I would say expresses the same exact thing)??
What needs to be done is to create an outline of God’s purposes from beginning to end using what is perfectly clear. Under whats clear put the things that have been misunderstood to mean 2 different things but refer to the clear. what most people dont understand is what is being spoke is not to us and most of everything is being spoke to a time when 50 miles could be a major cultural difference especially during Jesus’s day. this does not mean we cant learn from it , it just means we need to understand it might not be the same context when the same thing is spoken twice or more.it could mean 2 different things to several cultures and we need to assume that the author knows the people he was addressing. this is where other written histories needs to be researchedto prove this point so we are not basing it on a presumption. the presumption is where most people go wrong and is where the common sense should Kick in. Logic sometimes can not apply to people not driven by logic. to understand who is being addressed you also need to become them by either applying intellect or lowering intellect. there was some very advanced cultures and some that was close to primitive cultures as we can see even in this day in areas of the world.
the best way to find the truth is find something so clear and do your best to pick it apart using comman sense, history and faith that God has a perfect plan in his purposes from beginning to end. everything God does has a purpose so find the purpose in everything
1. Look up every verse on the subject and write down what is directly stated or implied by those texts. (Be careful to note textual variants as well as translation divergences).
That is a given.
2. Find two good presentations on the doctrine–one from each side–and listen/read each of them taking notes as to what their arguments are. Here it is important not to confuse rhetorical skill with evidence.
Both sides could be incorrect.
3. Has this doctrine been held by anyone in church history? If not then it is more likely to be incorrect. If so, then when did the idea originate? The more recently it appeared the less likely it is to be correct.
Trinitarian doctrine has been held for two centuries, does this give it validity?
4. The position with less difficult texts requiring explanation is more likely to be correct.
Which texts are difficult? It is the twisted interpretations that are complex.
5. Did early post-biblical Christians hold to this doctrine? If not then it must be demonstrated how/when/why the mutation occurred.
Paul did not believe that Jesus was a human being after the resurrection and Biblical Unitarians do. When did this mutation occur?
6. Does the doctrine fit within the historical context of the Bible or is it anachronistic (reading later ideas into the text)?
Same answer as #3.
7. Can the doctrine be derived directly from Scripture, or is it merely the case that Scripture can be used to support it?
Same answer as #4.
Michael,
I assume you are using the method to test between the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of biblical unitarianism? If so, please entertain my remarks about what you wrote above.
1. so, you have done this? how did you go about collecting the verses?
2. who did you listen to/read on the side of biblical unitarianism…did you take notes? how many arguments did they present?
3. please note how I worded the principle…I did not say the more ancient the belief the more valid it is…rather I said the more recent the belief the less valid it is (also I think you meant to say the Trinity has been held for 17 centuries???)
4. For the Trinity,…difficult texts include (but are not limited to) 1 John 5.7 (which they fabricated and then inserted to bolster their case…why did they need to do that if the Trinity was already clearly taught?), John 17.3, Deut 6.4; Deut 4.35-39; 2 Kings 19.19; Mark 13.32; 1 Tim 1.17; and many more
5. This priniciple states post-biblical Christians (i.e. the Christians who lived during the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries). Paul is not post-biblical (nor did he teach that Jesus was non human cf. 1 TIm 2.5; Acts 17.31).
6. The Trinity requires hellenistic terminology to even be described. This philosophical language is not part of the early Christian thought-world. Even if we assume the Trinity is true, it would still fail on this point, because the biblical writers did not describe the Trinity proper (they couldn’t…they didn’t have the language necessary)
7. I have yet to see a trinitarian derive it from Scripture. Rather what they do is define the Trinity and then find verses that support it. This is not the same thing. I could come up with a bizarre doctrine that you could not disprove so long as I crafted it with the Scriptures in mind.
Hi Sean,
a few thoughts concerning your listed method for discerning the Biblical authenticity of a doctrine …
1. Consider if the doctrine in question is in harmony with the overall scope of the Scriptures or if it seems to be contradictory as a whole or in part
2. Check those scriptures given in support of the doctrine to see whether the arguments made from them are valid (that is, are they based on what the text actually says? are they in themselves reasonable or non-sensical?) or whether the doctrine shows itself to be false when its arguments are not upheld by Scripture.
3. If and when introducing other people’s thoughts into your study, note that such presentations are not more than just another person’s opinion. Such considerations also apply to historical secular sources … something being written closer to NT times does not necessarily make it true while something of a later date is necessarily false
Such contributions to the study must themselves be carefully checkted to see if they are accurate
4. Perhaps the major issue concerns the independence / liberty of the person doing such a study and discernment ….
IF the person conducting the study is in some form dependent on those who hold the doctrine (perhaps a member of a particular church / group; or perhaps a salaried employee of a particular church / group; etc.) or IF the person has a certain “investment” in the matter (perhaps published books, taught seminars, and might be faced with the fear of “losing face”, etc) then there may be intellectual, emotional or other types of obstacles that may make such a study rather difficult if not impossible.
All the more technical or procedural tipps and suggestions will not work when the person trying to use those procedures and methods is not free to proceed independent of what the end of that road might be .
Cheers
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
Good point on the principle of openness. We need to be willing to pursue truth wherever it leads, rather than stack the deck or be closed minded for fear of reproach, excommunication, or loss of income. This is truly a first step (which would be even before using the method).
The reason why I advocate finding top defenders on both sides of the issue is because they have spent the time to sort out their reasons for believing what they believe. For example, I could guess at what your top reasons are for being a preterist, but it would be expedient and most likely more through for me to read a paper that you or someone else wrote on the topic.
I realize that this method puts a ton of work on the seeker, but alas when we look out over the many Christian groups which disagree with each other, we should not expect that the work of discovering biblical truth would be easy. I wonder if we could develop a method which also included a rating system, if that would serve to bring a more objective approach (or at least qualitative approach) to the whole matter.
As I review this list which is sound and helpful, I began to wonder
if the religious leaders and / or common man in Jesus’ day had
similar ways of thinking.
I believe that they did, and yet, how would it apply to what Jesus
told Nicodemus about being born again? That might be a good
study to do today.
Jesus always had a way to challenge our thinking, belief system,
and the very foundation of our souls.
I’ve heard it said that God had the scriptures written in such a way
that men had to have the holy spirit to be led into understanding it,
and I suppose Jesus also spoke with the same purposes.
We certainly get stretched in this endeavor. We may come to many forks in the road on this way to heaven. This reminds me of how
important it is to pray at such a time.
It seems that we are falling prey to two ideas. The first, that we are able to define “biblically” without meaning “according to our own presuppositions, of which we have many. The second, that only biblical ideas are true. Well, and I could even add a third, that propositional knowledge - doctrine - is of paramount importance and our chief concern while being the Church. And there remain a good question what authority means and looks like when we look at how Jesus used his own authority in his ministry, and uses it now.
JohnO,
Biblically does not mean according to our own presuppositions. I don’t understand your statement. The question is whether or not X doctrine is biblically correct. The method exists specifically to combat presuppositions. Look at it as a diagnostic tool.
No where do I assume that biblical ideas are the only ones that are true. This method is designed to compare doctrines to Scripture. I’m sure it could be adapted to assess competing theories about Augustine as well, but that is not our common interest here.
Third, no one has said anything about the importance of doctrine, nor has anyone lifted it up to the highest concern of the church. (Of course, that would technically be a doctrine anyhow :p)…Maybe you just don’t see what the purpose is. The idea is really simple. What is a sound method for determining if a doctrine is biblically accurate?
Using the word “biblically” can absolutely mean according to our own presuppositions. I am glad we want to combat them. Why do we suppose that the Scripture would speak towards all of our doctrines? Or do we think that we should not have any doctrines that are not in the Scripture?
JohnO,
Actually the whole point of the word, “biblically,” means according to the Bible. This may or may not agree with our presuppositions.
In biblical Christianity, the Bible is the source for God’s revealed truths (i.e. doctrines). This is not to say that we don’t also believe things that are not in the Bible. I believe that laptops are good for travel. That is not in the Bible, but you see my point. We can have beliefs that aren’t in Scripture but they do not have the biblical authority behind them.
About Biblical authority, It seems that when a man stands on truth
and is holding the truth in a right manner, that God will often be
seen to be causing the man to stand against the darkness, giving
him the necessary things with which to stand against the wiles
of the enemy.
If we fall or fail to stand, it isn’t always that there was an error in
what we were setting forth in the beginning, but sometimes there
is a fault wherein we have fallen later on.
All authority will likely be tested on the ‘field of battle’, the place of
our spiritual warfare, and we will be tested along with it.
I believe God will have it so, that the truth will prevail, if not through us, then through another who may come later. What one
has done and accomplished may make the victory much easier for
the next one, and one who falls may get back up again through
repentance, by the power of the cross.
If we have received the word of God then we have received authority, and because we have received, we can expect to be tested. Faith in God will bring us the victory through Jesus Christ.
I’ve heard it said that whenever something is diametrically opposed
to our spirit, like magnets turned against one another, then it’s
time to rejoice because sooner or later we will have the victory over
that spirit.
These things are felt in the spirit. We should as Christians learn to
discern the times when it is our flesh reacting, or when it is the Holy
Spirit’s reacting within us that causes us to sense or react. Sometimes we sense by the Holy Spirit, but react by the flesh and
loose a victory that was near to us. We may still find it later on.
If we continue on in Christ, shouldn’t we overcome everything in
time? It seems to me that we should, yet I wonder if ever a man
died and said, “By the grace of God in Christ Jesus, I have overcome all that is in the world.” with his last breath. Maybe so.
Shouldn’t the authority come from the God whose story it is, and not the book?
I guess my major point is “According to the bible” is scary when we start defining what is biblical, because the Bible contradicts itself. When I say that, I don’t mean factually, I mean theologically (I could take wholeness/marriage as an example, or “What makes the Messiah the Messiah”). The Scriptures are a real-world working out of a theology about what God is doing, or not doing. And that changes (especially when you’re in the middle of the story). To fail to recognize that and read everything backwards as if it was always planned/expected/thought to be the way it was and is, I think, is naive.
Sean writes… 1. so, you have done this? how did you go about collecting the verses?
Response- Take the cornerstone of Biblical Unitarian belief that Jesus is a human being after the resurrection, an intriguing thought that I had not considered. I read the verses used by BU’s to support this view and it seemed reasonable.
But you ask how one collects verses on a particular subject? Read.
Sean writes…2. who did you listen to/read on the side of biblical unitarianism…did you take notes? how many arguments did they present?
Response- I do not fear the truth and listened to, read and corresponded with leaders and teachers of your belief system. Are there any BU beliefs that I could have missed in this age of the internet?
Sean writes…3. please note how I worded the principle…I did not say the more ancient the belief the more valid it is…rather I said the more recent the belief the less valid it is (also I think you meant to say the Trinity has been held for 17 centuries???)
Response- You wrote that if a doctrine had not been held by anyone in church history then it was most likely incorrect even though the long held belief in the Trinity invalidates this part of your criteria which you try to circumnavigate with “If so, then when did the idea originate?” aka. the council of Nicaea.
Then you write that a doctrine that recently appears is most likely incorrect but if the doctrine is correct then what does the timetable of its appearance have to do with it?
Sean writes… 4. For the Trinity,…difficult texts include (but are not limited to) 1 John 5.7 (which they fabricated and then inserted to bolster their case…why did they need to do that if the Trinity was already clearly taught?), John 17.3, Deut 6.4; Deut 4.35-39; 2 Kings 19.19; Mark 13.32; 1 Tim 1.17; and many more
Response- Realizing that the Trinity is incorrect does not leave you with the truth. Showing someone how they are wrong does not make your doctrine correct and in point 6 and 7 you simply repeat this.
Sean writes… This priniciple states post-biblical Christians (i.e. the Christians who lived during the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries). Paul is not post-biblical (nor did he teach that Jesus was non human cf. 1 TIm 2.5; Acts 17.31).
Response- As posted on this site Anthony Buzzard wrote that…
One of our human frailties is our inability to hear the text of Scripture. More precisely, we have difficulty in hearing what the Bible says when we have been propagandized into a different opinion. We then start with a fixed notion and enter a kind of “denial” when we read verses which obviously conflict with our belief.
If you wish we can deal with the scriptures that you believe support the idea that Jesus is a human being after the resurrection some other time but for now in the spirit of what Anthony has written I would like to look at what Paul who is not post biblical but is post resurrection of Jesus has to say about your claim that he Paul “did he teach that Jesus was non human”
Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;
So Paul clearly claims that he is not an apostle from man or any human being but by Jesus and his Father. If Paul did not receive his ministry from a human being then how can Jesus be one?
Galatians 1:11-12 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Now Paul certifies that his gospel is not after a human being nor did he receive it from a human being but was taught it from a revelation of Jesus Christ.
Acts 26:16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
How can Jesus be a human being after the resurrection and make Paul a minister and a witness of things that he will reveal to him when Paul certifies that none of this was given to him by a human being?
Or did we start with the answer… One of our human frailties is our inability to hear the text of Scripture. More precisely, we have difficulty in hearing what the Bible says when we have been propagandized into a different opinion. We then start with a fixed notion and enter a kind of “denial” when we read verses which obviously conflict with our belief.
But the Bible itself doesn’t have contradictions. It’s people misunderstanding what the Bible says in two or more passages that cause the apparent contradictions.
This could actually be another point in Sean’s list: “Does the doctrine contradict other established doctrines?”
Mark,
No the bible does actually contradict itself. Jesus in the NT, as well as the Pharisees and Saducees uphold that marriage is a way of “undoing” the separation of man and woman. Making whole that which was split apart, in the name of God (in both directions). Yet Jesus, and Paul after his also show that to be whole involves nothing to do with marriage - it comes through new creation (hence Paul’s apprehension with marriage). I only bring that up because it has been on my mind lately. But the much easier and more straightforward is the very idea of Messiah. We all recognize that *no one* expected Jesus to be Messiah. No one expected Messiah to be like Jesus. And they had all the Scriptures that we do (that were relevant). They were no worse of better than us. The fact that we believe Jesus was Messiah often colors us to make it easier to see certain things - but they were in the real position to see it. Don’t fool yourself. For those who did not see Jesus as Messiah there was a real Scriptural, biblical, reason to not see him as such. More than just a “hard heart”.
I was looking at a few verses that I saw in post #19 and found
some of those interesting.
I John 5:7
For there are three, which bear record in heaven, the Father,
the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one. - 1599 G.
And in this Bible there is a footnote by the word ‘Word’, and a footnote by the word ‘one’.
One note says see John 8:13,14 and the other note says ‘Agree in one.’
I like to see what the reformers of the 1500’s said about things,
since they were not a part of what I sometimes call ‘modern’ Christianity.
It seems to me that a hardline trinitarian might say see I John 5:7,
one. It means ‘one.’ That’s it. That’s what it means. “One.”, but here I see a note that says, “Agree in one.” So that’s not really
what I call a ‘modern’ idea. It’s been around awhile.
John 8:13,14
The Pharisees thererfore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself: thy record is not true.
Jesus answered, and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I come, and whither I go: but ye cannot tell whence I came, and whither I go.
I believe Jesus came from heaven where he had been with God
from eternity, and after his death and resurrection he went back
to the Father in heaven. Now it’s OK to touch him. But I can not touch him with my physical hands. I can only touch him with my worship and praise, by what I say and do that may have a good
effect on him.
While on earth, Did Jesus get his praise?
Yet for me, he died and God did raise.
O how shall it be, in hea’n for all eternity,
The lasting word we sing, lasting all the days!
I want to hear what the gospel sounds like in heaven. O how I hope to oneday.
JohnO,
You’re right, to those who expected Messiah to just establish the Kingdom immediately, there was an apparent contradiction. And thus many people rejected him as Messiah. That was their misunderstanding. But the “mysteries of the Kingdom” that Jesus taught his disciples were an addition to, not a contradiction of, the OT prophecies. The same with what was revealed through Paul. The people didn’t know there would be a gap of time between his first and second coming. They didn’t know Gentiles would be made fellow heirs. And there were other things that weren’t revealed in the OT, to be sure. But what was later revealed made it clearer; it did not contradict the Scriptures.
JohnO,
Calling other people who believe in the Bible and use it as the rule of faith for their community naive is arrogant and insulting. If you don’t accept the authority of the Bible then you exclude yourself from theologizing along the same lines as the rest of us. The method will not work for you because of your a priori presuppositions. Furthermore, pointing out that biblical theology is progressive (i.e. history of redemption) does not in any way invalidate the task of biblical theology.
Sean,
First, I never said using the Bible for a rule of faith in a community is naive. I said understanding it in a certain way is. Milk for those who are young and solid food for those who are older as Hebrews would say. Perhaps we start there and mature as we move on.
Second, saying the Bible contradicts itself doesn’t remove authority from it. Again, the authority lies with God.
Third, recognizing that theology progresses actually heightens the task of theology.
JohnO,
The Bible does not contradict itself and the two examples you gave are totally unconvincing. You contrast what Pharisees and Sadducees believe about marriage vs. what Jesus and Paul believe. Sorry, but the Pharisees and Sadducees did not author any biblical texts! Furthermore, even if God brought about a change such that now marriage was not required for wholeness..that would not be a contradiction whatsoever!!! That would be progressive revelation. You are just way to quick to throw biblical authority out in favor of postmodern subjectivism.
Sorry, but this is called the doctrine of providence and it is not naive. God specifically claims to be able to plan the future. I mean let’s face it. If there is a God, wouldn’t he be capable of revealing what he is going to do in the future!??!? Furthermore, you really should read through the book of Hebrews in this light, because in that book in particular the author repeatedly refers to Hebrew Bible Scriptures that point beyond themselves to the ending of the covenant and the establish of the next. This is not some modernist approach, this is providence and it is not only historically contextual (Pharisees believed in fate) but it is biblically explicit. (Otherwise there would be no such thing as predictive prophesy).
And, the issue I take with your statement is not that you think one way or the other, but that you intellectually assassinate everyone who disagrees with you by labeling with that little French word–naïve.
I have already explained that your marriage analogy is not a biblical contradiction but a contradiction between Pharisaic and Sadducean theology with the NT. Secondly, I see no problem with OT prophecies about the Messiah. They expected a royal davidic heir to sit on the throne, they expected political/military victory, they expected an age of restoration and healing for the world, they expected one to judge/administer Israel with justice and equity, they expected a time of unprecedented peace between nations, between individuals, and even animals, they expected healing for the disabled and sick and resurrection for the righteous dead. All of these expectations are not false or mistaken as evangelical scholars love to say (they say the real name of the game is going to heaven at death)…but these will all happen when Messiah comes. He enacted some of them prophetically in his earthly ministry to testify to his own messiahship (in particular the healing, miracles, exorcism, restoring the outcasts, preaching, and teaching). The Pharisees did not just reject him as a messiah, but as one sent by God. They could not deny the miracles so had to come up with an explanation that would admit miracles but still discredit him. They said, “he casts out demons by the prince of demons” which was the official party line. That is hardhearted my friend.
grace & peace
Sean,
You bring up a very good point that speaks clearly to me, that being the part about the heart of man. Yes, that has always been
the problem. It’s always been a big one. I believe it’s the major
reason people missed Jesus, or did not receive him when he came.
There’s something too that I want to share and it’s related to the heart of man.
The voice of Jesus always sounded like the voice of wisdom, so much like the things of Solomon. Where would the old covenant and / or / the old testament be without the voice of wisdom running
through it?
Only God can give understanding to the heart and to get it we have to depart from all evil whenever we find it in us. It’s a process,
something that only God can help us with, though we do find his help through one another. Sadly at times we also hurt one another.
Therefore we have to forgive.
May we all travel this path of life and be found to be helping one another. Christ is the only way to do that, isnt’ he? Every day we
get another chance to do good. God is so merciful and good. Praise
God for giving us Jesus who I believe most clearly made himself known at the cross. Wasn’t it there that they said, “Truly this was
the Son of God”.?
Sean,
Actually I’m contrasting Genesis with Paul. Jesus, the Pharisees, and Saduccees all seemed to agree that marriage was that re-unification, and that caused the debate about resurrection, if marriage is that re-unification, that making whole, then what happens when you say this resurrection will make everything better. “Ha!” they would say. When Jesus clearly points out, the resurrection trumps it. So Genesis presents the solution to this wholeness/re-unification problem currently as marriage. Paul presents that one can be whole now. I agree it is progressive - of course it is - it is one new thing overturning an old thing. I don’t see why we’re so afraid to say the c-word contradict, as if that means we can’t use the a-word, authority.
And this is precisely why I am skeptical of defining “biblical” - because you are using “biblical authority” and clearly defining me outside of that term, when I have done no such thing. I have merely stepped outside of your definition of it. So I would say my initial point is validated.
Furthermore, I’m not talking at all about God’ providence and future telling, I am talking about our reading of the text. And just a last point, I really do not at all think that the pacifist, anti-revolution, anti-violence Jesus will ever fit the Messianic mold presented to us of militarily defeating his enemies (even with the book of Revelation). I think to make that claim is to stand against the literary genres and evidence of the authors, and create an inconsistent Jesus, just so we don’t have to say the c-word.
I particularly like point 2. “Find two good presentations on the doctrine–one from each side–and listen/read each of them taking notes as to what their arguments are.”
Too often I hear people refuting or even mocking the supposed arguments of “the other side” when in fact they are not accurately representing the opposition. These are known as “straw man” arguments because they are figuratively setting up a “straw man” in order to burn it down.
I see this in many different arguments. Evolutionists claim that creationists ignore the plain evidence in favor of what the Bible says, when what they really do is have a different interpretation of the evidence. On the other hand, some creationists claim that evolution claims that man evolved from apes, whereas it actually claims that man and apes have a common ancestor. Both sides end up looking foolish when the actual claims are brought to light.
The Trinity is a common area for such straw man arguments. Some Trinitarians claim that to deny the Trinity is to say that Jesus was just an ordinary man like any other. Most of us know this is not the case. On the other hand, too many Unitarians argue that there is “One God” and repeat it like a mantra. But Trinitarians will usually respond that they agree there is one God, but He is made up of three persons. If we are to successfully debate the Trinity we must be sure to know what it really entails.
Another example has been repeated many times on this very site, in the debate about the Old and New Covenants. People who believe we should keep the Law quote Old Testament and Gospel verses referring to it, saying there is no Scripture that says to throw out or disobey the Law. But what we have repeated over and over is that we are not arguing for getting rid of the Law but for the fulfilling of it by the spirit, as opposed to trying to obey the letter of it with our own ability.
There’s one other thing that reading both sides of a debate sometimes leads us to. I’ve frequently seen where each side thinks that the other side is the only alternative, and thus when they refute the other side it proves their own position. But in fact, it often turns out that the truth is a third alternative somewhere in the middle.
For example, one side says that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah in the Jewish sense, involving a political takeover and assuming the literal rule over the world. But he didn’t do what the Messiah was supposed to do, so they reject that he was the Messiah. Meanwhile the other side says that of course he is the Messiah so the Jewish understanding of it must be in error, and so the Kingdom must be figurative or spiritual.
The fact is, Jesus claimed to be the Messiah in the specifically Jewish sense, but also taught that there were certain things that would have to happen before he claimed his throne. These things that would have to happen were not known before, but they were added to the prophecies, rather than contradicting them.
This is how the “pacifist, anti-revolution, anti-violence Jesus” fits with the “Messianic mold presented to us of militarily defeating his enemies.” The military defeat foretold in the Prophets and described in the vision of the Book of Revelation is for the future, but for now, during this time of anticipation and proclamation of the Kingdom, we follow the pacifistic, anti-violent example of Jesus. They are two sides which each have their place, and do not contradict. God Himself is also described as having both wrathful and merciful aspects, which are in balance, not in contradiction. It would only be contradictory if one were to say that He is ALL one or the other. Having both qualities and displaying them at different times does not make Him, or his Son, inconsistent.
Mark,
On what basis can we say that Jesus is both the zealot revolutionary, and the pacifist anti-violence Messiah? Will he say to those zealots on his left “Sorry, you were violent at the wrong time.”, and those pacifists on his left “Sorry, I told you to fight when I got here.”. Where are either of those ideas every even hinted at? You can believe that Jesus is like this, but my point is that there are volumes of evidence that Jesus is the pacifist anti-voilence Messiah on principle. And since Jesus has the principle that violence is contra-Kingdom, why would he ever introduce that Kingdom with violence? This is exactly the theological picture that Daniel presents us with. The beast Kingdoms of the world use violence, it fits perfectly within the fallen nature of the world - while the Kindgom of God represents those who are oppressed by this violence, and is represented by being human, a ’son of man’ represents them. Therefore the oppressed could not, would not, and do not use violence to establish God’s Kingdom. And nor does Jesus. And nor will Jesus. To say otherwise is to present a Jesus who tarnishes his own principles that he has already established.
JohnO,
How then do you interpret passages like Psalm 2:9, “Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel”? Or references to the “great and terrible day of the Lord” and other prophecies of the enemies of God being destroyed?
Mark,
I am glad you asked. As for “great and terrible day of the LORD” I think futurism has conditioned us to read far too many of these as future. It seems that, as I read more, more and more are concluding on the basis of history (not theological presupposition) that these prophetic writings have already occurred.
As for Psalm 2, remember this is not a psalm primarily about Jesus. This is a royal enthronement psalm, and could be said of *any* King of Israel. This is the expression of the Jewish theological truism that YHWH has elected Israel as his people and cares for them. And that YHWH has appointed a proper King to rule for him over them. The question then is not how I interpret this passage. The question is how does the NT use and interpret Psalm 2.
‘There’s one other thing that reading both sides of a debate sometimes leads us to. I’ve frequently seen where each side thinks that the other side is the only alternative, and thus when they refute the other side it proves their own position. But in fact, it often turns out that the truth is a third alternative somewhere in the middle.”
Now you done it, why did you have to say something i agree with.
Ray, Sean, and other friends. The posts which call in question the authority of Scripture (read as accurately as we can) undermine the theological enterprise. Jesus was a “biblicist” in the sense that what is written in holy writ was for him, our Rabbi, from God, settling all issues. To say that God is the authority is course true, but to deny that what He has said is true, takes with one hand what one has just given with the other.
The current push of the scholarly Trinitarians to say that Paul in I Cor. 8:4-6 “split the Shema” is a clever falsehood. It achieves what Augustine did to John 17:3 when he wrote (Homilies on John) “The proper order of the words is You [Father] and Jesus Christ, whom you sent, the Only True God.’”
If one “splits the Shema” one is trying to insert Jesus into the definition of the One God. Again cleverly, with a typical “sand in your eyes” approach, Bauckham and others say “Jesus is not added to the Shema, but included in it.” (Can anyone explain those words?) The result of this move is that the supremacy of the One God, the Father is lost. It is astonishing that when Jesus is proclaimed across the NT as the Lord Messiah, over and over again, these men do not get the point. They then want God to have said, via the Shema, that Jesus is the Lord God too! He is in fact the one Lord Jesus Messiah. Ps 2:7 addresses him by way of a prediction. How do I know this? Because the inspired Greek Scripture applies that verse (and many others) to Jesus.
I did not make this up! Once we deny the Bible writers as our mentors, we are making ourselves better than they. This is risky and can lead to losing faith altogether. How do I know? I have seen it repeated over these many years.
The world is groaning for good faith-stimulating words of instruction, and simplicity is the mark of the one who accepts the words of God, all of which are doctrine, designed to lead to our immortality. Jeremiah was not wrong to warn of the “lying pen of the scribes.” “Scholarship” is fine, but misused, or under false pretenses, is a deadly poison.
There are good and bad workers in every field, of course.
We unitarians need, I think, to be very Christ centered, since he has been appointed mediator and high priest and judge! He has “all authority in heaven and on earth.” He has inherited “all things.” This however does not mean that he is the eternal GOD.
Most futurists would say it’s the other way around. The literal interpretation of the prophecies has led to the futurist position, since the prophecies have not yet come to pass. If the prophecies that describe the destruction of God’s enemies and the inauguration of a literal Kingdom on earth have not yet happened, then either they must be yet future or they don’t mean what they say.
If that is true, then the meanings of many prophecies must be drastically reinterpreted. And of course, that is what the different schools of thought regarding prophecy have done, and that gets into a whole different debate. But this still goes back to my original point that the Bible does not contradict itself, but rather apparent contradictions come from not misunderstanding various parts of it.
This psalm has long been recognized as a Messianic prophecy. To what historic King of Israel, did God ever say, “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You’” (v. 7)? What historic king of Israel was ever given “the nations” and “the very ends of the earth” as his possession (v.
?
But even if it could be interpreted in some other way than Messianic, the point still remains that it would fit with other Scriptures when the proper understanding was gotten, and therefore would not be a contradiction. If the Bible had real contradictions, it would be useless as a communication of God’s will and plan.
And the issue of violence vs. pacifism aside, there are still the other issues to contend with. If we maintain that there is a contradiction regarding the nature of the Kingdom (is it literal yet future, or is it present yet figurative?) then we have completely lost the main message Jesus preached.
Stupid smilies. That one after “…as his possession” was supposed to be an 8 followed by a close parenthesis, referring to verse 8.
I wish we had the option to edit our own posts.
“…apparent contradictions come from not misunderstanding various parts of it” should have read either:
“…apparent contradictions come from misunderstanding various parts of it” or:
“…apparent contradictions come from not understanding various parts of it.”
You probably could figure that out, but I’m an anal perfectionist!
Fellow students, A very challenging point is made when Trinitarians say that in some cases the logic of language to define God does not work. If we mean that the Trinitarian attempt to explain the Trinity is illogical, that is true. But the unitary monotheism of the Bible abides by the rules of language we all accept. Unitarianism is repeated over and over again by the presentation of God as a single Divine Person. How can we confirm this? By reading and believing the multiple thousands of singular pronouns, I, ME, HE, HIM, YOU (singular) describing and denoting the One God. To solve the Trinity/Unity issue, one has only to submit to the proposition that singular personal pronouns inform us of a single p/ Person. To put the point logically “He is not-They.” God intended to be understood. He graciously gave us language, and then used that language in the Revelation of Himself (another singular pronoun!). The Trinity admits in its writings to a titanic struggle for words to describe what it proposes. This gives the game away. Falsehood is written all over the face of system which cannot echo the simple, singular personal language about God found in all of Scripture.
It is sometimes said that God is an explicable mystery and that we cannot really understand how many He is. While it is true that there is much we do not know about God, it is also true that He decided to reveal to us that He is a singular Person. He did this by using all the forms of langauge available to assert this beautiful truth. On this fundamentally unifying truth denominationalism can end! Jesus did say that the most important thing is to believe that the Father is “the only one who is truly God” (John 17:3). Only the abandonment of logic and language can disturb this proposition.
Hence the non-language, non-logical terminology of the Trinity, when it proposes that the Son had “a beginningless beginning,” an eternal generation. You won’t find that in the Bible. Luke 1:35 informs us when and how the Son of God began, was begotten = came into existence. Mary had a baby, aided by miracle.
Mark C,
I agree, almost.
To add, living the law by the spirit isn’t just thinking good things, it is acting on them. But how do we know what to act upon? As I pointed out, our spiritual maturity needs good meat, and that meat comes from a reference (Torah) to gauge our understanding to test the Spirits. Otherwise, why not pick up a Book of Mormon or a Quran? Mormons are led by the Spirit and Righteousness, as the Spirit tells them that Joseph Smith is a true Prophet.
In short, we gauge our faith and the spirit by the same measure that Christ did, by the Torah. It doesn’t take much to look around at all the denominations of Christianity and get a chuckle out of how many times man has decided to surpass the Torah in place of a new denomination.
Mark,
Are you sure you can’t edit your comments? Did you try logging into the admin side first? also if you want so avoid smileys just put a space before the paranthesis like this: v8 ).
Sean,
I logged into the admin side, but I only have permission to edit the blogs I write. It doesn’t give me the option to edit comments.
Joseph,
“…living the law by the spirit isn’t just thinking good things, it is acting on them. But how do we know what to act upon?” As I have said before, we obey the words of Jesus, including what he revealed to us through Paul and the other NT writers. We gauge our faith and the spirit by what has been thus revealed. Jesus’ measure was not just the Torah. As I said, some things were added to the prophecies which were not known or understood before. We cannot limit our understanding to just the Torah without the added words of Jesus, the ultimate prophet whom Moses foretold.
Genesis never says marriage is reunification. This is your eisegesis. You have not demonstrated this to be the case whatsoever.
You still have shown no contradictions. And yes, there is a problem with God contradicting himself, just like anyone else. If you contradict yourself, you lose credibility and certainly your authority is diminished. Furthermore, some of us here actually believe (along with Jesus and the Apostles) that the Scripture is God’s revelation and thus it carries his authority along with it. If you want to exclude yourself from the practice of biblical theology because you will not submit to the authority of the text then that is fine. We just won’t be able to argue constructively. You will not be playing by the same rules. I’ll be playing chess and you’ll be playing chinese checkers. It just won’t work. We can still learn from each other and hopefully respect one another, but at the end of the day I say, “because Jesus and the Apostles taught X I am going to believe/do X” and you are not. I wonder if Luke 6.46 would apply here?
Yeah, I read that paper by Wright too. I didn’t find it at all impressive. Additionally, this post had nothing to do with authority it had to do with seeking truth and defining a method by which that truth could be searched after. The word “biblical” was used to confine my method above to biblical doctrines. You have your own agenda and your own reasons for sidelining the discussion. You don’t like the word biblical because you don’t like how it can be combined with authority. This doesn’t bother me one bit. You could say God is the authority or Jesus or the apostles or the holy text which tells us what they all said. Really, you are making distinctions beteween 6 and half a dozen here.
Yes you were. Read your comment about the Messiah. The prophecies of his coming were given in the Hebrew Bible. Eveyrone recognizes that.
Brother, you haven’t held together OT and NT well enough. Do you condemn the battles in the OT? Do you condemn David and his mighty men? Do you condemn Joshua and the Canaanite invasion? I so, then you have ceased to be under the text and propelled yourself to the high place of sitting over the text. Violence is not inherently evil. God uses violence. God is not evil. God will again use violence and will execute it through his Son…that’s the apostolic faith (he will come to judge the living and the dead). Meanwhile, until the great day of Yahweh arrives we are given a special role as the people of God to prophetically embody the age to come. We testify to the world that is once God’s holy wrath is poured out and all the dust settles. This has nothing to do with literary genres. There are too many texts to play that game.
As you and I have noticed things change as time goes on. The original creation was non-violent. Then violence entered the picture through Cain. God used violence in Gen 6. Is there a difference? Yes, of course. Cain’s use of violence was fratricide–murder. God’s use was judgment. In order for God to be God he must be sovereign which includes with it the power to wound and heal the power to kill and make alive (cf. song in Deut 32).
My friend, I feel that it is a simplistic game to judge the text by trendy post-modern sensibilities and morals. It is too easy a think to construct a nice neat model to tame the irascible God of the Bible. I rather prefer the practice of biblical theology. Parsing things into JEDP, deutero-Isaiah, late Daniel, etc. etc. so we can fit the text into our presupposition of naturalism may be fun like cutting up the Bible to make a collage more to our liking, but in the end it is a self defeating practice. It is much more challenging and rewarding to work within the confines of the text. To hold everything together. To be like Jesus, to be like the Apostles, now that is exciting. Jettisoning the parts of the text that disagree with our worldview (even if our worldview is partially based on the Bible) is not a practice I can engage in so long as I sit under the authority of the text. Once we get to splitting stuff apart I think we’ve cut the limb we are standing on.
~just my ramblings…
Well, with all the replies this has run well out of control and maintaining a discussion. I am disheartened by the fact that I am not treated as a person that you know incredibly well, but rather labeled as a post-modernist (which I am not), splitting up the text (JEDP, et. al) which none of my points rest on and that I don’t believe myself, and so on and then discarded by handwaving the label away (ad hominem). Also, it is funny that every time I talk about Jesus and violence, you start talking about God and violence.
ad hominem
the ironic thing about the use of this word is when used to descibe an arguement the statement itself is an ad hominem.
plain english please
JohnO,
I for one was actually surprised that you were saying some of the things you said. I thought I knew you, or at least where you stood regarding the authority of the Bible. But when you suggest that the Bible actually contradicts itself, I have nothing else on which to base my reaction.
I’m not into labels either, but much of what you’re saying does sound a bit reminiscent of at least some of the tenets of post-modernism. But labels aside, I don’t consider my arguments to be ad hominem, and I don’t believe Sean’s were either. We made specific points from Scripture.
I’m actually concerned. Where and when did you come up with the views on Scripture that you are presenting here? Are they based on things you’ve read recently? As far as I remember, you didn’t used to hold such views. I pray you are not falling into the trap which Anthony referred to above.
I realize many modern theologians hold these views. But I think it needs to be balanced with what some other, more conservative, theologians have written concerning the apparent contradictions in the Bible. Such apparent contradictions have been used by skeptics to try to disprove the authority of Scripture, but there are sound explanations for every one of them.
As for talking about God and violence, Jesus always did, and still always does, the Father’s will. And he is the ultimate communication of his Father. God gave Jesus the authority to be the ultimate judge and ruler of the earth. So to determine whether violence has a place in the future judgment, it is logical to consider how and when God has used violence in the past.
JohnO,
Of course I know you incredibly well, which is why I’m so surprised that communication is so difficult. I’m glad to hear you are not post-modern (though I’m surprised)…since you are certainly not a modernist either. I’m also surprised you don’t see why the splitting-up comment was made in light of how you split marriage and split messiah. If I hurt your feelings I apologize, that was not my intention. I’m just trying to turn over these criticisms you leveled against my proposed methods. Perhaps we should just talk on the phone, that would be easier…or just wait until we are both going to school together. My friend, we do need to be able to argue with each other and it saddens me that you feel I was attacking you with ad-hominem.
As for Jesus and violence, the reason why I always bring in God to the equation is because the violence Jesus is prophesied to carry out is on God’s behalf as the eschatological judge of the world. I don’t buy the JD Crossan dichotomy that we have to pick between a God of violence and a God of peace. God plainly uses violence in both Old and New Testaments and when Jesus returns he will also execute the just violence of God. But for us, as followers of the way of Jesus, violence is clearly excluded (at least for now), being that Jesus explicitly taught us to love our enemies. The only one really qualified to use violence correctly anyhow is God (though he has ordained governments, for the time being, to use it a laRomans 13).
grace & peace
~S
lets see if we can use your method to understand Acts22 -28.
what was Paul charged with by the jews?
what was his real crimes against the jews?
this should bring an understanding what Paul preached.
Mark,
I think it would be better to say: “to determine whether violence has a place in the future judgment, it is logical to consider Jesus, if he is the ultimate communication of his Father.” That is being Christocentric.
Sean,
You did it again, started with Jesus, and then talking about God. Perhaps the issue is that any “end-times timeline” for me is incredibly vague, so I don’t have a picture of Jesus literally riding in on a white horse. And if Jesus is the “ultimate communication of God” what does it say when God does not act in that manner? (Which is a parallel thought to the Jewish theology of “What happens when God is silent”, since by definition YHWH is the God who communicates with Israel)
Hi Sean,
you replied above
I can understand your reasoning for this step in your method, however I do see a bit of danger in this of concentrating on the “defenders” rather than on the doctrine in question.
I tend to think that the more one can stay independent of others’ interpretations either in support of or against a certain doctrine, the more one may be able to arrive at a correct measure with which to determine if a doctrine is true according to what is written in the Bible or if it is not in harmony with the teaching in the Scriptures in the Bible.
To add some further thoughts regarding such a method as you mentioned, I would say that it is needed to first have a good knowledge of a language, aspects of grammar, and in particular a knowledge of figures of speech. Without such a knowledge of language, one would be lacking a major key for gaining a correct understanding of what the Scriptures say (as well as what a particular doctrine may say)
Without first having a correct understanding of what the Bible does teach, it is impossible to determine if a doctrine is biblically based or not.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Hi Sean,
having read now the quite many comments here which have been written since our posts earlier (to which I replied above), another key for such method as you were asking about comes to mind:
When evaluating whether a doctrine is biblically based or not, one needs to stay “on track”, be “single minded” and determine if the doctrine in question is indeed defined “straightly, directly” by something the Bible does state or if it is a “bunch of thoughts of all kinds of side-tracks, perhaps even inferences from actually unrelated side-topics, etc …
This thread was about “a method” … and yet it seems that quite many have gone off on side-tracks about a certain “trinity” logic or illogic or whatever … instead of concentrating on your initial post and your initial question about a method for determining whether a doctrine was biblically based or not
Cheers,
Wolfgang
JohnO,
We had already started with considering Jesus, since the point in question was the perceived contradiction between the pacifist Jesus and the enemy-conquering Messiah image. We brought up God and whether both aspects can be seen in His character, since there should be no difference in character between God and His Son.
Hi all,
reading post #39 from Anthony Buzzard, I suppose one could say in reference to Sean’s question concerning the method:
A doctrine should be examined in regards to whether or not it is logical and reasonable and whether the language used to define it is following the common laws of language
Cheers,
Wolfgang
JohnO,
perhaps these words would help us from flattening the activity of God into either or
Jesus has two advents. Obviously he doesn’t do the same things at both. The first he comes to do what was recorded in the Gospels. The second he comes to do what is recorded concern the eschaton. Is this really difficult? When we ask the question, how now shall we live, the answer comes back, “Obey the teaching of Jesus and the apostles.” They obviously taught peace and non-retaliation. This is the way for Christians. We cannot flatten out God. He is not so tamable.
Wolfgang,
Indeed, you are quite correct. JohnO attacked the idea of having a method to do assess biblical doctrines, which launched us into the murky waters of liberal theology.
Michael, decided to argue the Trinity (I think), but alas, I’m not even sure if that’s what he believes.
Though, in the early posts people did discuss the posted topic.
Wolfgang,
could you give an example in regard to what you raised in comment #52?
I attacked the quasi-fundamentalist method offered here. Judging from one of my recent postings I am all about method. But then again, no one seemed to like that either.
If Jesus’ is opposed to violence in principle (which I would argue the NT easily demonstrates), then why would the character of God - if Jesus is the ultimate communication - violate Jesus’ principles? I would agree with your conclusion if Jesus were not the ‘ultimate communication’. Otherwise it is inconsistent. Alternatively you could argue, as Sean seems to argue, that there is a time for X and Y, which would make pacifism a practical issue, not an issue of principle. However, then you are wide open for the ’slippery-slope’ argument we get all the time, “I will be a pacifist when it is practical for me to do so”.
John O,
Christ was not opposed to the punishment that fit the crime. Take for example the adulteress woman. Christ did not oppose the law of stoning that was about to be brought upon her, but rather mirrored the convictions of sin upon those who were accusing her. In other words, if her accusers were of the right authority she would have been brought to a court and stoned. Christ then tells the woman to go and SIN NO MORE, as continuing in her lifestyle would bring upon swift destruction by the law. Christ new that God had set the rules of justice.
My point is, justice is not violence when God’s laws are the reference of authority. We need to make sure and separate the two when speaking about Pacifism.
Over the last year or so I have listened to presentations and read articles on the subject of “Paul and Empire.” I have tried to do what Sean presented as step 2:
” 2. Find two good presentations on the doctrine–one from each side–and listen/read each of them taking notes as to what their arguments are. Here it is important not to confuse rhetorical skill with evidence.”
It has been helpful to see different sides presented because often I would hear one presentation and think, “Boy, that was really good!” Then I would here someone else present a counter argument for some of the points of the first presentation. So then I would think, “Maybe this isn’t quite what I thought.” Too often, we can be convinced of a position without knowing of deficiencies that someone else may point out.
By the way, may “take” on “Paul and Empire” is that I find it somewhat helpful, but I do think that some are a wee bit (or maybe a lot bit) too enthusiastic about it and see things in the text that are not there.
Brian,
Thank you for the remarks. Indeed, it is all the easier to see one’s weakest points when we listen to our opposition’s strongest arguments. As for the Paul & empire stuff a good critique/debate was given by John Barclay when he debated N.T. Wright on the subject at the 2007 Society of Biblical Literature Conference (SBL). Here is the audio for part1 and part2. Also, I think James D.G. Dunn is not on board with it, which is noteworthy.
these verses state that Paul preached the same belief of One God as the jews believe, if he would of preached Jesus was equal than these statements would make him a liar.
What else does this say about what Paul preached?
Acts 25 7 And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove. 8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.
Acts 28
17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. 18 Who, when they had examined me, would have let me go, because there was no cause of death in me.
Robert,
Good point Robert, everything that Paul preached to the world should be understood in the light of his testimony and creed. This fits how Christ lived the law to how Christ taught the law.
I find it rather silly when I hear people talk about the law being a “burden” or “old” when the ones who say that are the ones who have not even tried to live by the law. lol.
So it goes to say that experience has to do much with how we interpret and understand scripture.
not only does this set the stage for Pauls preaching, it also sets the stage for all that are led by the Holy Spirit. so either Paul is not led by the Holy Spirit or there has been some real big misunderstandings about Paul’s preaching
Sean,
I remember listening to that Barclay/Wright debate. It seemed as though Barclay was much more aggressive in his presentation and had the upper hand (not that that means he was correct); and I found myself disagreeing with him on some things and agreeing on others. My reading of the Book of Acts (which I hope is accepted as a primary historical document) just doesn’t seem to carry with it this idea that the early Christians were forced to declare Caesar as Lord or accept the consequences. Those is got “in the soup” never did so because they failed to bow down and worship Caesar. The spiritual battle is much more convoluted than that. My impression is that later on in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries, this became more of an issue.
“Christ was not opposed to the punishment that fit the crime.”
Joseph
in a sense you are right that Jesus was not opposed to it , but he also within this verse totally removed the death sentence by someone who was not perfect within the law.
therefore He was the only one that ever walked that now had that right and he chose to give her mercy if she would repent. if she didnt repent than she will be judged upon entry into the kingdom(first resurection) or be judged by God in the second resurection.
The curse of the law is the death sentence for the crime not the law
Hi Sean,
well .. there were already examples given, such as in Anthony’s comment. I was simply trying to put that which I perceived the examples to illustrate into a general “principle” that could be added to the various points concerning the “method”.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Brian,
The one verse in Acts that is strongly in favor of Jesus-is-Lord vis a vis Caesar-is-Lord is Acts 17.7:
Undoubtedly, later the Caesar adoration became more obligatory (cf. Polycarp who was martyred in a.d. 155)
Sean,
when speaking of a “Jesus-is-Lord vis a vis Caesar_is_Lord” idea, I think one should ask WHO is proposing such an idea in order to then determine if this is what the Scriptures actually teach …
Questions:
Whose perspective are we reading in Acts 17:6-7? is this God’s perspective? Is it the perspective of the writer of Acts? Is it the perspective of those who were shouting an accusation? Is it a modern day reader’s perspective? or (perhaps yet another perspective)….?
By the same token one could say, If God’s character involves judgment and wrath as well as mercy, why would Jesus violate His Father’s principles? And the argument that there is a contradiction between the two would only be true if it were argued that Jesus opposes violence by anyone, in all ways, at all times.
Rather than “violence in principle,” I think it would be more accurate to say that Jesus is opposed to violence when it comes to humans interacting with each other. But while the NT demonstrates this, it does not show that violence in administering God’s judgment is inconsistent with Jesus’ character. He is appointed as the future judge and ruler of earth.
II Thess. 1:
7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
I don’t consider this an alternative argument. I consider it part of the same argument. Both God and Jesus are presented as having the capacity for both mercy and judgment. It is not so much a “practical” issue in the sense of “when it’s practical to be a pacifist.” It’s more a matter of God determining when the right time is for executing His judgment. This is no more inconsistent than a parent who punishes their child at one point, and shows them tender love and mercy at another.
The slippery slope argument would only be a rationalization on the part of those who use it, because it would be taking upon themselves the decision of when the “right time” is, rather than leaving that judgment up to God.
indeed
What Mark and I are doing is trying to hold together all of the Scriptures. This practice is called biblical theology in contradistinction to the liberal approach which jettisons the bits that don’t fit their sensitivities. Splitting apart Jesus’ earthly ministry from his role as cosmic Son of Man who is destined to judge the world is not an option open to us. Furthermore, as Mark noted, we don’t set the time for things. The eternal principle is peace. That’s what was there in the Garden of Eden and what will be there in the kingdom forever. In the mean time, the people of God are called to embody the kingdom like Jesus did and we may be called upon do participate in the divine retribution at the end of the age (cf. Ps 110). Thankfully, we don’t have to guess about when that time changes, for we will meet the Lord in the air (we won’t miss that one).
Hi Sean
what is a “cosmic Son of Man” ? what does “splitting apart Jesus’ earthly ministry from his role as cosmic Son of Man” mean?
I’ve noted a few times that quite some “fancy vocabulary” as well as “somewhat complicate expressions” are used here … unfortunately this type of talk is incomprehensible for me at this time, and thus I decided I may as well ask for a more simple clarification of what you guys are actually talking about …
Cheers,
Wolfgang
cosmic Son of Man (cf. Daniel 7.13-14)
splitting apart Jesus’ earthly ministry from his role as cosmic Son of Man is what I’m alleging JohnO is doing. He likes Jesus’ earthly ministry as one who teaches us to love our enemies, but finds no place for the Son of Man to return in judgment to slay the enemies of God. I don’t like to split apart the text like this and reinterpret the “violent” aspects of Jesus’ role, rather I think we need to hold it all in tension, and I do so by recognizing that there is a time for war and a time for peace (Ecc 3). Now is the time for peace (as instructed in the Sermon on the Mount and echoed in Romans 12 and 1 Peter 3).
Wolfgang,
On your proposed addition to the method…I have included in step 1 to note language usage and I also added to follow standard hermeneutical principles. This method does not outline how to understand the Bible so much as it provides an assessment tool to be used to evaluate competing biblical doctrines, though, I do recognize that these two endeavors are related and overlap.
Sean,
as for “cosmic Son of Man” and your reference to Dan 7:
Now what is “cosmic” about this? I have no clue as of yet to what you are referring with “cosmic Son of Man” … is there also a “non-cosmic” Son of Man? or is the Son of Man “cosmic” as well as something else?
As for the “splitting apart … ” question, perhaps I am getting too old to be able to comprehend what you are trying to say …. or maybe I am just used to more “lay people comprehendable” language and have my troubles with the “fancy theological seminary type talk”
Cheers,
Wolfgang
the cosmic aspect is that he comes in the clouds to enact God’s plan to judge the nations and bring them under one divine rule–the kingdom of God
think of the cosmic signs mentioned by Joel, Isaiah, and Jesus (moon gets dim, stars fall, powers of heavens shaken, etc.)
Anthony, I read a bit of your post #34.
I don’t know what a Shema is.
I remember listening to a Christain radio program with callers that
would call in telling the host of the program that “Jesus is the Son
of God.”
They seemed to keep telling the man this, but it seemed he had other interests. The host of the program seemed adamant that these callers understand that “diety” means “God”, and that they
must accept the “diety” of Jesus.
He seemed to have a very narrow interpretaion of the word “diety”
and determined that everyone else must abide by his strict use of the word.
By looking up the word in my dictionary, it seemed to me that “diety” could mean “like God”.
I believe that Jesus is like God, and that he is the Son of God.
Everytime I heard this discussion on that radio program, it seemed
as if there was a killing of a stanger on his way to heaven. What a
horrible thing! Did’nt God say, “Thou shalt not kill.”? Where was the
unity on that which we all agreed?
There’s another similar “pea” that fits that pod, but is on the opposite end of it. It’s the one that says it’s always wrong to refer
to Jesus as God in any sense, whether in poetry, worship, or in the
giving of a word in prophetic ministry.
Why should we go on killing? When will it end?
Must one’s definition of “diety” always be everyone elses?
Must one’s way they use the term “God” always be everyone elses at all times?
Satan can not cast out Satan, and a house divided against itself can not stand, Jesus said.
Dear Ray, if you would like to learn what the Shema is click here or to listen to Brian and my conversation on Truth Matters, click here.
“So it goes to say that experience has to do much with how we interpret and understand scripture. ”
Joseph are you saying the more you do to please God the clearer everything gets.
I have a harder time understanding people than I do the Word Of God. Should they not see the things that others seem to see so clearly or are they refusing to see to protect their status amongst the people who look to them for guidance. Am i wrong to expect them to see what i see. most just ignore anything that contradicts. Are they so weak in faith that if they opened their mind satan would snatch it.
Oh well Yall go ahead with playing it safe
In light of the discussion going on here as well as others that I have read or heard on related subjects, I was wondering how one should define “violence.”
Robert,
I was talking in reference to the laws of God. If we don’t experience the ways of God and abide by his laws then it will reflect on how we understand scripture. Much like those who say the law is a burden, yet they themselves have never tried to abide by the law. Instead, they poke holes in it to fit their ideology. This is where experience comes into play as we mature in understanding and not just hold our thumbs out waiting for someone to pick us up.
Hi Sean,
I thought you were of the opinion that the judging of the nations and bringing them under one divine rul-the kingdom of God- was something Jesus did on earth and in an earthly / political manner after he has landed and set foot on earth in a literal manner ???
Are you saying that Jesus is - prior to his landing on earth - doing these things in the clouds, on the moon, with the stars, etc., that is, he sort of exercises a “cosmic” ministry which would be different from his “earthly” ministry?
I see no indication in Scripture about such a “cosmic” ministry of Jesus where Jesus would be (in a literal way) darkening the moon, throwing stars out of their orbits causing them to fall on the earth, etc. Thus I am confused concerning this matter of “cosmic Son of Man” vs. “earthly ministry of Jesus”
nope…that’s not at all what I’m saying. God gives Jesus this authority and then he comes in the clouds (the same as he departed) and he rules the earth. His parousia (coming) is cosmic because it is from heaven and accompanied by signs. However, there is a sense in which he is ruling now, but I would argue his rule is limited to the church (those who call him Lord).
Sean,
I think the easiest and simplest way out of the confusion with the terminology is to simply drop the “cosmic” …. and to use simple vocabulary which hopefully even I can understand
As we can see here, the use of language and understanding terminology are also big points for a method whereby one can determine if a doctrine is biblical or not … The use of “fancy wordings” and/or “terms with non-general meanings attached” makes it often difficult to determine if a doctrine is biblically based or not
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
I used this term in keeping with its normal usage in both the English language and the biblical precedent of Daniel 7.13-14. One of the greatest (and free) tools I have benefited from greatly has been m-w.com, a simple online English dictionary. According to it, the word cosmic concerns both something extra-terrestrial and something massively significant. Jesus returns from the sky and he does so to make a massive and permanent change. Also, I used the word in conversation with JohnO who knew what I meant by it.
grace & peace
~S
“I’m sure there were many others like the woman around Christ’s lifetime that were being judged by the high courts that were set in place to carry out God’s law.”
this we disagree on , Jesus remove the authority of any High Court to pass judgement on Gods laws, no one has the right to judge unless they themselves are perfect within Gods laws ,this doesnt mean they didnt though. there was also no government setup at the time that had the right being Judea was just a group of people under laws of a occupying nation.
Untill there this a King of Israel Again there will be no such authority given to men.
Hi Sean,
regarding the “cosmic Son of Man”
I see no biblical precedent at all in Dan 7:13,14 for a “cosmic Son of Man” … the term actually seems to describe more what one might find in a “space ship cartoon” than anywhere else.
But then, as I mentioned before, it looks like I should begin to realize that I am getting old and apparently can’t keep up with the young folks and their vocabulary anymore
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
I’m pretty sure your countryman Schweitzer used it. And you are quite young compared to him
Wolfgang,
For the record, I understood what Sean meant by “cosmic Son of Man” and I’m 52.
Mark,
Wolfgang’s still got you beat in age
I have a question about this one mentioned as the ‘cosmic son of
man’.
Micah 5:2
….whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting.
Daniel 10:20
…and when I am gone forth…
Q. Does God know how to hide a thing? Is Jesus like God? What
does the name Michael mean, and why all this mystery? What
is Daniel’s message about and why this one to deliver it?
Sean,
?? how does “extra-terrestrial” apply here to Jesus coming to earth? since you contrasted it with his earthly ministry, does he have a “cosmic [extra-terrestrial] ministry” while in the sky? or only during his travel while returning from the sky? You say he returns from the sky to make a massive and permanent change … how is this change “cosmic”? Are you perhaps speaking of Jesus’ ministry on earth ca 2000 years ago as his “earthly ministry” and contrasting it with his ministry after his return as his “cosmic ministry”?
Well, here we see another important principle for your suggested method: Use terms in a generally accepted meaning, rather than using “proprietary language” which most likely is not understood by the general public …
Cheers,
Wolfgang
I have always been sadly impressed with the ability of Trinitarians to use words not found in scripture to explain the ones that are used. But I must say that Biblical Unitarians are giving them some good competition in this area.
I had a lengthy conversation with leading BU teacher that tried to explain to me that Jesus is “God’s ultimate human agent of the new exalted humanity of the spirit with divine authority”
Of course there is no scripture calling Jesus “God’s ultimate human agent of the new exalted humanity of the spirit with divine authority” but why let that get in the way.
Now we have the ‘cosmic son of man’ with the word cosmic concerning both something extra-terrestrial and something massively significant.
Are you serious?….. On second thought you have surpassed the Trinitarians in words you wished were in the Bible.
Really, is this that difficult? I could say Jesus is coming from the sky (i.e. not earth) and that he is coming to establish God’s kingdom and it means the same thing (something massively significant). Cosmic is not a theology, it is merely a word I used on conversation to JohnO who understood it perfectly well to refer to Daniel 7.13-14.
Michael,
Out of curiosity, what is your belief about God and Jesus. It seemed like you were arguing for the Trinity a minute ago.
“Out of curiosity, what is your belief about God and Jesus. It seemed like you were arguing for the Trinity a minute ago. ”
he seems to be very nuetral a minute ago, but if he was leaning it was Unitarian.
but it wasnt really about that subject, it was about someone chosing words that are just meant for a select crowd. The Word of God is Glorious already and 99% of people understand and prefer plain old english
Wolfgang,
The use of technical terms is precisely what specialities do. We aren’t doing something “common” here. Everyone does not do theology. Technical terms exist as a short-hand to communicate concepts. And the Scripture is full of them.
Oh i see
your also Cosmic, way above the average
Oh well this common man who uses the common specialities like common sense will just have to deal with Y’all uncommon specialist.
Hi John O, hi Sean,
even though you claim the Scripture is full of such “technical terms” that “specialities do” … I just did not read anything about a “cosmic Son of Man” anywhere
Yes, I do read about Jesus having “ascended to heaven”, and about him “coming with the clouds” etc …. but I do not even read anything about him “coming from the sky” … or is “heaven” to be understood as “sky”?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Jesus Christ was no longer a man of flesh and blood like ourselves, but a heavenly being of supernatural origin in human form. With the help of a metaphysical system taken over from Greek philosophy, christological dogma came into being, and an attempt was made to describe the person of Jesus Christ in the form of the so-called “Doctrine of the two natures.” “Jesus Christ, true man and true God.” So men said, but from the beginning they shrank back from the bare historical character of the revelation of God. The Church has been in danger of docetism from the very beginning. That is, from the very beginning right until the present day the Church has been tempted to stress the “divinity” of Christ so one-sidedly that his “manhood” threatened to become a mere semblance. In this way Jesus Christ was made an historical abnormality. The “Son of God” was endowed with wonderful, indeed miraculous, qualities, to such an extent that his feet scarcely seemed any longer to touch the ground. What happened to this Christ was no longer the fate of a man but the fate of a remarkable, shadowy, fairy-tale figure, half man and half God. God offered himself in an earthen vessel, but men down the ages have made it into a golden monstrance. They have woven a golden veil of pious adoration, love and superstition and spread it over the rugged contours of God’s action in history. We can find iconography not only in Russia, but also in our own sermons and theological textbooks. — Karl Barndt, The Historical Jesus, 1963
That veil is the problem isn’t it? How often we can find a way to weave a veil to put over our hearts, and God wants none of that.
It’s a part of the old nature from the fall isn’t it?
There’s a wisdom of this world that comes to nought,
For it’s ways are temporary, and wisdom it has not,
It seems to be a thing so often wanted and bought,
But it has no lasting value, if it’s not really of God.
For a man to walk in the wisdom of God and not to connect with
Christ, seems impossible to me. Is it not?
Exodus 36:1
Then wrought Bezaleel and Aholiab, and every wise hearted man, in whom the Lord put wisdom and understanding to know how to work for the service of the sanctuary, according to all that the Lord
had commanded.
I was thinking, that if I was a movie producer or director and was
making a movie about the gospel, I would like to have this time included, and as each man worked and applied his trade, the camera would begin to fade on the man’s face, and another man’s face would begin to come into view…that man being the subject of
the movie.
Sean writes…Really, is this that difficult? I could say Jesus is coming from the sky (i.e. not earth) and that he is coming to establish God’s kingdom and it means the same thing.( same as the ‘cosmic son of man’ with the word cosmic concerning both something extra-terrestrial and something massively significant).
Response- You can say that Jesus is coming from the sky but scripture does not and you can say that Jesus coming makes him the cosmic son of man but scripture does not.
Sean writes…I used this term (‘cosmic son of man’) in keeping with its normal usage in both the English language and the biblical precedent of Daniel 7.13-14.
Response- How can a term not found in scripture have a biblical precedent? Your logic is the same as the one that can find the Trinity in scripture.
Sean writes…Out of curiosity, what is your belief about God and Jesus. It seemed like you were arguing for the Trinity a minute ago.
Response- You asked me earlier on this thread to “please entertain my remarks about what you wrote above” and you did not respond so if you wish to tweak your curiosity start from there.
Post 19- Sean writes… 1. so, you have done this? how did you go about collecting the verses?
Response- Take the cornerstone of Biblical Unitarian belief that Jesus is a human being after the resurrection, an intriguing thought that I had not considered. I read the verses used by BU’s to support this view and it seemed reasonable.
But you ask how one collects verses on a particular subject? Read.
Sean writes…2. who did you listen to/read on the side of biblical unitarianism…did you take notes? how many arguments did they present?
Response- I do not fear the truth and listened to, read and corresponded with leaders and teachers of your belief system. Are there any BU beliefs that I could have missed in this age of the internet?
Sean writes…3. please note how I worded the principle…I did not say the more ancient the belief the more valid it is…rather I said the more recent the belief the less valid it is (also I think you meant to say the Trinity has been held for 17 centuries???)
Response- You wrote that if a doctrine had not been held by anyone in church history then it was most likely incorrect even though the long held belief in the Trinity invalidates this part of your criteria which you try to circumnavigate with “If so, then when did the idea originate?” aka. the council of Nicaea.
Then you write that a doctrine that recently appears is most likely incorrect but if the doctrine is correct then what does the timetable of its appearance have to do with it?
Sean writes… 4. For the Trinity,…difficult texts include (but are not limited to) 1 John 5.7 (which they fabricated and then inserted to bolster their case…why did they need to do that if the Trinity was already clearly taught?), John 17.3, Deut 6.4; Deut 4.35-39; 2 Kings 19.19; Mark 13.32; 1 Tim 1.17; and many more
Response- Realizing that the Trinity is incorrect does not leave you with the truth. Showing someone how they are wrong does not make your doctrine correct and in point 6 and 7 you simply repeat this.
Sean writes… This priniciple states post-biblical Christians (i.e. the Christians who lived during the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries). Paul is not post-biblical (nor did he teach that Jesus was non human cf. 1 TIm 2.5; Acts 17.31).
Response- As posted on this site Anthony Buzzard wrote that…
One of our human frailties is our inability to hear the text of Scripture. More precisely, we have difficulty in hearing what the Bible says when we have been propagandized into a different opinion. We then start with a fixed notion and enter a kind of “denial” when we read verses which obviously conflict with our belief.
If you wish we can deal with the scriptures that you believe support the idea that Jesus is a human being after the resurrection some other time but for now in the spirit of what Anthony has written I would like to look at what Paul who is not post biblical but is post resurrection of Jesus has to say about your claim that he Paul “did he teach that Jesus was non human”
Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;
So Paul clearly claims that he is not an apostle from man or any human being but by Jesus and his Father. If Paul did not receive his ministry from a human being then how can Jesus be one?
Galatians 1:11-12 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Now Paul certifies that his gospel is not after a human being nor did he receive it from a human being but was taught it from a revelation of Jesus Christ.
Acts 26:16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
How can Jesus be a human being after the resurrection and make Paul a minister and a witness of things that he will reveal to him when Paul certifies that none of this was given to him by a human being?
Or did we start with the answer… One of our human frailties is our inability to hear the text of Scripture. More precisely, we have difficulty in hearing what the Bible says when we have been propagandized into a different opinion. We then start with a fixed notion and enter a kind of “denial” when we read verses which obviously conflict with our belief.
Michael
Hmm…so what exactly do you believe? Quoting your old comment isn’t helping. I’m still completely unaware of what you believe about Jesus.
Sean writes… Hmm…so what exactly do you believe? Quoting your old comment isn’t helping. I’m still completely unaware of what you believe about Jesus.
Response- But it is your belief that Jesus is a human being after the resurrection that is being examined. Paul who received his ministry and revelation from Jesus after the resurrection claims that he received nothing from all or any human being but from Jesus.
Please comment on the language that is used in scripture.
Take a look at Psalm 110. We know that Christ affirmed that he did not know the hour from his own testimony. Psalm 110 tells us that the Messiah is still awaiting this knowledge and direct order from God…
1 The Lord (God) said unto my Lord (Messiah), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Pay attention to the bold as it tells us that Christ still awaits this order of the time of return from the all knowing God.
The bolded part of Psalm 110 I was talking about is this…
until I (God) make thine enemies thy footstool.
Michael,
I do not wish to debate you on that subject. I was just trying to learn about your beliefs. I guess you aren’t interested in sharing.
The answers to many of our questions about the use of words
will be found if we seek to find out knowledge more than anything
else. In such a search we will find a flexibility that we need to survive spiritually, and a unity of the spirit that will be in the bond
of peace, by one, Jesus Christ. We can not come near to God without him. Jesus is unto us that knowledge.
Which one of us missed the straight and narrow gate at the beginining of our journey? That character in The Pilgrim’s Progress
was Ignorance, and that was a proper name for his character. It’s
the straight and narrow gate that leads one to the cross. There was a broad way that joined into the path the Pilgrims were on
that came down onto it. Little Faith came into the path from there.
He fell asleep and was robbed. I remember how it was that without
great heart for God there could be no great faith.
I heard a word on a CD. It was about the word repent. “Pent” means “the top”. It like the word “penthouse”, which is usually a
luxury apartment on the top floor of a highrise building. It’s at the top, and it’s very expensive to live there. To repent is to get back to
the top. We may have to do that over and over again if we want to
live at the top.
this is on original topic of this subject
Really doesnt matter on how they outline or interpret, how big of words they use to descibe, what they call themself, their opinion of themself, their opinion of others if they dont have the common sense to base sound doctrine on whats clear and uninterpretable. if its doesnt match what God has clearly preserved in the Bible than it isnt right ,but they follow after a bunch of intelligent idiots who thought they were specialist that mutilated it with thier superior intelligence just as it is being done today.
sorry a 6 year old could understand the Word of God better than most who use big fancy words to impress. i for one AINT impressed.
WAKE UP
Sean writes… I do not wish to debate you on that subject. I was just trying to learn about your beliefs. I guess you aren’t interested in sharing.
Response- A debate is not necessary for you to explain Galatians but I thought you would want to honor one of your better posts.
A Sacred Cow in religion is a topic or practice that cannot be discussed. It is a belief that is not only unquestioned but it is not even allowed to be investigated. In fact, often times it is considered at least a waste of time and at most an egregious sin to use one’s God given powers of reason to probe the subject. For example, among Catholics, that Mary lives in heaven and hears prayer is a sacred cow. For the Protestant the doctrine of the Trinity is off limits. For the Reformed or Presbyterian the doctrine of predestination is holy and unchallengeable. For the evangelical, the doctrines of infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture is presupposed.
For various charismatic churches speaking in tongues cannot be questioned. For the liberal Christian the doctrine of tolerance is above inquiry…and so on.
However, this is not the way to do theology. If we determine a priori that this or that doctrine is above and beyond investigation then we have locked ourselves into our position–we have become dogmatic. This is immanently inappropriate because we were not directly instructed by Jesus as were the apostles. Rather we are separated by 2,000 years, thousands of miles, a difference in language, culture, and many other anachronisms. Coming to understand the Bible as they wrote it requires work and sensitivity to our own biases. We need each other to challenge and enlighten so that all of us can come to greater understandings of Scripture.
If we are the movement which will find the truth, then we need to be the ones who have NO sacred cows, who replace fear of finding a treasured belief to be false with excitement to come to a greater truth. We cannot ever grow arrogant saying that we have everything right and everyone else is beyond the pale of genuine Christianity. (I think there are certain beliefs and practices that are necessary in order to be a Christian but they are not numerous.)
It is important to always be open to new truth even if it contradicts our existing beliefs. Yet at the same time we need not be skeptics who deny the existence of truth or people without conviction. We should cherish our beliefs and teach them with boldness, but at the same time we need to continue to be searching, always asking God to reveal his truth to us.
WOW
very well said Michael
Robert,
Sean wrote those wise words, I just don’t know if he believes them anymore.
Michael,
I do not appreciate your attitude. As Christians we need to be respectful and kind-hearted towards each other.
“Robert,
Sean wrote those wise words, I just don’t know if he believes them anymore.”
I have read some great stuff by Sean , but wasnt sure if it was the same Sean of lately.
then WOW Sean , very well said.
What happened?
Sean writes…I do not appreciate your attitude. As Christians we need to be respectful and kind-hearted towards each other.
Response- I ask you repeatedly to explain how you reconcile Galatians with your cornerstone belief that Jesus is a human being after the resurrection and you respond with … “Hmm…so what exactly do you believe? Please entertain my remarks about what you wrote above. I guess you aren’t interested in sharing .I do not wish to debate you on that subject”
Where is the Sean that said “If we are the movement which will find the truth, then we need to be the ones who have NO sacred cows, who replace fear of finding a treasured belief to be false with excitement to come to a greater truth’.
That Sean would have answered readily.
Here’s something about the fear of God which I read about in a book where a man was receiving very detailed visons of the Lord.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and isn’t it for all
time, yet is there reason to fear if there is no reason to, that is, in
his presence, though very aware of his power and might, we should fear, and yet, should we fear…..unless, there is a reason to?
The meaning of all that of course, depends on where we are at spiritually at the time…have we any sin, that sort of thing.
Let’s remember that Jesus is both the lion and the lamb, and he knows when to be what.
In his presence there will be no place to hide but in him.
Should we be afraid of a lamb? But, let’s remember that he is also a lion. Should we not be afraid of a lion? But, let’s remember that he is also the lamb.
Jesus is the word of God isn’t he? I’m reminded of Romans 13.
He will execute vengence when it is right to do so, and receive one
when it is also right to do so. Yes, Jesus knows the times. God gave
him all the power, and he earned the authority.
Michael
If you wouldnt mind could you give a little background about yourself and your beliefs.
as far as some here who just ignore different opinions you seem to want to look at everything from all the angles but are tired of being pegged as a trouble maker by people who think They have all the answers but ignore the plain facts because their is no glory in seeing what plain people can already see.
Robert,
There is no background of interest and there is no group affiliation save one person.
I have offered no opinion to ignore only the question about the cornerstone of Biblical Unitarian belief is being ignored.
I do not believe that they think they have all the answers but obviously have a sacred cow; no plain facts have been ignored because nothing has been discussed.
Biblical Unitarians are group that claims a thirst for truth yet seems mostly to enjoy beating the dead horse that is the Trinity, self examination does not seem to be encouraged.
But to what end? What is written in the Bible is done and its meaning secure and our opinions cannot change it. God is in control and His words will accomplish what they were intended for.
Having a sacred cow seems ill advised and unbiblical yet everyone must do what seems right and what they think God would have them to do.
Michael,
I’m curious about something. What do you think of this?
Micah 5:2
…whose goings forth…
Daniel 10:20
….I am gone forth…
Are both speaking of the same one?
I believe God knows how to hide a thing and so also to reveal.
Sometimes in hiding something he reveals. I also found out that Michael’s name means, “Who is like God.”
I believe God had the scriptures written such that men would have
to have the spirit of God to be led into the interpretation and the
meaning of it all. There are clues but they have to be followed the
right way.
Ray
God has hid many things to people who do not honor Him and reveals all thru God’s Holy Spirit. the same Holy Spirit which revealed God’s plan to Jesus
Isaiah 29
9 Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink. 10 For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, [3] the seers hath he covered. 11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book [4] that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: 12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. 13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: 14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed [5] to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.
17 Is it not yet a very little while, and Lebanon shall be turned into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field shall be esteemed as a forest? 18 And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness. 19 The meek also shall increase [6] their joy in the Lord, and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel. 20 For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off: 21 That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought. 22 Therefore thus saith the Lord, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale. 23 But when he seeth his children, the work of mine hands, in the midst of him, they shall sanctify my name, and sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and shall fear the God of Israel. 24 They also that erred in spirit shall come [7] to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine.
“There is no background of interest and there is no group affiliation save one person.”
Was just trying to understand who you are, it helps with understanding the things you say.
Are you on a quest for the truth, or has the truth been revealed.
to me there is only one belief and that is the whole truth.
I would hardly call the argument about whether Jesus was still human after the resurrection the “cornerstone of Biblical Unitarian belief.” It is at best a fringe doctrine, which depends largely on the interpretation of certain words. It has been argued at length on other threads, and to rehash it here would derail the thread and serve no purpose, in my opinion.
The cornerstone of Unitarian Belief is the fact that Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God, and not “God the Son.” On this I assume we agree. (Correct?)
However, when people ask you directly to share more about what you believe and you avoid the questions, it is only natural to wonder where you’re coming form.
Sometimes people darken the truth God wants to reveal. Job and
his three friends were like that and had to repent. Funny how they
spoke lots of good things of God, but were so blind to what was going on. I believe it was a religious spirit they were under.
Mark C writes… I would hardly call the argument about whether Jesus was still human after the resurrection the “cornerstone of Biblical Unitarian belief.” It is at best a fringe doctrine
Response- How can anyone’s understanding of Jesus be considered a fringe belief? And Jesus being a human being after the resurrection does not come down to the interpretation of a few words.
Mark C writes… The cornerstone of Unitarian Belief is the fact that Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God, and not “God the Son.” On this I assume we agree. (Correct?)
Response- The term “God the Son” is the Trinitarian explanation of Jesus as the only begotten Son of God.
Your understanding that Jesus is not God the Son does not explain your definition of Jesus as God’s only begotten Son.
Michael,
My point was that Unitarian belief is defined as Jesus being God’s Son as opposed to God. The name Unitarian, in fact, is meant to emphasize the difference - God is one person not three. This is the cornerstone of Unitarian belief.
Also, there is no “sacred cow” that cannot be discussed here. As I said, the argument you keep bringing up has been debated at length elsewhere and there would be no profit in rehashing it here.
Mark C writes… God is one person not three. This is the cornerstone of Unitarian belief.
Response- How can the cornerstone of your group be what God is not?
It’s like a teacher asking what the cause of the civil war and the class answering to abolish slavery and the teacher tells them they are wrong. So you raise your hand and say I know what caused the civil war, it was not to abolish slavery.
You are correct in that slavery was not the cause but the actual answer as to what caused the war has still not been given.
Mark C writes… The cornerstone of Unitarian Belief is the fact that Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God
Response- Most groups would give the same answer but the difference occurs when the explanation of how Jesus is God’s only begotten Son is given.
It’s like most interviews with the victor of some sporting event and they first thank God, does thanking God first indicate whether they are Trinitarians, Unitarians or Jehovah Witnesses and how could you tell?
Could Biblical Unitarians exist without Trinitarians?
Robert,
Well did Isaiah prophecy as you say. Care to take a guess at
my post 118 question, or is it sealed that you can not tell?
Hi Michael,
Did you perhaps not carefully read what Mark C. wrote? I included what he wrote above, and it starts out with “God IS one person …” which sort of rather clearly and plainly states something that God IS, does it not?
That he added “not three” is solely to emphasize the first part of the statement which tells what GOD IS ! => namely, ONE PERSON .. set in contrast to what other groups believe (namely, that God is three persons)
Cheers,
Wolfgang
As Wolfgang pointed out, the cornerstone is that God is one person. It’s the same cornerstone the Jews had, as expressed by the Shema.
They could exist - and did - before the doctrine of the Trinity came along. But they weren’t called Biblical Unitarians. That term has come about to designate the belief in contrast to Trinitarians.
As Wolfgang pointed out, the cornerstone is that God is one person. It’s the same cornerstone the Jews had, as expressed by the Shema.
Luke gives a pretty simple explanation of how Jesus is God’s Son.
Luke 1:
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
They could exist - and did - before the doctrine of the Trinity came along. But they weren’t called Biblical Unitarians. That term has come about to designate the belief in contrast to Trinitarians.
“Robert,
Well did Isaiah prophecy as you say. Care to take a guess at
my post 118 question, or is it sealed that you can not tell?”
Ray
there is nothing hid
Michael is an Angel with the power of God(Christ)(Holy Spirit) with him , he is not Jesus. they both exist with the same Christ just as all that God has commanded to do His will. you too could recieve this power through true belief.
Ray is the Michael here the one you wouldnt mention the name of
Mark wrote
“Also, there is no “sacred cow” that cannot be discussed here. As I said, the argument you keep bringing up has been debated at length elsewhere and there would be no profit in rehashing it here.”
are you kidding
this is almost a ranch of sacred cows
other than headliners the rest just gets ignored or gang attacked till it goes away
Mark c writes…As Wolfgang pointed out, the cornerstone is that God is one person. It’s the same cornerstone the Jews had, as expressed by the Shema.
Response- Agreed, I did not carefully read your post.
Mark C writes… Luke gives a pretty simple explanation of how Jesus is God’s Son.
Luke 1:3 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Response- This is the reason Jesus is called the Son of God and could not be any clearer.
Question-Could Biblical Unitarians exist without Trinitarians?
Mark C response…They could exist - and did - before the doctrine of the Trinity came along. But they weren’t called Biblical Unitarians. That term has come about to designate the belief in contrast to Trinitarians.
Response- Good, now we can leave them out of any further discussions, there are no Trinitarians here.
Mark C writes… The cornerstone of Unitarian Belief is the fact that Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God.
Response- As is mine but there is a specific day God declared Jesus as His only begotten Son and it was not the day he was born of Mary.
Mark C writes…I would hardly call the argument about whether Jesus was still human after the resurrection the “cornerstone of Biblical Unitarian belief.” It is at best a fringe doctrine, which depends largely on the interpretation of certain words. It has been argued at length on other threads, and to rehash it here would derail the thread and serve no purpose, in my opinion.
Response- Good enough, although I find Paul’s explanation in Galatians that he did not receive his position or revelation from a human being but from Jesus I will not ask you to explain why this simple language is not true nor will I request that you explain other points that have been discussed at length.
But there may be one point that you overlooked, I was on a discussion board with a BU teacher and others and this teacher proposed that where as God’s Spirit now can dwell in us in the coming age God shall dwell with His people.
Revelation 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
And the word used in Revelation 21:3 for dwell does not mean to settle among but to take on a tabernacle or to fix ones tabernacle. God is not a human being and will take on a tabernacle to be with His people.
Skenoo-to fix one’s tabernacle, have one’s tabernacle, abide or live in a tabernacle or tent, tabernacle
During the great tribulation there are those that skenoo or dwell in the heavens.
Revelation 12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
So we know that God will skenoo but His Son already has.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
This is Jesus after the resurrection and just after he was begotten by God and a human being does not skenoo on earth.
Mark C writes… The cornerstone of Unitarian Belief is the fact that Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God.
Response- As is mine but there is a specific day God declared Jesus as His only begotten Son and it was not the day he was born of Mary.
It was the day of the resurrection that God declare Jesus as His only begotten Son.
Acts 13:32-33 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
What does one of your BU websites teach on Acts 13:32-33?
BU site… Paul specifically clarifies that Psalm 2:7 refers to the resurrection of Jesus.
Do Biblical Unitarians teach that the resurrection of Jesus was his second birth?
BU site…At his second birth” (his resurrection)…
The fact that Biblical Unitarians do not recognize the second birth of Jesus as the day he was begotten by God is a little perplexing to me considering that they recognize the resurrection as the second birth and quote Acts 13:32-33 as the scriptural proof of this birth and this scripture is where God declares Jesus as His only begotten Son, not in Luke 1:35.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
Again, the fact that Biblical Unitarians will not acknowledge the resurrection of Jesus as the day God declared him as His only begotten Son prevents them from recognizing John 1:14 as a post resurrection verse.
Some do. Many do not. This has been dealt with on another thread:
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2008/11/23/today-i-have-begotten-you/
On the other hand, starting with the belief that the resurrection is the day God declared him as His Son prevents one from recognizing John 1:14 as referring to his birth. It could go either way.
Mark C writes…Some do. Many do not… It could go either way.
Response- Your confidence is uninspiring and your doctrine
lukewarm.
Michael,
Please do try to be kind when dialoging with fellow Christians.
Sean writes…Please do try to be kind when dialoging with fellow Christians.
Response- When searching the details of the cornerstone of your faith the conclusions are “Some do. Many do not… It could go either way”, is that confidence and conviction?
You had more assurance trying to explain the extra terrestrial cosmic son of man.
“On the other hand, starting with the belief that the resurrection is the day God declared him as His Son prevents one from recognizing John 1:14 as referring to his birth.”
John1:14 speaks nothing of his birth or rebirth it speaks of the recieving of God’s Spirit.
Jesus was begotten by God at birth and raised by God in his rebirth
John1
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
No, it is simply a statement of fact regarding what Unitarians believe, which is what you had originally commented on. Some Unitarians consider the resurrection as his second birth and quote Acts 13:32-33 accordingly. Many, including myself, do not.
Also, “it could go either way” was in reference to the fact that you interpret John 1:14 in light of your assumption that the resurrection is when Jesus was begotten, whereas someone beginning with a different assumption would interpret the same verse differently. The point is that the verse itself does not prove either assumption.
I prefer a straightforward reading of John 1. The Word of God became flesh when Jesus was conceived and subsequently born. In Luke, Mary was told that he would be called the Son of God because the holy spirit came over Mary and she conceived a son. He was already the Son of God when he received holy spirit in John 1:32. John said in v. 34, “I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God.”
In comparing Daniel 10 and the first chapter of Revelation there
seems to be a lot in common. There are also some things in common
in Daniel’s vision that followed his seeing this angel, one like the son of man, and the things we read in the book of Revelation.
The one John hears speak to him with the voice of a trumpet, (Rev 1:10 through chapter 3) is the Lord Jesus, is it not?
When I read about what Daniel saw in Daniel 10, I considered that
it could be the Lord Jesus, yet maybe it was his angel.
Any comments or observations about this?
” He was already the Son of God when he received holy spirit in John 1:32.”
Did i say he wasnt the Son of God before he recieved holy spirit. “Jesus was begotten by God at birth and raised by God in his rebirth “. how wasnt this clear for you
He was born the Son of God, the only begotten.
the Word became flesh when he recieved the holy spirit of God.
Ray
in Daniel it is Michael with the spirit of God with him and in rev it is Jesus with the spirit of God because the man in the midth of seven candlesticks represents Jesus at his death. the seven candle sticks or menorah is the light that shines(Gods light)(the spirit of God) and is the symbol of Jesus’s death
Daniel10
6 His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.
rev1
13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. 14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; 15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
“I prefer a straightforward reading of John 1. The Word of God became flesh when Jesus was conceived and subsequently born.”
why would the word of GOD need to recieve the Holy Spirit????????
kinda needless huh
Whether or not one interprets it as Jesus himself depends on whether one believes that Jesus existed before his birth. In chapter 7, the “one like the son of man” was part of the vision, and thus could have been a vision of the future. But in chapter 10, the one that Daniel saw touched him, and said he had come to give Daniel understanding. It sounds more like an angel, which would be consistent with chapters 8 & 9, in which Gabriel gives him understanding.
Since John 1:14 says, “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth,” then the logical conclusion is that the Word becoming flesh is equivalent to his being the only begotten from the Father. The Word of God (which was spoken of from verse 1 on) became flesh when Jesus was conceived and born as a man with flesh. On what do you base your statement that the Word became flesh when he received the holy spirit of God?
If we understand that the Word of God was the mind and plan of God which included the coming of Messiah, then God’s plan “became flesh” when that Messiah was born. But as a man he still needed the holy spirit which he received at his baptism.
“On what do you base your statement that the Word became flesh when he received the holy spirit of God? ”
On this simple common sense question and answer
“why would the Word of GOD need to recieve the Holy Spirit????????
kinda needless huh”
IT WOULDNT being they are both the same.
“If we understand that the Word of God was the mind and plan of God ”
what do you think the Holy Spirit is if it isnt the mind and plan of God?????????????????
The best definition I’ve heard is that it is the operational presence and power of God.
No i think you just gave the best definition .
of course the mind and plan of God and the operational presence and power of God are the same and both definitions work for the Holy Spirit of God
The Word of God and the Spirit of God are very closely related. But according to how the phrases are used in the Bible, the Spirit of God is usually more involved with empowering while the Word is more involved with communicating God’s mind. The Spirit of God is presented as God’s operational, or active presence and power, whereas the Word of God is usually used in the sense of God’s mind or plan.
Anyway, John 1:32 describes the Spirit of God descending from heaven and resting on Jesus. It doesn’t say that it became Jesus. But John 1:14 does say that the Word became flesh. There is no Scripture that speaks of the Holy Spirit becoming flesh.
“The Word of God and the Spirit of God are very closely related.”
If Jesus was the Word in the Flesh with Gods Mind and Plan just what else could he recieve that isnt already in the Word. the Word reveals ALL, the TRUTH, which is the Holy Spirit.
Closely related lol
I just explained the distinction which the Bible makes between the Word and the Spirit. I also pointed out that John 1:32 says that the spirit rested on Jesus, not became Jesus. If you have anything more constructive than “lol” to add, feel free.
the first one should leave you dumb
1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1 John 2:14
I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.
1 John 1:10
If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
1 Peter 1:23
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
You do know that I John 5:7-8 is widely known to have added words that aren’t in the majority of manuscripts? The added words are in bold:
I John 5:
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
The NASB has it correctly, as do most other more recent versions:
7 For there are three that testify:
8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
The other verses would only prove that the Spirit and the Word were the same if there were no other verses which showed the distinction. And you still haven’t dealt with my comment on John 1:32.
Robert,
What do you mean when you say, “the first one should leave you dumb?”
Sean
speachless is what dumb means.
could it mean anything else in that sentence??
Mark
It was translated to mean what it means. GOD,GODS WORD,GODS SPIRIT which are one in the same.
If You have God In You , You have the Word of God In You, and You have the Spirit of God In You. All 3 are the same.
THE WORD OF GOD IS THE HOLY SPIRIT.
GOD IS TRUTH
GODS WORD IS TRUTH
GODS SPIRIT IS TRUTH
if you knew the TRUTH you would understand
“And you still haven’t dealt with my comment on John 1:32″
Whats to deal with???????
recieving Gods spirit or word doesnt make you you that, it dwells in you.
you havent dealt with why would someone who was the word need to recieve the spirit?
TRUTH IS TRUTH.
BTW
there is a better translation of Gods Word within Gods people than any written word
The Word becoming flesh doesnt just refer to Jesus, It also refers to all that have it written in their hearts(Holy Spirit)
The words were added. This is a known fact. You can look it up if you don’t believe me.
We’re not talking about you or me receiving God’s Spirit. The whole subject of John 1 is the Word of God and how it was manifested in the person of Jesus.
You originally said, “John1:14 speaks nothing of his birth or rebirth it speaks of the recieving of God’s Spirit” and then quoted verses 14 and 32. I pointed out that v. 32 describes the Spirit of God descending from heaven and resting on Jesus. It doesn’t say that it became Jesus, but John 1:14 does say that the Word became flesh. There is no Scripture that speaks of the Holy Spirit becoming flesh.
Actually I did, in post #148.
Do you have any Scripture references to back this up?
When we receive the word of God and the spirit of God by Jesus Christ, we become changed, for the old things pass away and we become new in Christ. This process should continue throughout our life on this earth. One day we will see the Lord face to face. One day we will be changed into his glory. Till then those who abide in Christ are in this world as he is, to some degree or other.
When I look at Daniel’s revelations and the revelations given in the book of Revelation, am I not looking into the glory of God? Shouldn’t be be then changed by so doing, in some degree or other?
I might not understand clearly who’s who or what’s what, but I still
see the glory of the Lord. I know that the things of this world are temporary and of no eternal value. All those things will pass away
but the glory of the Lord will abide forever. All who have received
him will be changed from glory to glory as they continue in him. This is a wonderful mystery is it not?
I find the difference between the KJV and the NASB in I John 4:7&8
interesting. It causes me to wonder if there were doctrinal battles
in the early church concerning the trinity. I often wonder why it is
that men strive to prove that their doctrine is better than another mans,
and why it is that they never seem to agree. Conversations in the
things of God are good when they are managed well, but troubling
when men are carnal.
This is certainly true. However, I don’t believe that’s what John 1:14 is talking about.
Very much so, and there were even physical battles about it. You might enjoy reading Richard Rubenstein’s book, When Jesus Became God. It chronicles all of that.
Mark
you have no idea, but believe what you want just remember there is room in Joshua’s house when your ready
While most think it supports the trinity, it actually disproves it unless you think the Word became Jesus at birth.
as i said the Word becoming flesh doesnt just refer to Jesus, It also refers to all that have it written in their hearts(Holy Spirit) and minds as promised in the new covenant
1 John 5:7-8
(KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. {8} And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
(NIV) 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
. Only four or five very late manuscripts contain these words in Greek. (The NKJV is a notorious version with their doubt casting footnotes which have the same devastating effect as if they just mutilated the text itself. Do you see they claim only 4 or 5 late manuscripts have the verse in them? We saw a lot more evidence than 4 or 5 which means they are deceiving their readers which means the NKJV also qualifies as a false version.)
(NASV) 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
(ESV) 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.
(CEV) 7 In fact, there are three who tell about it. 8 They are the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and they all agree.
(1901 ASV) 7 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.
(HCSB) 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood —and these three are in agreement
(RSV) [7] And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. [8] There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.
(NAB-Roman Catholic) 7 So there are three that testify, 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.
(NWT) 7 For there are three witness bearers, 8 the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are in agreement.
(NKJV) Footnote - NU-Text and M-Text omit the words from in heaven (verse 7) through on earth (verse
Textus Receptus
1 John 5:7 oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV en tw ouranw o pathr o logoV kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi treiV en eisin
1 John 5:8 kai treiV eisin oi marturounteV en th gh to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiV eiV to en eisin
Hort Westcott
1 John 5:7 oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV
1 John 5:8 to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiV eiV to en eisin
Corrupted Manuscripts
These verses are corrupted in the following manuscripts:
Aleph - Sinaiticus - Fourth Century
B - Vaticanus - Fourth Century
A - Alexandrinus - Fifth Century
These three manuscripts are the primary manuscripts where 1 John 5:7-8 have been corrupted. There are many other later manuscripts which are ancillary to these three because they were copied from them. Like begets like and when you copy from a corrupted manuscripts the lineage of corruption will continue. 1 John 5:7-8 has been attacked by the pro modern version crowd as being a scribal addition later on in years. However, 1 John 5:7-8 is found in the Old Latin Vulgate and Greek Vulgate (90-150 A.D.), plus the Syriac Peshiito (150 A.D.) It is also found in many first century church lectionaries. Lectionaries were used in churches for readings and liturgy for church services especially for special days of the year. They are akin to the responsive readings which we find in today’s hymn books. Tatian’s Diatesseron which was a harmony of the four gospels written about 150 A.D. When Taitian was writing the book of John, he had referenced 1 John 5:7 which proves that 1 John 5:7 antedates Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, by 200 years, where the verse is omitted.
Dr. John Overall, who was one of the King James translators was a scholar in the teachings of the early Church Fathers. His contribution concerning 1 John 5:7 was vital since manuscript evidence was lacking because of the Alexandrian school where it was mutilated. He knew that the early church fathers had referenced those verses quite frequently. The modern version proponents only look to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as their authorities and reject the massive amount of other evidences such as the church lectionaries. If 1 John 5:7-8 did not exist in the originals, then how could they have been quoted by the church fathers if it was non-existent? A simple question of logic.
Erasmus was a Greek scholar who was used of the Lord mightily as a precursor to the Reformation. He printed a Greek New Testament in 1516 and the Reformation took place in 1517. There is no such thing as a coincidence in the Kingdom of God, only a God-incident. Now Erasmus in reference to 1 John 5:7 originally did not want to include that portion unless a Greek manuscript could be found as evidence of its authenticity. He claimed that Greek manuscripts and even some Latin manuscripts did not have this verse in it. In due time Erasmus was presented with Codex Montfortianus which is in Dublin, Ireland and Codex Britannicus which both contained 1 John 5:7 and with this proof, he confidently placed these verses in his third edition of the Greek in 1522 and his last one in 1535. Erasmus died in 1536 but God had set the stage for the translation of the final true Bible in the English language which would be used of Christians until the Lord returned on the last day.
Some of the other evidences where 1 John 5:7-8 can be found are as follows:
Some Syriac Peshitto manuscripts, The Syriac Edition at Hamburg, Bishop Uscan’s Armenian Bible, the Armenian Edition of John Zohrob, the first printed Georgian Bible.
Early Latin witnesses include:
1) Tertullian who died in 220 A.D.
2) Cyprian of Carthage who died in 258 A.D.
3) Priscillan who died in 358 A.D.
4) The Speculum - Fifth century
5) A creed called Esposito Fidei - Fifth or sixth century
6) Old Latin - Fifth or sixth century
7) A Confession of Faith of Eugenius, Bishop of Carthage (484 A.D.)
8) Cassiodoris of Italy (480-570 A.D.)
Nine Manuscripts which contain 1 John 5:7-8:
#61 - Sixteenth century
#88 - Twelfth century
#221 - Tenth century
#429 - Fourteenth century
#629 - Fourteenth century
#535 - Eleventh century
#636 - Fifteenth century
#918 - Sixteenth century
#2318 - Eighteenth century
The evidence is overwhelming for the authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8. Keep in mind that it was Origen who was the father of the false manuscripts who removed this verse as he did verses like Acts 8:37 and Luke 24:40. The Alexandrian school was no friend of the true manuscripts which were taken from Antioch and mutilated according to Gnostic beliefs.
Affected Teachings
The mutilation of 1 John 5:7-8 in the second century was an attack upon the Trinity. The rejection of the Trinity is alive and well today in the Jehovah’s Witnesses camp and is alive and well in the modern versions which agree totally with their New World Translation. Trinitarian theology is totally disbelieved by the Gnostics and many cult groups including the Jews. For any Theologian, Pastor, or Christian to endorse a version which attacks the Trinity, means they too disbelieve the Trinity or else they would not be defending the Gnostic view.
These verses are the most hotly contested by the modern version proponents simply because they disregard all the evidence that is available. This section of Scripture has been named the “Johannine Comma.” 1 John 5:7-8 is as much a part of the original autographs as Jesus Himself was. Therefore, we can claim these verses as authentic without hesitation.
I would suggest that you print this information out and keep it as part of your library since 1 John 5:7-8 is a major bone of contention that the pro-modern version people tend to throw at us. If you have this information at hand, you will disarm them and cause them to go on the defensive and since most Christians are ignorant and refuse to do any research to combat their ignorance, you will have succeeded in proving your case and maybe winning over another Christian to the truth.
First of all, it would be helpful if you differentiated between the material you’re quoting and your own comments, and provide references to your sources.
Second, I have to wonder if you noticed that all of the versions you quoted except for the KJV say, “there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one.” The added words were, “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” The newer versions had access to many older MSS that had not been discovered when the KJV was translated.
I trust you understand there is a difference between “these three ARE one” and “these three AGREE IN ONE.” Your point was that the Spirit and the Word were one and the same, but neither this verse nor the others you quoted before say that.
John was one that saw the Lord in his resurrection glory, or his
transfigured glory if you prefer. I do believe it had a positive effect
on him.
Jesus also gave out a recognition of who he was by the truth and
grace that was evident through him, and that it was of God. I suppose there are many ways to behold his glory and all of them
should change us for the better. In beholding the word of God, we
should be affected for the better.
I wonder what people saw when they looked at Jesus. I suppose some saw the word of God and others ’saw’ something different
due to something within themselves.
We can see some of these things by what the people said about him. In their perspective they reveal things about themselves, though I can’t see clearly what. Yet, Jesus knew what was in man.
He knew every man didn’t he?
Mark
you still have no idea what you are saying and i dont expect it to ever change.
all the greek text that has it removed is false and all translations from it are false.
but as i said believe what you want.
you wouldnt understand that i understood or not so why ask.
Once again you have turned an intelligent discussion into a personal attack. Nice dodge. I too wonder why I bother asking, but not for the same reasons. Peace.
“Once again you have turned an intelligent discussion into a personal attack.”
how do you describe as an intelligent discussion when intelligence never entered it by me or you.
i was using common sense and havent identified what you were using yet
Some interesting reading for whoever is interested:
By Daniel B. Wallace:
http://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8
http://bible.org/article/comma-johanneum-and-cyprian
By Mike Sarkissian:
http://biblicalthought.com/blog/a-critical-examination-and-exegesis-of-1-john-57/
Interesting quote from the first article by Daniel B. Wallace:
Spirit & Truth Fellowship International
This addendum to our FAQ about the birth of Jesus Christ will set forth the corollary truth about his second “birth,” something not as well known but, in reality, just as necessary as his first birth in accomplishing God’s plan for him as the Savior of mankind. Had Jesus not been born in Bethlehem, and then chosen to live a sinless life all the way to the Cross, he could not have been “born” a second time via God raising him from the dead.
We will see that, in Scripture, resurrection is figuratively called “birth.” At his first birth, God prepared Jesus for his earthly ministry as the Redeemer of man by giving him a body with sinless blood, untainted by the sin of Adam that beset all other men and women. At his “second birth” (his resurrection), God prepared Jesus for his heavenly ministry by giving him a body forever energized by His holy spirit, one in which Jesus as “Lord” now has the capacity to function as the Head of his Body, the Church, communicating with each member of that spiritual organism.
The book of Hebrews begins with God setting forth His Son as His most unique communication to mankind ever. Verse 3 calls him the “…radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being.” It then says that after Jesus had done his job on earth, he took up his position as Lord at God’s right hand. Verse 4 then begins a comparison between Jesus and angels that extends all the way through Chapter 2 (In our book, One God & One Lord, we cover this fabulous section of Scripture in detail.). Verse 4 represents Jesus as far superior to the angels because of the name (position) he has been given by God. Then verses 5 and 6 read:
Hebrews 1:5 and 6
(5) For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”?
(6) And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.”
At first glance, the above verses seem to refer to the first birth of Jesus, and one might think of the words to the classic Christmas carol, “O Come All Ye Faithful,” where it says that Jesus was “born the king of angels.” As per Hebrews 1, those words are true, but not regarding his first birth. Yes, Jesus was born to one day be the king of the world, but it was his “birth” from the dead that guaranteed the future fulfillment of this reality. At Bethlehem, the great company of angels who announced the glad tidings to the shepherds did not worship Jesus, but God (Luke 2:13 and 14). And, speaking of his first birth, Hebrews 2:9, properly translated, says that Jesus “was made lower than the angels for a little while” (RSV, NRSV, NASB). So let us look more closely at Hebrews 1:5 and 6, and in so doing we will see some of the marvelous precision of God’s written Word.
According to the Greek text, the first part of verse 6 is better rendered, “When he again brings his firstborn into the world….” The word “again” indicates that this is referring to a second coming. Next, all commentators agree that Hebrews 1:5a is quoting Psalm 2:7, which comes after the first six verses that paint a prophetic portrait of the kings of the earth vainly opposing the Messiah’s return to rule the world from Jerusalem, a kingdom that will last 1000 years (Rev. 20:4). We will quote verse 7 along with the remaining five verses of the psalm:
Psalm 2:7-12
(7) I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father.
(8) Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.
(9) You will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”
(10) Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth.
(11) Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling.
(12) Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
In his brief but brilliant discourse at the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch in Acts 13, the apostle Paul summarizes the history of Israel, culminating with God sending them Jesus as the promised Messiah, whom they killed. His subsequent statement in verse 30 is pithy and powerful: “But God raised him from the dead.” Paul continued:
Acts 13:32 and 33
(32) “We tell you the good news: What God promised our fathers
(33) he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: “‘You are my Son; today I have become your father.’
Paul specifically clarifies that Psalm 2:7 refers to the resurrection of Jesus, and that fits perfectly with the ensuing verses (8-12 above), which are as if God said to Jesus, “Well, now that you’re up from the dead, what would you like to do? How about ruling the world when the time comes?” And that is exactly what Jesus will do one day.
After Hebrews 1:5 and 6 speak of Jesus’ resurrection, verses 8 and 9 follow suit, as it were, with Psalm 2 and speak of his subsequent rule in the Millennial Kingdom and beyond:
Hebrews 1:8 and 9
(8) But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
(9) You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.”
As we mentioned early on, resurrection is sometimes referred to as “birth” in Scripture, and Isaiah, speaking of the resurrection of Israelites who believed in the Messiah, gives us a classic example (cp. Ezek. 37:1-14):
Isaiah 26:19
But your dead will live; their bodies will rise. You who dwell in the dust, wake up and shout for joy. Your dew is like the dew of the morning; the earth will give birth to her dead.
In closing, let us look at the following verses:
Hebrews 10:5-7
(5) Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me;
(6) with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased.
(7) Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—I have come to do your will, O God.’”
In context, these verses specifically refer to Jesus’ first birth in which his fleshly body was prepared for sacrifice. However, given that his first body was prerequisite to his second, and that the “scroll” prophesies of both his first and second comings, we believe it also subtly points toward his second birth and second body. The job set before the Redeemer of all mankind was so big that he needed two different bodies to do it. What a magnificent plan God had, and what a Savior Jesus is to have carried it out.
For the Church (we who are Christians as per Romans 10:9), Jesus is the Head of the Body, the Lord who has saved us and filled us with holy spirit to minister in his stead now, and he is the one whom we anticipate meeting in the air.
In regard to Israel, Jesus’ first birth brought him into his ministry as their promised Messiah. But at his first coming to Israel, they, as a nation, rejected and killed him. His second “birth” brought him into his ministry as the exalted Lord who will one day come again to Israel in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. But then he will not come as the Lamb of God to be the sacrifice for man’s sin; he will not come riding on a donkey. When he comes again to Israel, he will come as the Lion of Judah, riding on a majestic white horse, and then it will be he who destroys the enemies of God and raises from the dead all Jews who believed in him as the Messiah.
[END NOTE: Although it is beyond the scope of this brief article, a study of the word “firstborn” as it applies to Jesus (in particular Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15,18; Rev. 1:5) will show that it refers to his post-resurrection ministry.]
Response- The second paragraph states that “We will see that, in Scripture, resurrection is figuratively called “birth.”
Why is the birth of Jesus to Mary real birth and his birth by the resurrection figurative?
What would be the meaning of this teaching if the second birth wasn’t figurative?
What term would more likely describe what happened to Jesus at the resurrection, he was reanimated by God or he was begotten by God?
——————————————————————————–
Most read article about Jesus:
Who is Jesus Christ?
Mark
Just some morefalse doctrine, i was wrong about you when i said you should only preach about God is One. I now repent from that because you still claim Jesus as God by saying the Word became Jesus at His birth.
Or maybe you are just lowering God’s Word below that of angels.
which is it???
The “davar (word)” has never been defined as a person in scripture. Christ was not simply a “word” in the beginning. I don’t think that any Trinitarian is going to believe that. Most Trinitarians believe that Christ was a pre-existing co-equal part of the Godhead, not simply to be defined as the “word.” I think it is most important to point out is that John explained that the word BECAME flesh, it doesn’t read that the word was pre-existing as Christ. Flesh is what the word BECAME.
Here is a passage from the mouth of Christ that I think sums up John 1 very well. John 17:14…
14 “I have given them Your word; [THE WORD MADE FLESH!!!] and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
The word has always been God’s, and God chose to instill that word into our Messiah so that he could carry out being the mediator between God and man (1 tim 2:5).
Why? Seems as though there is a Universal process of God working within his Creation with his Creation and the only way to do this is for God to instill his life saving knowledge into the world. Very, very, “down to earth” if you think about it.
When I considered the conception of Chirst in the womb of Mary,
I considered that the Spirit of God may have been like an invisible
cloud that overshadowed Mary, and in that shadow was great favor.
I considered that, out of this invisible cloud, proceeded him who was with God from eternity, hence a ‘birth’ of God. It then seemed to me that Jesus was then born of God before he was born of Mary.
To this day, I don’t know how many births Jesus had.
Truly the grave was full at three days,
And Jesus no more it could contain.
“Here is a passage from the mouth of Christ that I think sums up John 1 very well. John 17:14…”
Thank you Joseph
this verse sums up verse 14
The Word(Truth) is the Holy Spirit of God which we recieve through true belief in God and that Jesus is the Son Of God which is the Word becoming flesh or being written in our hearts and minds.
God is Truth
The Word is Truth
The Holy Spirit is Truth
to have one we must have all in us because they are one in the same. this we know by the whole Word of God ,not just by one verse.
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified [1] through the truth.
Robert,
In your last post you mention how the word is or was in the process of becoming flesh, or being written in our hearts.
Do you believe in the birth of Jesus from the womb of Mary?
Ray
I believe every word
Jesus was born from Mary’s womb, begotten by God the son of Mary and the the son of God as a man
why do you ask when i have always made that clear
as the Word of God says, the Holy Ghost(spirit) and the Word of God(Truth) serve the same purpose because they are the same.
what more could be a better comforter than the Truth and with the Truth how hard could it be to obey God when the Truth shows you the Kingdom of God
Romans 15
16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up [1] of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
John 17
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified [1] through the truth.
Robert,
Just want to clarify, I don’t believe that Jesus is God or that he is the holy spirit. What I do believe is that Christ is a man, mediator between us and God as 1 Timothy 2:5 states, who received the GIFT of the holy spirit. John 1 tells us that God made his word become flesh into a human Messiah so that the Messiah could deliver the message of the Gospel to the world as our mediator. God is not the author of confusion and he has a plan, which is why Christ was chosen as our Messiah from the beginning for a creation that has the freedom to choose. This is why I brought up John 17:14…
14 “I have given them Your word; [THE WORD MADE FLESH!!!] and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
This verse seems to be telling us a couple of things. One being, that Christ is verifying John’s account of God’s word being given to Messiah to give to the world. Which is a direct relation to 1 tim 2:5 as this is his position as the human Messiah, mediator. And two, that accepting (doing) this word gives us a heavenly status of the knowledge of the Kingdom, which is why Christ says that we are “not of this world” as he is “not of this world.” We separate ourselves from the world by accepting God’s message which comes from our Messiah that was sent by God.
“Just want to clarify, I don’t believe that Jesus is God or that he is the holy spirit. What I do believe is that Christ is a man, mediator between us and God”
this we totally agree on.
the question is when was the Word made flesh
was at his birth by Mary
was it when he recieved the holy spirit
or was when he was ressurected(rebirth)
verse 17 was to help understand verse 14
Even if we were to accept that the Holy Spirit and the Word of God are one and the same, Luke 1:35 still says, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.” So it would still be the Spirit/Word of God that caused Jesus to be conceived in Mary’s womb. This is why John 1:14 says, “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
This would only be the same as saying Jesus is God if we started with the assumption that the Word was a person, the second person of the Trinity, which we are not doing.
Luke 1:35 speaks nothing about the word becoming flesh.
the Word became flesh when Jesus Himself recieved the Holy Spirit which was right before his ministry.
the same with all the disciples and all of God’s people. but Jesus was the first to have it written in his heart and mind. we recieve the same as Jesus but the Birthright is his because he was the first and His works are far greater than any man then or now.
“This would only be the same as saying Jesus is God if we started with the assumption that the Word was a person, the second person of the Trinity, which we are not doing.”
no it is still saying Jesus is a part of Gods being, his word which is God. i am not saying you support the trinity i am saying you speak of Jesus as God.
Jesus only recieved the Truth from Holy spirit when the Word became flesh, the Word did not become Him, It found a spot to be written in the flesh not on paper or stone as before this. uncorruptable by man.
Robert,
I asked what I did because of what I read. (post 179) It wasn’t clear to me so
I asked.
Do you believe that old testament followers of God were or could have been born again, or born of the spirit of God as they received
the word of God written in their hearts?
I ask this because you talked about a sense in which the word became flesh, which did not seem to mention the physical birth of
Jesus.
“Do you believe that old testament followers of God were or could have been born again, or born of the spirit of God as they received
the word of God written in their hearts?”
No one is born again till God raises us from the dead, this is not something that happens in this life but it is something you can be accounted for.
Jesus was the first to recieve the word written in the flesh before that it was written on paper and stone
But you said the Word and the Spirit are one and the same (which I don’t agree with). Yet even if that were the case, the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary so that she conceives the Son of God, and John 1:14 saying the Word was made flesh and “we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father” are saying the same thing.
You keep saying that, but there is no Scripture that says it. Even, again, allowing that the Spirit and the Word are the same thing, the Bible says that he received the Spirit/Word, not that the Spirit/Word was made flesh at that time.
Having the Word written on his heart and mind is not the same thing as “becoming flesh.”
But Jesus is what the Word became. That’s why his name is called the Word of God in Revelation.
Not only does the Bible not say that, but it also flatly contradicts John 1:14. You keep glossing over the second part of the verse: “we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” The whole context of John 1 is talking about how God’s Word was manifested as His only begotten Son.
I think point 7 of Sean’s list applies in this case: Can the doctrine be derived directly from Scripture, or is it merely the case that Scripture can be used to support it?
This contradicts many verses of the New Testament, which speak of the new birth as something we receive in this life.
There are so many doctrines of men. It’s a good time to get rid of them all.
I believe the scriptures are clear that those who have received Christ, being baptized into his death have taken on a new life in him, and are in fact born again by this experience of new life in Christ by the holy spirit which they have received.
I suppose we could say that the resurrection from the dead will be
a new birth. I suppose we could speak of it that way, but to say that no one can be born again till then does not fit with scripture.
If we hold one perspective on a subject, lets remember that it ought not to contradict other perspectives that are true. We need
to be flexible and at the same time stay on track. It’s a disciplined
walk that we are called to.
If we all held to certain doctrines and expected all others to fit to our certain doctrine we would destroy ourselves, would we not?
It’s all too common isn’t it?
If I do speak of the resurrection as being begotton from the grave,
I ought to do so without being a stumbling block to others. I might
do that in poetry, but I think it to be most fitting to be spoken of
concerning Jesus. I suppose I could speak of the resurrection we
hope for as being born again, again, in poetry or song. I do think
we have liberty in Christ to be creative. There’s also a great responsiblity in that as we deal in the things of God.
“But Jesus is what the Word became. That’s why his name is called the Word of God in Revelation.”
this is a trinitarian belief.
there is nothing to support it being just Jesus without the power of God which is the Word of God
“But you said the Word and the Spirit are one and the same (which I don’t agree with). Yet even if that were the case, the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary so that she conceives the Son of God, and John 1:14 saying the Word was made flesh and “we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father” are saying the same thing.”
The Holy Spirit Does Gods work, Let there be Light
Gods Word Became flesh by being written in the flesh and John B witnessed the glory of it. Jesus was the only begotten at birth and when he recieved the Word some 20+ years latter so your agruement is baseless
“Having the Word written on his heart and mind is not the same thing as “becoming flesh.” ”
yes it is and it was promise to be by God thru the prophets
“This contradicts many verses of the New Testament, which speak of the new birth as something we receive in this life.”
this only contadicts in your mind because you must not believe in the ressurection of the dead
if you are born again during this life and you sin wouldnt you die.
being born again is a kingdom of God phrase, not of this world or this life. but you can be accounted for it in this life
Have a great 4th all, pick this back up on monday
No, the trinitarian belief is that The Word is a person, specifically the third person of the Trinity, and he became flesh by entering the world through Mary. What I’m saying is that the Word is God’s mind and plan, and it became flesh when God conceived His Son in Mary.
I’m not saying it was without the power of God. God’s Word plans it, His Spirit is the power by which it comes to pass. It’s all by God’s doing. As you say, “The Holy Spirit Does Gods work, Let there be Light.”
You’re still glossing over the second part of verse 14. It wasn’t just John the Baptist that beheld his glory, and the glory that “we” beheld when the Word became flesh is that of the only begotten Son of God. That’s what the verse says, and that’s the subject of the context is.
He received the Word through the Scriptures all his life, and he received the Holy Spirit when he was baptized. But my argument was that he “received” the Holy Spirit - it does not say that the Word became flesh at that time. There is no verse that says that.
Are we going to go back and forth with “yes it is… no it isn’t… yes it is” again, or are you going to actually produce some Scripture to back up your assertions? The prophets promised the Word being written on peoples’ hearts, but they never said that would be the way the Word becomes flesh. That’s not the meaning of those simple words.
What?? That doesn’t even make sense. Of course I believe in the resurrection of the dead. But if you look at the NT verses that refer to the New Birth (such as I Peter 1:3-4, 23; Titus 3:5 [literally “washing of rebirth”]; James 1:18; II Cor. 5:17; and several references to being born of God in I John), you see that it is something that begins in this life. It will be completed when Christ returns, but it is not correct to say we are not born again until then.
No, of course not. The new birth has nothing to do with whether we sin or not. Remember, it’s by grace through faith, not of works.
Being born again is not limited to the future Kingdom. It’s not of this world, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen in this life. Jesus defines it as receiving the seed which is the Word of the Kingdom. That seed grows and develops and produces fruit. The final harvest is at the resurrection.
Here is an interesting and enlightening article by Anthony Buzzard about the new birth:
http://www.focusonthekingdom.org/110.htm#1
Dear Robert,
you repeatedly have stated the following
it would be good if you would first define the expression “to become flesh”
next, you should define what you mean with “Word became flesh”
next you should clarify how “receiving holy spirit” = “word becomes flesh”
Perhaps it is possible to make some sense of what you claim there once you have defined the terms and how you use them … because as it is, and understanding the terms in their generally accepted meanings, your claim makes absolutely no sense ….
Thus, please clarify your claim so that one can perhaps understand what you are actually trying to say …
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Robert,
Is it that the way you walk always leads others far off the path of life?
It seems like every time someone gets on the word you want to
lead them far off in some other direction. Are you quite certain you
know the way to the Celestial City?
“Are we going to go back and forth with “yes it is… no it isn’t… ‘yes it is” again, or are you going to actually produce some Scripture to back up your assertions?”
Mark
everytime i do you just deny them. this isnt rocket science , it just common sense.
“Thus, please clarify your claim so that one can perhaps understand what you are actually trying to say …”
Wolfgang
Clarifying doesnt seem to be my strong suit, sometimes i am just trying to understand all of this myself. but i willl try harder
Ray
If i have shown you anything that is against GOD then by all means staighten me out, if it isnt and then just against you than dont accuse me of things i have no intention of doing. i am not here to lead anyone anywhere they dont want to go
I don’t “just deny” them. I present Scriptural evidence, which you either ignore or flatly contradict with no counter evidence from Scripture. When that doesn’t work you resort to ad hominem arguments and turn it into personal insults.
If you don’t believe or can’t accept what I’ve written, at least deal with the stuff I’ve linked to from other sources. Just saying “this is what I believe” is not sufficient. You have to handle the arguments that are presented in opposition to your belief.
when you recieve the holy Spirit the Word becomes flesh in your heart the same as it was recieved by Jesus when the Holy Spirit came over him. Jesus had acccess to scriptures before the Holy Ghost but knew them personally after.
while OT times relied on Priest to teach you the Word written on paper and stone, now it is written in the flesh when you unconditionally believe God.(Faith)
The Word Becoming flesh is the better way to know the Word of God
Isaiah 44:18
They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.
Jeremiah 31:33
But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people
Romans 2
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law
written in their hearts, their conscience
Romans 5:5
And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us
2 Corinthians 1:22
Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
2 Corinthians 3
3Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you? 2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: 3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. 4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
2 Corinthians 4:6
For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
Hebrews 8:10
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Hebrews 10:16
This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
“When that doesn’t work you resort to ad hominem arguments and turn it into personal insults.”
Mark
you are the worst and the nastiest at this but your friends just choose to back you.you do it with everyone. you are the most unchristian christian i have met.
so if you dont like my comments keep yours to yourself
Robert,
The Scriptures which you quoted do speak of the Word being written on people’s hearts. No argument there. But not one of them says that the Word being made flesh refers to this rather than to the conception and birth of Jesus Christ.
Everything that we have written is still there for anyone to see. Show me one place where I made a nasty or unchristian comment about you.
I even apologized for any misunderstanding you may have had for anything I said and attempted to make peace, but you refused. Yet you continue to post rude comments in response to my attempts to conduct a civil debate.
Furthermore, even if I had insulted you, it wouldn’t justify you doing so in return. Do I need to point out the insulting comments that you have posted, which for the most part I have tried to ignore?
Robert,
you make some claim there, add a list of scriptures … BUT none of those scriptures say or support what you claim.
What about the context of the only place in which the expression “word became flesh” is used in the Scriptures? Should one dismiss context for the sake of one’s own ideas?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Should one dismiss context for the sake of one’s own ideas?
Wolfgang
No
One should USE context but when dealing with things that people claim to mean several different in context means that all but one or all is out of context.
the fact you feel that none of the verses refer to my claim just means at least one of us is out of context and of course your ego wont let it be you.
should common sense be dismissed for the sake of ego?
what do you think is written in the heart?
the Word of God (Truth)is written in the fleshy tablets of the heart, surely i am not the only one that has read the words.
try opening it upand you will find all refer
“What about the context of the only place in which the expression “word became flesh” is used in the Scriptures?”
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
this is the witness with his real purpose
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
the Light is the WORD
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
this speaks of those who didnt believe the Word of God
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power [2] to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
this speaks of those who believed the word
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
this speaks of the recieving of the Word by the Holy Spirit writting it in our inward parts of Jesus which John came to witness. Jesus promised that all that believe would recieve the Word in the Flesh.
now show me the context where this speaks of any thing different
It is right there, and has been pointed out to you before: “…and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.” The verse does not mention “receiving the Word by the Holy Spirit writing it in our inward parts…” Those words are not there - you’re reading that idea into the verse.
Also, you started with verse 6, but the first five verses of John 1 set the context - the Word of God. Then come the verses you referred to.
These verses don’t just speak of “those who didn’t believe the Word of God.” They speak of how God was in the world that He made, and how He came to His own who didn’t receive Him. How was God in the world? Through His only-begotten Son, which idea is established in verse 14. Nothing about receiving the Holy Spirit here.
Then verse 18 says, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” It’s all about who Jesus is, namely the only begotten Son of God.
Mark
there are 2 words before whats in bold , add them in.
Was John B there to witness the Holy spirit when Mary Conceived.
No he was there to witness the Holy spirit desending on Jesus, the Word becoming Flesh.
There is nothing in john 1 speaking of Jesus’s Birth.
If the Word Became flesh when Mary conceived than it would of be spoken of in Luke and Matthew
this was the beginning of Jesus’s Glory which came after Jesus received the Holy Spirit. before this the disciples didnt even believe on him
John 2
11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
If you’re referring to the words, “his glory” it is defined by the rest of the verse. What glory? “The glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”
Of course not. As I said, it’s not talking about receiving the Holy Spirit. The verse says nothing about it, but the context is about the Word and how it came into the world in the person of Jesus.
John the Baptist witnessing Jesus receiving the Holy Spirit is a new subject, following verse 15, “John bare witness of him.” Again, you are adding “the Word becoming flesh” when it is not in those verses but in v. 14.
That depends on how one interprets verse 14. To use it to prove your point is begging the question.
That makes no sense. There are many, many things in John’s gospel that are not mentioned in the Synoptics.
Besides, Luke speaks of the Holy Spirit bringing about his conception, and you claim that the Holy Spirit is the same as the Word. So even according to your own definitions the conception and birth involve the spirit/word.
John 2:11 says, “this beginning of miracles,” not “the beginning of his glory.” It couldn’t be the latter, as his glory was from the beginning, being part of God’s plan.
“Besides, Luke speaks of the Holy Spirit bringing about his conception, and you claim that the Holy Spirit is the same as the Word. So even according to your own definitions the conception and birth involve the spirit/word”
No its by your definition.
The Holy spirit brought the Word to many before Jesus but it was not written in their heart, it was only put in their mouth to speak. Jesus was the first to receive the Word written in the flesh. The Holy spirit has Done Gods work on earth from the beginning by bringing The Word to man but never before Jesus was it to be written in the heart, only in ink or in stone. whats written in true believers hearts is so much more complete than whats written in in ink or stone. this is the better promise and way spoke of by the prophets to receive the WORD, Not relying on man to teach everyone their brother because we have no need for the written in ink if we have it written in our hearts.
you can read only the ink because their no room for the truth in your heart. so quote away the things you dont understand, as for me i will continue to access the the truth where no man can distort it like you do and many others do.
You are the one that said the Spirit of God and the Word of God are “one in the same” in posts 159 & 178. (I assume you meant “one and the same.”) I never agreed with that definition, but merely pointed out that even by your definition, the conception of Jesus Christ involved the Holy Spirit in Luke, and the Word in John.
True, this better promise was promised by the Prophets. They were foretelling of the New Covenant, which we partake of now, and which will be fully and globally fulfilled when Christ comes back. It is called many things, including the New Birth, the Word written in our hearts, the spirit of God working in us, etc. But one thing it is NOT called, is “the Word made flesh.” This would not fit with the normal, understood meaning of those words. The Word can even be said to be manifested in our fleshly life as we act on it. But the Word is not “becoming flesh” in that case. The ONLY time the Scriptures speak of the Word BECOMING flesh is John 1:14 which identifies it with Jesus being the “Only begotten Son of God.”
So once again, when you have no response to the Scriptures I quote, you resort to ad hominem argument, just as I said. Because I disagree with you and prove my point with Scripture, there is “no room for the truth in my heart,” and I just “don’t understand” and “distort the truth” that you “access” by something other than the Written Scriptures. Thank you for proving my point for me.
“If you’re referring to the words, “his glory” it is defined by the rest of the verse. What glory? “The glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” ”
you cant even count 2 words forward.
AS OF
You are the one that said the Spirit of God and the Word of God are “one in the same” in posts 159 & 178. (I assume you meant “one and the same.”) I never agreed with that definition, but merely pointed out that even by your definition, the conception of Jesus Christ involved the Holy Spirit in Luke, and the Word in John.
This is all true. However, as I have said several times now, there is no verse that identifies the phrase “the Word became flesh” with this concept. The only place where that phrase occurs is John 1:14, and it defines itself in the very same verse: “We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.” Why do you keep glossing over this part of the verse?
True, this better promise was promised by the Prophets. They were foretelling of the New Covenant, which we partake of now, and which will be fully and globally fulfilled when Christ comes back. It is called many things, including the New Birth, the Word written in our hearts, the spirit of God working in us, etc. But one thing it is NOT called, is “the Word made flesh.” This would not fit with the normal, understood meaning of those words. The Word can even be said to be manifested in our fleshly life as we act on it. But the Word is not “becoming flesh” in that case. The ONLY time the Scriptures speak of the Word BECOMING flesh is John 1:14 which identifies it with Jesus being the “Only begotten Son of God.”
So once again, when you have no response to the Scriptures I quote, you resort to ad hominem argument, just as I said. Because I disagree with you and prove my point with Scripture, there is “no room for the truth in my heart,” and I just “don’t understand” and “distort the truth” that you “access” by something other than the Written Scriptures. Thank you for proving my point for me.
You are the one that said the Spirit of God and the Word of God are “one in the same” in posts 159 & 178. (I assume you meant “one and the same.”) I never agreed with that definition, but merely pointed out that even by your definition, the conception of Jesus Christ involved the Holy Spirit in Luke, and the Word in John.
they both are GOD
same purpose to brign God to man
And so it continues. Yes, I can count 2 words. But I could only guess what you were talking about, since I did include the words “as of” and you made no point about those words. Surely you’re not suggesting that those words change the meaning of the phrases before and after them?
“This is all true. However, as I have said several times now, there is no verse that identifies the phrase “the Word became flesh” with this concept. The only place where that phrase occurs is John 1:14, and it defines itself in the very same verse: “We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.” Why do you keep glossing over this part of the verse?”
this verse speaks of John witnessing the Word becoming flesh
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe
“John the Baptist witnessing Jesus receiving the Holy Spirit is a new subject, following verse 15, “John bare witness of him.” Again, you are adding “the Word becoming flesh” when it is not in those verses but in v. 14.”
so verse 6 calls you a liar
So then how can you deny that both Luke and John speak of God’s Word or Spirit bringing Jesus Christ to pass?
“Because I disagree with you and prove my point with Scripture”
not once have you proved anything, you use words of people who you think are intelligent to base your opinions on. there is not one thing original about you
“We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.” Why do you keep glossing over this part of the verse?”
why do you keep distorting it
Yes, but verse 14 says WE beheld his glory. Was John the Baptist the only person that saw the glory of God’s only-begotten Son? How about Joseph and Mary? How about the shepherds? How about Elizabeth, Simeon, and Anna? How about everybody else that ever saw his glory?
No, it’s you who calls me a liar (which is unnecessary and uncalled for). The verses about John the baptist do not contain the words “the Word became flesh.” The verse that does, defines itself as I have pointed out.
they both are GOD
same purpose to brign God to man
So then how can you deny that both Luke and John speak of God’s Word or Spirit bringing Jesus Christ to pass?
neither speak of the word becoming flesh at his birth.
i am the 3rd begotten of my father but i wasnt just born when i said that
1. I have quoted plain Scripture, which you continue to ignore. Not once have you disproved anything I have said. You just revert to “No it isn’t” type arguments, with no logical rebuttal.
2. I have quoted other people since you can’t accept anything I say because of your predisposition against me. This is also in light of point #2 in Sean’s list.
3. I never claimed to be original. I have learned from others more intelligent and more learned than I. Are you humble enough to do the same? It doesn’t have to be from me. But can you refute the logic of the people I have quoted and reference?
4. There is nothing particularly original about resorting to ad hominem arguments in the face of evidence that you cannot refute, either.
Jesus’s glory was not the word becoming flesh , it was Gods
the giving of Gods Word through the Holy Spirit to be written in the hearts of man was the glory spoke of. this doesnt even speak of the man Jesus this is about God creating the means where he could dwell in us by which Jesus was the first to be man with God with us. You have trouble separating the Spirit from the Man. the Word becoming Flesh is God in all of his people who believe not just Jesus
4. There is nothing particularly original about resorting to ad hominem arguments in the face of evidence that you cannot refute, either.
then quit following me doing just that.
you follow liars so why would they be any profit to me
Once again, show me one place where I have done so. I have done nothing but present Scripture and logical argument. You may disagree with my logic or my interpretation, but I have never once been rude or insulting to you. And as I said before, even if I did, it wouldn’t justify you doing so in return.
John 1:14:
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
What does that have to do with anything?
“but I have never once been rude or insulting to you”
you have belittled me, been rude, insulted me but no one here would ever believe that of you so they blindly overlook it only seeing what i said.
” And as I said before, even if I did, it wouldn’t justify you doing so in return.”
your right
thats why if i had a choice i would not deal with you, you are contagious and bring out that side in me . but then also did the adversaries to Jesus when they spoke not the truth.
i will never believe a word you say so if you have deluded yourself to think you can make me believe, than think again
HIS is not Jesus, its GOD
“As of “does not mean it was.
“glory of the only begotten from the Father” would mean that
contact one of your intelligent friends so they can explain the word “as”
as i said there is no room for the truth in your heart, your too full of yourself and the Gods of your Own making
Robert, that is absolutely not true. Mark did no such things, and as one who followed the discussion between you two, I must say, you did all those things. Everybody reading your comments can plainly see that. Mark had a lot of patience with you, more than I will ever have
Two thumbs up to you Mark
Oh and BTW Robert, please don;t expect me to respond to your future insults you will direct at me. I have much better things to do.
The word “his” modifies “glory” (”his glory”) which is defined as “the glory as of the only begotten of the father.” Notice it is not “glory as of the Father.” If “his” means God then the verse would be saying that God is the only begotten Son of the Father which of course makes no sense. You can think what you want about me, but this is simple English grammar.
I have asked you two or three times now to show me one place where I have done so. “No one here would ever believe that” because everything we have written is still there for anyone to read. I have not once belittled you or been rude, yet you have made comments such as the following:
Do you really think those are “loving” and “Christian” comments? Do you really not see the difference between those comments and my observations that your logic is faulty or that flat contradiction is not a logical rebuttal? There is a big difference between saying a thread degenerated from intelligent discussion into empty contradiction, and saying that you are not intelligent. I have done the former but not the latter.
But you DO deal with me, rudely and insultingly and I am tired of it. I should be able to engage in civil debate on this forum without your attitude and insults (and so should anyone else who disagrees with you). No matter what you may think I have done to you, nothing justifies the attitude you continue to display in your posts.
You are suggesting that it is MY fault that YOU are being rude? You’ve got to be kidding me! And don’t give me that “we’re oil and water” crap. We are supposed to be Christian brethren. If you can’t disagree on theological issues without turning it into personal insults, then you should not be posting here. You need to start being obedient to your Lord and be kind and loving, not gendering strife and division.
There you go again. There is no call for this attitude and it has got to stop.
should a christian lie, these are all true.
as i said you all just back eachother, you hate me cause i speak the truth which you hate.
there is none that even come here for the truth but some that come here with the truth who you attack till they are gone, so why do i bother anyway.
God will judge you as the murderers of souls
so your job is done , i am gone
Robert, I have to agree here with Mark. I have been in deep debate with him and disagreement toward the subject of Law, but never would I use the loose tongue approach you are using. If you have the truth, then let the scripture speak for itself and it will prove for you. You have a great passion for scripture, don’t let your emotions get in the way.
Hi
hmn … you speak the truth?? how is it then that your truth contradicts what scripture plainly says? how is it that your truth often seems to be self-contradictory?
Those who have replied to you have based their comments on scripture as source of truth … you, however, have proclaimed your imagination (which you perceive and claim to be what “God taught me”) to be truth … and then you become rather mad and accusatory, judgmental, unkind, non-gracious and hate-displaying in your replies when someone exposes the error of your imagination by pointing you to what the scriptures you throw in here and there as proof text do not even say what you claim
You falsely accuse others of the very things of which you are truly guilty
Robert,
This is inappropriate language. I have warned you before and this will be your last warning. As Christians we are not just in this to win a discussion, but to do so in a loving manner. This does not mean we cannot disagree, but we need to treat each other with respect. Telling Mark, who I know rather well, that he is full of himself, is not only rude but it is completely false. He is a humble man. You confuse your own frustration in trying to convince him of your side of the argument with him being obtuse. Please follow the biblical principles of communication in further dialog.
Joseph
I will admit i have been rude with mark and have so purposely.
emotions have nothing to do with it, just strong convictions.
You too also have a clarity so i will leave you to them.
Wolfgang
If You think the scriptures represent the whole truth then why is it they often contradict from one translation or version to the other. the New Covenant gave us the ability to access a more perfect version written in our hearts that has not been corrupted by man. so if you think i contradict scriptures then so be it.
Sean
I came here because it seemed that you had got past one major deception but in truth all you have done was create a new one, a Bi-god and this i realized just last week. so while you are giving me my last warning let me bring to your attention that God is in charge of last warnings with his people.
it was time to leave here anyway.
Ray
keep hammering at it , you will find the truth when you look in the right place.
to all
i have spoken the truth here but not been received
farewell
Hi Robert,
the problem with you is that what you propound as “written in your heart” contradicts what the Scriptures teach and is self-contradictory at times … and thus shows itself to be false (because truth cannot contradict itself)
Your recent posts also indicate that you actually were not on this blog to study together and learn from one another but rather to preach your “insight” at everybody else on this blog … as it is obvious that you would not want to learn anything from anyone here, seeing that you learned your ideas directly from God
Self-deception is the worst kind of deception … and you seem to be caught right in the middle of it. Perhaps you will escape it soomeday … but not until you get off your high horse and do what you have suggested to others a few times
Cheers,
Wolfgang
It is interesting that there is no confusion over the word offspring, if anyone here wrote that they had a son or daughter the event would be understood.
Is God capable of having children, can He have a son? The obvious answer is yes and it is written so, but can He have an actual son, an ontological son?
There are many main religions groups and even more splinters from each set made up of millions of people and thousands of different ideas about the meaning of scripture even as seen on this board.
Yet there is a thread that runs through every person in every group where everyone has complete agreement regardless of one’s affiliation.
Jesus Christ is not the ontological Son of God. There are innumerable differences on how Jesus is the Son but total agreement on how he is not.
So all groups and people that find reason to separate from some and join with others of like faith cannot escape this one worldwide assembly bound by their complete agreement that Jesus is not the ontological Son of God.
Wolfgang
this i have to respond to
you wouldnt even know if i contradicted true scripture because you have no access to it. but even what you have access to i have only contradicted your weak understanding of them.
And no i didnt come here to preach , i came to find someone who also knew the truth but i think they would be afraid to speak the truth here anyway.
you will find that you and many others are who practice self deception when the time comes
now if you want more my email is rkl1963 on gmail
Michael,
Please define what you mean by “ontological son.”
I believe what the Bible teaches: that God, by His Holy Spirit, conceived a child in the womb of Mary, and he was born the same way other human children are born. “For this reason,” we are told, “he is called the Son of God.”
We can refer to ships as females and storms as males and call our pet’s children and will our estates to them but this does not make any of them human beings. We can adopt children and they legally become our own but can never be so ontologically.
When you have a child they are what you are, God is not a human being and could not have an ontological son that is a human being.
Michael,
So am I correct in understanding you to be saying that Jesus is not “literally” the Son of God, in the sense that He did not “literally” conceive His Son in Mary? If so, then I have to disagree with you here.
So when you say, “There are innumerable differences on how Jesus is the Son but total agreement on how he is not,” are you saying that everybody agrees that Jesus is not literally begotten by God? Again, I have to disagree. While the majority of mainstream Christians believe Jesus is God in the flesh, most Biblical Unitarians believe that Jesus was literally conceived in the womb of Mary.
There is nothing in the Bible that says “God is not a human being and could not have an ontological son that is a human being.” He is capable of doing anything He wants to, and Luke 1 clearly describes the process by which He had a son.
Michael,
I would say that if Messiah was born outside of this world then you may have a point. The Messiah was begotten and created into and for this world. There was no confusion to the Jewish friends and family of Yeshua that he was a man and the son of Mary and Joseph. I think you are reading into the story too much.
Didn’t we already have the same discussion with the same Michael about the ontological son here?: http://kingdomready.org/blog/2008/12/21/what-child-is-this/#comment-39041
Joseph writes…There was no confusion to the Jewish friends and family of Yeshua that he was a man and the son of Mary and Joseph.
Response- Jesus was the son of Joseph but not the product of Mary and Joseph.
This is why it is important to determine if Jesus is called a human being after the resurrection and whether or not the day God declared He had begotten Jesus was literal or figurative as the Biblical Unitarians claim. God declared the day of resurrection as the day He had begotten Jesus and Unitarians see it as symbolic in part because they don’t see the use of seed in the birth but there is and without it Jesus could not have been raised to eternal life.
John E writes… Didn’t we already have the same discussion with the same Michael about the ontological son here?
Response- Seventeen posts and the subject has been exhausted? Here are two of your posts.
John E…Are you saying that if a virgin is artificially inseminated by the sperm I produced, I am not the literal father of the child?
Response- Of course you would be the literal father and your seed is of your essence and I know you are not saying God’s essence or nature was used in the seed Mary received so how can god be the literal father?
John E writes…I’m not aware of anybody here making the claim Jesus is the ontological son of God. Did anybody claim that when Jesus was born out of Mary, he had the same essence or nature as God?
Response- Jesus was not the same essence or nature of God after his birth to Mary but after the resurrection Colossians 2:9 claims that he was.
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
And the word translated as bodily is only used this one time in
scripture.
Bodily-sōmatikōs- bodily, corporally, of the exalted spiritual body, visible only to the inhabitants of heaven
It was only supposed that Jesus was the son of Joseph, according to Luke 3:23. Many Scriptures declare him to be the Son of God.
No, it isn’t. Regardless of what you may believe about Jesus after the resurrection, it doesn’t change the fact that he was conceived by God through the power of the Holy Spirit, and for that reason he is called the Son of God. It is as plain as can be in Luke 1.
It’s a bit confusing to word it this way. We don’t claim that the day God declared He had begotten Jesus was figurative, because we consider it to be referring to his conception and birth, which is a literal begetting.
We have been through this argument, and neither side convinced the other, so we agreed to disagree. I still maintain that while there are a few places which refer to resurrection figuratively as being like a birth, there is no Scripture which demands “this day have I begotten you” be understood as the day of the resurrection rather than his literal begetting and birth.
But either way, as I said, this has no bearing on whether or not Jesus was “literally” the Son of God.
Who said we don’t see the use of seed in the birth? If he is conceived by God he has God’s seed in him.
Michael,
Well, yes, why not? Especially since you didn’t post a response to the last posts?
Please see the responses I posted on that initial page.
Mark,
But that is what we were debating, wasn’t it? I still maintain there is Scripture demanding “this day have I begotten you” to be understood as the day of the resurrection.
JohnE,
Yes that is what we were debating, which we had to simply agree to disagree on. But as I said, “either way … this has no bearing on whether or not Jesus was “literally” the Son of God.”
I agree.
JohnE,
Do you believe Jesus was begotten twice?
The decree “This day have I begotten thee.” may also refer to David, as a new beginning spiritually began in him as he received
revelation concerning the King (Jesus) whom he began to “know”
by the spirit of God, though he certainly didn’t know everything about him as he was not by any means fully revealed to David.
Yet, David received what he did receive and it was of God as the
scriptures bear witness to.
Though the new birth to those who believe in Jesus (after the time
of his ministry on this earth in the days of his physical body on this
planet), is more than what others could have received, because of
the times and the work of Christ, there is a sense in which those of olden times did have some type of spiritual “birth”, much
like that which we have experienced, though it was not as full as
ours in many ways, even as their beginning spiritually as well as their journey with God by the spirit which was in them was much
greater than many of us have yet experienced.
Those who called upon the name of God in olden times, began to
be led by God’s spirit, and can be called the sons of God. They had
received of Christ, but not all of him, as all of him was not yet revealed to them, and some of the things of Christ were not yet available to them. There was to them, much more of him to come,
most of the people dying without receiving those things which we have
received today.
There are three things that I see about Jesus that may be referred to as births.
1. His coming out from God by the Spirit overshadowing Mary.
2. His physical birth from Mary’s womb.
3. His resurrection from the grave, the tomb, a lower part of
the earth.
Those are some observations of mine. No one has to see things as
I do to become a Christian. I put no one under any obligation to receive these things. It’s all up to you individually. I find it fun to
share these things and receive things from others if they are done
well in Jesus.
I speak of David receiving Christ by the spirit of wisdom and revelation which he found in the fear of the Lord which was the beginning of it all. I believe Christ was in that work that was in David, by the spirit of God, revealing things about himself.
Didn’t Abraham in a sense “receive Christ” as he saw by faith and
revelation by God his day? I believe Abraham received the gospel
as well as we, though so much of it was yet unrevealed. He received the promise of him whom he didn’t know, yet I believe he
knew his voice. I believe he received things of Christ by him who was in the world by the spirit of wisdom that God made available to every man. And it seems to me that by that spirit, so many did
not receive him, for he was so hidden from them, till the time came
when God revealed him.
Sean
this is the list i use as a Method to Discern Doctrinal Authenticity
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=167
Sean,
I believe some NT writers believed the only begotten son was begotten more than once. For my thoughts on resurrection as begetting and the fullfillement of Psalm 2:7 please see http://the-preexistent-son-of-god.blogspot.com/search/label/begetting
Mark C writes…Regardless of what you may believe about Jesus after the resurrection, it doesn’t change the fact that he was conceived by God through the power of the Holy Spirit, and for that reason he is called the Son of God. It is as plain as can be in Luke 1.
Response- By trying to discuss what happened to Jesus by the resurrection is not an attempt to ignore or change Luke1.
Mark c writes…We don’t claim that the day God declared He had begotten Jesus was figurative, because we consider it to be referring to his conception and birth, which is a literal begetting.
Response- But it only used two times and refers to Jesus after the resurrection so I cannot understand how you can apply it to the birth in Bethlehem.
Mark C writes…there is no Scripture which demands “this day have I begotten you” be understood as the day of the resurrection rather than his literal begetting and birth.
Response- Why do you want a phrase that is always and only used with reference to Jesus after his death to reference his birth in Bethlehem?
Mark C writes…Who said we don’t see the use of seed in the birth? If he is conceived by God he has God’s seed in him.
Response- I was referring to his birth by the resurrection.
Mark C writes…So am I correct in understanding you to be saying that Jesus is not “literally” the Son of God, in the sense that He did not “literally” conceive His Son in Mary? If so, then I have to disagree with you here.
Response- I am saying that Jesus did not have the essence or nature of his Father before the resurrection as John E wrote….”Did anybody claim that when Jesus was born out of Mary, he had the same essence or nature as God?”
Yet after his birth by the resurrection Jesus has the essence and nature of his father.
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Meaning for in him dwells all the fullness of deity in an exalted spiritual body, visible only to the inhabitants of heaven
at the risk of stirring the pot once more, can I point out the obvious?
to beget is what the father does in procreation…
a father begets, a mother conceives, and 9 months later a baby is born (and btw, there are three times, not two that Ps 2.7 is quoted)
Sean,
I’m sure you are not suggesting that biblical language HAS TO confine itself to the most literal meanings. I’m sure you are not suggesting that because of the fact that Jesus is the first-born from the dead, there was a woman in his tomb, Jesus got into her womb and after nine months he got out of her and out of the tomb - therefore being resurrected.
You may also know that the psalmist says God has begotten the mountains (90:2). Which woman was impregnated in this case and how many months it took for the mountains to be born?
The meaning of beggeting here is obvious, the montains came into existence.
So I take it to be obvious that when applied to God, “begetting” cannot be confined to the strict meaning it has in the case of human fathers, since God is clearly not a man.
You also surely know that Abraham is the father of those who believe. Can he rightly be called a father in this respect? Not if we demand the strict sense of the biblical words to be required.
Lastly, I don’t think I need to point out the obvious fact that the bible is full of expressions not intented to be taken mechanically in their strict sense - the Hebrews were baptized in the cloud, etc…
Michael,
I’m not saying it’s an attempt to ignore or change Luke 1. Joseph had said in his post that Jesus was the son of Mary and Joseph, to which you replied, “Jesus was the son of Joseph but not the product of Mary and Joseph.” You then added, “This is why it is important to determine if Jesus is called a human being after the resurrection.” My point was simply that whatever happened after the resurrection has no bearing on the simple fact that Jesus was begotten by God, and not by Joesph.
My point was not whether it refers to his birth or his resurrection; we’ve already established our different views on that subject. My point was to clarify the claim you made. You had said it was important to determine “…whether or not the day God declared He had begotten Jesus was literal or figurative as the Biblical Unitarians claim.” I’m saying the Biblical Unitarians do not claim that God saying “this day have I begotten you” was figurative. We say it is literal because we believe it refers to his birth and Jesus was literally begotten by God.
As for theological/philosophical terms like ontological, essence, and nature, I prefer to avoid them as they were applied to the fray much later than the NT and can be confusing depending on how one defines them. The Bible describes the relationship between God and Jesus as Father and Son, which is the single easiest to understand relationship in the world, as everybody has a father. As Sean pointed out, “a father begets, a mother conceives, and 9 months later a baby is born.” Why not keep it simple?
Sean writes…at the risk of stirring the pot once more, can I point out the obvious? To beget is what the father does in procreation…a father begets, a mother conceives.
Response- And when a father has a son the child is of the same essence and nature as the father which Jesus clearly was not after his birth to Mary.
The day of resurrection is when God declared He had begotten Jesus who could no longer sin or die and now had the same nature and essence as his Father and this is the birth that is deemed as figurative.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
John E writes to Sean…I’m sure you are not suggesting that because of the fact that Jesus is the first-born from the dead, there was a woman in his tomb, Jesus got into her womb and after nine months he got out of her and out of the tomb - therefore being resurrected.
Response- This question has already been asked and Jesus affirmed that this was not how it was done.
John 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
John E writes to Sean…So I take it to be obvious that when applied to God, “begetting” cannot be confined to the strict meaning it has in the case of human fathers, since God is clearly not a man.
Response- If this is what you believe then why do you reject the notion that the birth of Jesus by the resurrection which is the day God declared He had begotten Jesus to be figurative language when you already believe that “when applied to God “begetting” cannot be confined to the strict meaning it has in the case of human fathers, since God is clearly not a man”.
Mark C writes…Joseph had said in his post that Jesus was the son of Mary and Joseph, to which you replied, “Jesus was the son of Joseph but not the product of Mary and Joseph.” You then added, “This is why it is important to determine if Jesus is called a human being after the resurrection.” My point was simply that whatever happened after the resurrection has no bearing on the simple fact that Jesus was begotten by God, and not by Joseph.
Response- My point was show that one does not have the biological father of someone to be their father as Joseph was.
We are born of seed at our first birth and of seed for the second and neither birth could take place without it.
Mark C writes…I’m saying the Biblical Unitarians do not claim that God saying “this day have I begotten you” was figurative. We say it is literal because we believe it refers to his birth and Jesus was literally begotten by God.
Response- But again this phrase “this day have I begotten you” is only used at the second birth which you have concluded is figurative yet declared by God as the day He had begotten Jesus.
Mark C writes… As for theological/philosophical terms like ontological, essence, and nature, I prefer to avoid them as they were applied to the fray much later than the NT and can be confusing depending on how one defines them.
Response- These terms are the only confusing when you apply them to Jesus and his Father because you completely understand how to apply these terms in every other relationship.
Mark C writes… The Bible describes the relationship between God and Jesus as Father and Son, which is the single easiest to understand relationship in the world, as everybody has a father. As Sean pointed out, “a father begets, a mother conceives, and 9 months later a baby is born.” Why not keep it simple?
Response- Jesus said you must be born again which cannot be done without seed and after his birth by the resurrection Jesus was the same essence and nature as his Father just like every other father and son you know.
And what is that seed by which we are born again? The following is from my website article on the New Birth:
On the contrary, terms like essence and nature can be defined many ways, and most people don’t even use the word ontological. They are not simple to apply to normal everyday relationships without lengthy definitions. In contrast, everybody knows what it means to beget a child, and to have a son. God begot Jesus in Mary’s womb, and for that reason he was called the Son of God. It’s that simple. And while “this day have I begotten you” is only quoted 2 or 3 times, he was called the Son of God many, many times throughout the NT. Begetting means you have a child. What part of this is complicated?
I find that interesting about the mountains being talked about as if
they came out of the womb. I wonder, did they come out of the water?
Michael,
Could you please reformulate your question? It doesn’t make sense to me (what notion do I reject?). Thanks.
Mark C writes…And what is that seed by which we are born again? The following is from my website article on the New Birth:
Response-The seed is the Word of God by which we are saved and spoken of by Peter.
1Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
There has been discussion on whether the second birth of Jesus by the resurrection was literal or figurative and the Unitarian position was figurative, is the seed also figurative? If so then why does Paul tell us what happens to it when we die?
1Corinthians 15:35-38 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
36-Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
37-And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
38-But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
It is not your body that is sown and quickened but the seed which has its own body.
Mark C writes…everybody knows what it means to beget a child, and to have a son. God begot Jesus in Mary’s womb, and for that reason he was called the Son of God. It’s that simple.
Response- Everyone does know what it means to beget a child and it means the child is created from the essence of the parents and what was conceived in Mary to produce the human Jesus was not of God’s Being. It was the seed in Jesus that was begotten in him and was quickened by his death and raised as God’s only begotten Son.
This is what a Biblical Unitarian wrote to me on this subject…
“I believe that Jesus was and is, from his creation in the womb of Mary to and through his resurrection from the dead, a human being and, therefore, not ontologically related to God the Father. His identity as the Anointed Son of God refers to his having been purposed by God in the beginning and promised by God through the prophets to redeem God’s people, and to his being the fulfillment of God’s purpose and promise when he proclaimed the kingdom and was crucified by the political and religious authorities, and then resurrected and exalted by God.
In other words, Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” is a matter not of ontology, meaning not related to God’s BEING, but of agency, meaning related to God’s DOING through him”.
John E writes… Could you please reformulate your question? It doesn’t make sense to me (what notion do I reject?). Thanks.
Response- You state that when begetting is applied to God, “cannot be confined to the strict meaning it has in the case of human fathers, since God is clearly not a man.”
Yet you call the birth of Jesus at the resurrection figurative and hold only the first birth which looks more human.
Do you agree with the biblical Unitarian teacher that wrote…
“I believe that Jesus was and is, from his creation in the womb of Mary to and through his resurrection from the dead, a human being and, therefore, not ontologically related to God the Father. His identity as the Anointed Son of God refers to his having been purposed by God in the beginning and promised by God through the prophets to redeem God’s people, and to his being the fulfillment of God’s purpose and promise when he proclaimed the kingdom and was crucified by the political and religious authorities, and then resurrected and exalted by God.
In other words, Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” is a matter not of ontology, meaning not related to God’s BEING, but of agency, meaning related to God’s DOING through him”.
If you and everyone else agree with this Unitarian statement then you affirm my initial point that all groups and people deny the Creator procreation, a Son of His Own Being.
this is a very good online book
The Real Christ.
http://www.realchrist.info/contents.html
Where do I “call the birth of Jesus at the resurrection figurative and hold only the first birth which looks more human”?
My posts here should help answer your question: http://kingdomready.org/blog/2009/01/28/1-thessalonians-414/
A Biblical Unitarian may have written this, but so far as I understand, it is not the view of most Biblical Unitarians. Why do people want to complicate the matter by throwing in words like ‘ontology’ and ‘being’? What part of Luke 1:31-35 do they not understand?
For the record, here are some statements of beliefs from a few Biblical Unitarian sites:
Christian Monotheism:
“We affirm … that Jesus was miraculously begotten by God ”
Biblical Unitarians:
“We believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God (John 3:16; Rom. 1:4).
We believe that Jesus was directly descended from David through Mary according to the flesh, as promised to David (Rom. 1:2-4).
We believe that God was literally his father, in that God created his (Jesus’) life in Mary (Luke 1:35).”
Restoration Fellowship:
“There is one Lord Messiah, Jesus (1 Cor. 8:6), who was supernaturally conceived as the Son of God (Luke 1:35), and foreordained from the foundation of the world (1 Pet. 1:20).”
Biblical Truth Seekers:
“Jesus is the human Messiah as one uniquely and miraculously begotten by God. He did not pre-exist his birth and so he is not the Almighty God.”
God’s Kingdom First:
“I believe that Jesus Christ is a man, the only-begotten Son of God, miraculously conceived in Mary’s womb, and is the promised Messiah of Israel.”
Mark C writes…A Biblical Unitarian may have written this, but so far as I understand, it is not the view of most Biblical Unitarians. Why do people want to complicate the matter by throwing in words like ‘ontology’ and ‘being’? What part of Luke 1:31-35 do they not understand?
Response- Are you saying that some essence of God’s being was used in Mary’s conception or are you saying that the question should not be asked because Luke1:31-35 doesn’t address it.
You keep repeating that God is the literal Father and the word literal implies that some part of God and Mary was used in the conception and that is just wrong.
If your use of the word literal does not imply that some essence of God was used in the conception then what is the problem with the Unitarian teacher that said so?
I’m saying that Luke 1:31-35 defines simply how Jesus is the son of God. It’s unnecessary to throw in words like “essence” which have such a vague meaning.
The word literal implies that Jesus was conceived by God, that is, he came into existence when Mary conceived a child by the power of the Holy Spirit. If you disagree, you’ll have to take that up with Luke (and Gabriel).
The problem with saying that some “essence” of God was used is that the Bible doesn’t say that, and the meaning of “essence” is vague and subject to various interpretations. “Begotten” and “conceived” are perfectly good words. Why not stick to what the Bible says?
Mark C writes…The problem with saying that some “essence” of God was used is that the Bible doesn’t say that, and the meaning of “essence” is vague and subject to various interpretations. “Begotten” and “conceived” are perfectly good words. Why not stick to what the Bible says?
Response- Then who does the Bible claim Jesus is the seed of according to the flesh?
Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Michael,
Jesus is of the seed of David according to the flesh because his mother, Mary, was of David’s line. But his life came from God.
Look at it this way. For any human to exist and be alive, he had to have a father who gave him life. That father begets life in the mother. So for Jesus to be a living human, he had to get his life either from a human father or supernaturally some other way. Mary understood this, so when Gabriel told her she would have a son, she asked, “How can this be since I haven’t known a man?” He replied that by the Holy Spirit she would conceive a son, and for that reason he would be called the Son of God. This is what the Bible unequivocally states. Why do you have such a problem with this?
Mark C writes… by the Holy Spirit she would conceive a son, and for that reason he would be called the Son of God. This is what the Bible unequivocally states. Why do you have such a problem with this?
Response- Parents each contribute something of themselves to create a child together and that is simply how it is done. Did God contribute something of Himself in this conception?
Didn’t I just answer that? Generally speaking, the mother contributes an egg which provides the body, while the father contributes a sperm which is what gives it life. The life of Jesus had to come from somebody - either God or Joesph. Luke makes it clear that it was from God and not from Joseph.
Mark C writes… Generally speaking, the mother contributes an egg which provides the body, while the father contributes a sperm which is what gives it life. The life of Jesus had to come from somebody - either God or Joseph. Luke makes it clear that it was from God and not from Joseph.
Response- Then clearly the life that God provided was not of Himself for His life is eternal and Jesus’ was not.
In Jesus is the gift of life. It is eternal life. Jesus is the life of God given to us, to whosoever believes in him. That eternal life from God is received by faith, through the faith that is in Jesus. Without
his faithfulness we could not have received it. Jesus kept himself pure so that we could be received by God through him. He had power to lay down his life and to take it up again. Jesus laid it down at the cross and took up his life as our Messiah again at his
resurrection. The grave could not hold him. God brought him to his
death by his spirit and to his resurrection by the same spirit according to his word, the scriptures bearing witness as well as many people who saw these things, so that we could have faith in
him and be saved.
I became aware of something about the use of the word “spirit” today.
John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:
the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are
life.
I can look at what a dictionary says about the word “spirit” and
find out that it isn’t always speaking of “spirit” as being a person.
I believe Jesus used the word “spirit” in slightly different ways, and
not always was he refering to the spirit being a person.
True or False?
In the Bible, the holy spirit is always a person. F.
Jesus spoke of the spirit of God as always being a person. F.
Q. Is the holy spirit always a person?
A. Not always. Sometimes he is.
So, the holy spirit is not always a person. Therefore I do not necessarily agree with someone when they say that the holy spirit
is a person. Yet, I do agree that sometimes he is. It’s not always so.
If a person wants me to agree with them that the holy spirit is a person, shouldn’t they also agree that at times he is not?
Why do some men always speak of the holy spirit as being a peson?
There’s no other foundation that can be laid but Christ right?
Romans 8:16
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the
children of God:
I believe that to be an OK translation, though I think it OK if a man
says in his preaching “The Spirit of God himself bears witness with our spirit..” or something similar as it doesn’t change what Romans
8:16 says. If we do speak something slightly different that what the scriptures say and we are asked if we believe what a certain
scripture says, I think we should humble ourselves and do that for a brother, for the sake of unity in the spirit, to be no stumbling block for another, and to walk in love.
If Gen 3:15 is talking about Jesus then he is of the womans seed only.The holy spirit caused her seed to become life.
it doesnt say God will bruise satan.he could of done that at anytime, but to have a human do it to satan now that putting satan in his place. Jesus became a son of god the same way we have to do it and became begotten of God at his ressurection the same way we will be begotten of God. Jesus was just the first begotten of God and till the kingdom he will be the only.
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
i guess i couldnt take it no more
The Bible does not make such a statement. You are arguing from outside the parameters of what God revealed to us in His Word. And if God did not provide the life in Jesus, then Joseph did, which flatly contradicts what the Bible clearly and unequivocally tells us. There’s no way around it.
Robert,
I become a son of God by hearing the gospel of Christ and having
faith in Jesus by the hearing of it. This causes me to learn to walk
by the spirit and be changed by it. I become a son of God by being
born of the spirit of Christ and also by falling, learning, overcoming,
and being changed by the word of God and by the work of the holy
spirit. For me it’s a process as well as a thing that had a beginning
by the spirit of God.
I believe Jesus was the Son of God even from everlasting. Before
he was born of a woman he was the Son of God. He never fell into
sin as I have.
There are many similarities between the followers of God and Jesus, and there are some differences.
Jesus was begotten of God long before his resurrection. At his resurrection he became the first begotton of the dead. I know of
no other man who received the physical bodily resurrection other
than Jesus. That may be why he’s referred to as the first begotten
of the dead.
Jesus is not the only son of God, for in the kingdom there are now
many, as many as believe on him. We who have believed are in the kingdom now, for God has placed us there in Christ Jesus.
The kingdom is even within us. The kingdom is both here and in the coming.
Robert, what do you mean by your last line in post 283, “I guess I
couldn’t take it no more.”?
Quote- Then clearly the life that God provided was not of Himself for His life is eternal and Jesus’ was not.
Mark C writes… The Bible does not make such a statement. You are arguing from outside the parameters of what God revealed to us in His Word.
Response- The life of God is eternal and this is not biblical?
Mark C writes… And if God did not provide the life in Jesus, then Joseph did, which flatly contradicts what the Bible clearly and unequivocally tells us.
Response-If God is able to raise up children unto Abraham from stones then he can cause the conception in Mary but it is you that claim that “God brought forth from Himself a Son “and that “the father contributes a sperm which is what gives it life. The life of Jesus had to come from somebody - either God or Joseph. Luke makes it clear that it was from God”
So again, how can God whose life is eternal provide life from Himself that is not eternal?
You are caught in a paradox, on one hand you want God to be the literal Father of Jesus at the birth in Bethlehem like any father is to their child and on the other hand you want no ontological connection between God and Jesus.
Others on this board agree with you even though they also cannot get around this paradox.
Sean writes… Isn’t Jesus the son of God because God is his Father? I have a son, named Noah. He is my son because I begot him. According to Luke 1.35 the same is true for Jesus. God begot him via the holy spirit over shadowing the virgin Mary. The result? Jesus is “biologically” the son of God and the son of Mary.
But then he has to change the meaning of the words he used because he makes an ontological connection between God and Jesus.
Sean writes…When I say that Jesus was “biologically” the son of God I meant that God created him (i.e. Jesus had no human father). Do you agree that God begot Jesus in the womb of Mary? I’m struggling to understand what exactly it is that you believe on this?
Then why not just say God created Jesus like He can make children from stones?… because you want God to be the ontological Father of Jesus.
John E acknowledges the paradox in his definition.
John E writes… God is the biological and literal father of Jesus because there is a biological link between them, despite the fact that God transcends biology:
His statement makes an ontological connection between God and Jesus but he also believes…“Essence” again. I wonder why you keep on using pagan concepts.
This paradox only worsens when you factor Mary into it; if Jesus is God’s only begotten Son from his birth in Bethlehem then she doesn’t get the same respect as her Partner in the begetting of Jesus.
Matthew 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
“Woman”…Jesus never spoke to his Father this way.
The answer to unraveling the paradox is determining the day that Jesus became God’s only begotten Son which is also the day that God declared that He had begotten Jesus.
It was by the death and resurrection that the promised seed was sown, quickened and raised as God’s only begotten Son. His uniqueness is being the actual Son of God and all others shall be children by adoption.
If Jesus had sinned in his life then his seed could not have remained in him and he would have died in that very day being unable to be begotten by the resurrection and in need of a savior just like the first Adam.
The risen Jesus cannot be tempted, sin, or die. He is the express image of his Father in whom the fullness of Deity dwells; he is the Son of God.
Michael,
The only paradox that exists is when you introduce vague philosophical/theological words like “ontological.” Can you define in simple but precise terms exactly what that word means?
it is ontologically impossible for a dog to begat a cat
God created Adam from dust, Eve from a rib bone and Jesus from the seed of a woman, if God or anyone or anything fathered Jesus than Mary was not a virgin and that would be the end of the story
Mark c writes… The only paradox that exists is when you introduce vague philosophical/theological words like “ontological.” Can you define in simple but precise terms exactly what that word means?
Response- Ontological- relating to or based upon being or existence.
Your own statement where you highlight the word “Himself” makes an ontological connection between God and Jesus… God brought forth from Himself a Son, who was born into the world.
Joseph gives an example of the same birth with no ontological connection between God and Jesus…
Joseph writes… The sperm that God created needed to be a physical seed, a seed created by God that is put in to the creation, otherwise the egg of Mary would not be able to take in that seed. God is a spirit being, this tells us that God went outside of his “normal state” and dealt only within the physical creation.
But when you claim that you don’t understand these “vague” words I don’t believe you and I wonder why no one calls you out on it.
You who feign that you don’t understand the word ontological are the same one that wrote… For the record, I understood what Sean meant by “cosmic Son of Man”
That is why I posted the Unitarian teachers understanding of how Jesus is the Son of God, not because I agree with it but he does and takes a clear stand for it.
“I believe that Jesus was and is, from his creation in the womb of Mary to and through his resurrection from the dead, a human being and, therefore, not ontologically related to God the Father. His identity as the Anointed Son of God refers to his having been purposed by God in the beginning and promised by God through the prophets to redeem God’s people, and to his being the fulfillment of God’s purpose and promise when he proclaimed the kingdom and was crucified by the political and religious authorities, and then resurrected and exalted by God.
In other words, Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” is a matter not of ontology, meaning not related to God’s BEING, but of agency, meaning related to God’s DOING through him”.
Michael,
I didn’t say I didn’t understand those terms. I said they are vague and subject to different definitions and shades of meaning depending on who’s using them and how they are used. And none of them is used in the Bible.
You referred to my statement that “God brought forth from Himself a Son, who was born into the world.” I did a search of this thread, and I can’t find that statement. You quoted me as saying it in post #286, but I don’t know where you were quoting from. If I said “from Himself” I most likely was referring to how God’s Word and His Spirit brought Jesus into existence. Remember, the Jews didn’t envision a separation between these parts of man as the Greeks do. They thought in terms of a whole person. And a person came into existence when he was begotten by his father, or conceived in his mother’s womb.
For Jesus to be a literal, living human, there had to be something fertilizing the egg in Mary. Whether God created a physical sperm to do it or just supernaturally did whatever He did to make the fetus alive, it doesn’t matter. There’s no way we can know exactly how it happened, and arguing about things like that is just splitting hairs. The important thing is that God, and not Mary’s husband, begot the child in Mary’s womb. Can we at least agree on that?
PS -
I believe it can be both. The Bible clearly tells us that he was conceived by God and not by any man, but he is also God’s ultimate representative, with God working in and through him. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.
“The Bible clearly tells us that he was conceived by God and not by any man,”
Does it
Luke 3: 23 -38 and Matthew 1:1-17 clearly states that he was the son of Joseph.
Why would God inspire them to even put a genealogy through Joseph to David if it was only assumed, supposed, thought or how ever many ways its put if he was only supposed to be the son of David cause if Joseph was supposed then all before him would be too. Genealogy means the physical Genes must have came from that lineage.
there is no reason for it to be there if it really doesnt link Jesus to David.
who can answer this logically?
Why does Mary believe Joseph is Jesus’s Father
Luke 2
48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
so you see it isnt as clear as you state
They state nothing of the kind. Luke 3:23 says “being as was supposed the son of Joseph,” but we know he was not really because of Luke 1:31-35. And Matthew 1:16 says, “Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” Joseph was the husband of Mary, but it does not say he was the father of Jesus.
The genealogy is there because he was legally viewed as Joseph’s son. Genealogy does not require physical genes when it comes to adopted children. Why would it make a point of saying “as was supposed” in Luke if Joseph was really Jesus’ father?
Joseph raised him as his own son, and Mary would have referred to him as “your father” the same as with any adoptive father. Even step fathers are often referred to as “your father” despite not being genetically the father. But Jesus responded in the very next verse, “How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” He wasn’t talking about Joseph’s carpentry business!
To interpret these verses as saying Joseph was Jesus’ father would completely contradict the clear statements of Luke 1:31-35, not to mention deny who Jesus claimed to be.
So your saying he is the adopted son of David, sorry that dont fly.
i ask for logical answers.
genealogy has nothing to do with being adopted, it is physical, biological, a matter of genes which is where the word genealogy comes from
‘But Jesus responded in the very next verse, “How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” ”
then the very next verse says
50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.
and you claim to understand?
it could mean why should he go about with them when he could stay there
No, I’m saying he was adopted by Joseph, but was literally the son of Mary, who was of David’s line. Both Joseph and Mary were of David’s lineage, so he was both literally and legally the royal heir.
Sorry, but that’s just not true. Legal heirs were (and still are) often adopted, despite not being biological sons. You can look it up if you don’t believe me.
Does that verse mean that they never understood it till their death? We have the writings of the NT to assure us who the father of Jesus is.
Even if it meant that, he would still be staying there to do his Father’s business.
‘We have the writings of the NT to assure us who the father of Jesus is.”
no we have writing that say who’s adopted son he is after recieving the Holy spirit and who’s natural son he is after the ressurection
I asked because i really would like to know, but i will only accept logical answers. not ones that go against meanings of words
Mark,
How do we know Mary was of David’s line?
JohnE,
There are two different genealogies in the Gospels, one in Matthew and one in Luke. Most scholars agree that one is through Mary and the other is through Joseph, although which is which is the subject of some disagreement. If you Google “Jesus genealogies” you will find many explanations for apparent discrepancies in the genealogies.
Most of them seem to favor the theory that Joseph was considered a “son” to Heli, his father-in-law, and so the Luke record presents the genealogy through Mary, while Matthew presents it through Joseph. One source I read mentions that there is a passage in the Jewish Talmud that refers to “Mary, the daughter of Heli…” which would corroborate this.
both genealogies are for Joseph, niether are complete , one just fills in gaps in the other.
there could of been 10,000 Heli’s during that time which would make it hard to tell. both my father and my father inlaw are name James.besides what your are claiming is they were brother and sister because Heli is Josephs father
Perhaps God used the seed of Joseph. Why not, if he used the rib of a man to create eve.
Thoughts?
Mark,
I’m not sure how you reached the conclusion that most scholars view this in this way. There are scholars who think the two genealogies are ireconciliable.
As a matter of fact, the NT never says Mary was of Davidic descent. It actually comes close to saying Mary was of Levitic descent (Elizabeth was from “the daughters of Aaron” (Luke 1:5) and Mary was her “kinswoman, relative” in 1:36).
But it didn’t really matter to much to the evangelists. Matthew for example, emphasizes Joseph, as being a descendant of David (1:20), and Luke does the same in 1:27; 2:4.
It seems that, as Meier points out, “the Jewish milieu out of which the Infancy narratives came regularly traced a child’s genealogy through his or her father, whether or not the “father” was actually the biological parent […] ; in the eyes of the OT, the legal father is the real father, whether or not he physically procreated the child.”
I know of the attempts of harmonizing the two genealogies. The fact is though that both of them explicitly trace Jesus’ genealogy through Joseph. This is only natural for the Jews of those times.
I’ve also read the page you provided a link to. The author says regarding the statement that “Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli.” that Luke conveys the idea that in reality Jesus was Eli’s son, not Joseph’s - something that the text does not actually say, and is unnatural at first reading.
And about the claim that “the Jewish Talmud states, “Mary, the daughter of Heli was seen in the infernal regions, suffering horrid tortures…”, he doesn’t provide a precise reference (where in the Talmud?), and even if he had, I guess one would have a hard time proving the Talmud refers here to Jesus’ mother. The validity of the theory that certain controversial Talmudic passages refer to Jesus and his family or not has been debated by many.
“Perhaps God used the seed of Joseph. Why not, if he used the rib of a man to create eve.
Thoughts?”
could be, but the real point to be made is the scriptures only calls Jesus God’s Son after he received the holy spirit, before that it was only refering to He SHALL be called the Son Of God which he certainly was called. it also said he would rule which He SHALL do that too
It depends on which scholars you read. Of the first several that came up in my Google search, the majority seemed to hold the opinion I referred to. Some do think the genealogies are irreconcilable, but many do not.
It doesn’t say how close a relative Mary was to Elisabeth. She could be related on her mother’s side and still be of the tribe of Judah on her father’s side.
Gabriel said that the specific reason Jesus would be called the Son of God was that by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary would conceive in her womb without the benefit of a human father. I really don’t know why this is so difficult. It is written in black and white.
Luke 1:
30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
How much clearer could it be?
It was His destiny to be called Son of God and also His Destiny to become the Son of God and rule the throne of David which none happened at His birth.
It looks like “as was supposed” was added or he was 30 as was supposed because it make no sense for Jesus’ genealogy to go thru Joseph if God isnt saying he was Joseph’s Flesh and Blood at birth. How God did it i dont know, but HE says he did it that way in the WORD of GOD.
AND NOTHING IS IMMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD,EXCEPT FOR HIM TO LIE
Here’s how the geneologies in Matthew and Luke work:
Matthew 1:1
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
So this is the Lord’s geneology as it says. Mary must by requirement be included as she is his mother who bare him.
There is a numbering in Matthew 1:17. All generations will be counted. None will be left out.
(I once saw the cover of a tobacco catalog which came out about the time of Father’s Day. On it there were four men of different ages.
They were all holding cigars. At the top of the picture it said, “Four
Generations Of Fathers And Sons.”
That is how we count in America. Everyone counts and no one is to be left out, and that’s how we will count these generations so that
it all adds up.
1. Abraham (Abraham is one generation, Isaac is another.)
2. Isaac
3.Jacob
4. Judas
5. Phares
6. Esrom
7. Aram
8. Aminadab
9. Naason
10. Salmon
11. Booz
12. Obed
13. Jesse
14. David
Matthew 1:17
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen…
So far, so good. Let’s keep counting.
1. Solomon
2. Roboam
3. Abia
4. Asa
5. Josaphat
6. Joram
7. Ozias
8. Joatham
9. Achaz
10. Ezekias
11. Manases
12. Amon
13. Josias
14. Jechonias
Matthew 1:11
And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to babylon:
Matthew 1:17
…and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen
generations;…
(need we any further witnesses?)
Matthew 1:12
And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat…
1. Salathiel
2. Zorobabel
3. Abiud
4. Eliakim
5. Azor
6. Sadoc
7. Achim
8. Eliud
9. Eliazar
10. Matthan
11. Jacob
12. Joseph (not the husband of Mary as was supposed- discern
what I say.)
13. Mary
14. Christ
Matthew 1:17
….and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen
generations.
There we have it. Everyone is accounted for and no one is left out.
All generations are there, and they all add up to the counting given
to us by God who protected his Word from corruption by the counting of the three sets of fourteen with their proper divisions.
Praise be to God almighty. It’s as if he knew someone would make
a mistake.
According to the scriptures (and common sense) Joseph, Mary’s husband was not in Jesus’ geneology, for the father of Jesus is God.
Now if someone wants to take it upon himself, and venture to say
that Joseph, Mary’s husband’s father is Heli, and for that reason also we can see that Mary’s father’s name is Joseph, let that be on them….
Luke 3:23
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being
(as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli…
I think I can walk out on that. Sure, why not?
Unitarian quote…..In other words, Jesus’ identity as “the Son of God” is a matter not of ontology, meaning not related to God’s BEING, but of agency, meaning related to God’s DOING through him”.
Mark C writes… I believe it can be both. The Bible clearly tells us that he was conceived by God and not by any man,
Response- Finally, someone states what many of you believe but just can’t bring yourselves to admit for some reason, that Jesus as the Son of God is ontologically related to God by his birth from Mary.
I for one do not.
Ray
they are not all there in either Geneaology, if you look Davids Genealogy is not all there.
now where does it state before Jesus recieving the Holy spirit that he WAS the Son Of God, Just that he shall be called the Son of God to which he was after receiving the Holy spirit.
Mary has no genealogy mentioned, only Joseph’s.
See post #308. We’re repeating ourselves again.
yes we do seem to be repeating
but its because you only claim it states that.
but it is not even close to being clearly stated as what you claim it does.
it your belief that causes that claim, not facts
I just listened to Sean on “The Truth Matters” podcast with guest Danny Dixon and they briefly discussed the fact that they consider Jesus as the Son of God based upon kings of Israel being called sons of God and stated unequivocally that Jesus is not the Son of God ontologically.
Yet when Sean was giving me an example of how Jesus is the Son of God on an earlier thread he gave this example writing……“Isn’t Jesus the son of God because God is his Father? I have a son, named Noah. He is my son because I begot him. According to Luke 1.35 the same is true for Jesus. God begot him via the Holy Spirit over shadowing the virgin Mary. The result? Jesus is “biologically” the son of God and the son of Mary”.
I do not understand the confusion on this issue.
I just listened to the program in question, and would like to set the record straight. What they said was that referring to the Messianic King as God did not make him ontologically God. They did not say that Jesus is not ontologically the Son of God.
A Biblical Unitarian teacher wrote…
If what this teacher has written is incorrect then please explain why.
I’m not sure that he’s incorrect per se, because as I’ve said, words like “ontological” can be vague and unclear. He says the son was “born miraculously,” but how does he mean that? One could say John the Baptist was “born miraculously” as well, because Elisabeth had been barren. The same can be said about Abraham and Sarah having Isaac in their old age. That could be called a miraculous birth as well.
The difference between them and Jesus is that their life, their actual genetic makeup, was still from human fathers, while the life and genetic makeup of Jesus was from God and not from any human father.
Whether or not we can call him “ontologically the son” of God depends on your definition of “ontological.” I agree that God is in a separate category from any other being, since all others are created. But to say that Jesus is “not ontologically related” to God is unnecessarily confusing and misleading, since the word “ontological” is not used in the Bible, but the words “only begotten son” are.
If “ontological” means relating to existence, I would say that Jesus exists because God begot him in Mary’s womb. That’s what the Bible says, and whether or not he was related to God because God is in a unique category was never an issue. Of course God is in a separate category; of course God is the one and only creator. But nothing in the Bible says that because of this Jesus can’t be “literally” the son of God. He exists because God begot him. That is the definition of “begotten son” and there’s no need for confusion about it. I’m all for avoiding philosophical and theological terms, and sticking to the plain and simple language of the Bible.
Mark C writes…
Then what kind of human being is Jesus with only one parent providing human genes to form Jesus?
I didn’t say he has only one parent. I said that those other “miraculous” births still had genetic makeup from a human father, but Jesus did not. That means that the life and genetic makeup which normally come from one’s father came from God in his case. Of course, he got genetic makeup from his mother as well. He had two parents, but only one human parent.
Seriously, why is this so difficult to understand? The Bible defines it very simply and clearly in six verses.
Mark C writes…
Response- God can make a human being from rocks or dust and can certainly make a virgin conceive but this is not the point as you very well know.
You are the one contending that God did not create human genes for Mary to conceive but contributed something of his very Being to conceive Jesus and this cannot be.
A Biblical Unitarian teacher writes…
Actually, it is the point. God can do anything He likes, but He chose to beget a son the way the Bible says He did it.
I didn’t say he “contributed something of his very Being,” I said what the Scriptures say - He conceived a son in the womb of Mary. Simple.
As I said, there is no question that God is in a separate and unique category. The Biblical Unitarian teacher says, “Do they mean that God, by means of his spirit, literally planted a ’seed,’ in the sense of a part of his Being, in Mary’s womb?” This is the crux of the misunderstanding. The Bible does not say it was “part of His being,” it just says Jesus was conceived by God and not by a human father. The word “being” in this sense is another of those vague, hard-to-define, theological/philosophical terms which we would be better off avoiding. What the Bible declares is simple. Why not stick with that?
Mark C writes…
No, this is the first time you have finally agreed that God did not contribute something of Himself and that Jesus is not the ontological Son of God which was my simple point from the beginning.
When the Unitarian teacher wrote that Jesus was not the ontological son of God you wrote…
Mark C responded…
Mark C wrote…
Yes we do, both partners contribute something of themselves for the conception.
Mark C concludes…
It is not that simple since God did not contribute something of Himself in the conception.
It is you that have complicated this.
“The Bible does not say it was “part of His being,” it just says Jesus was conceived by God and not by a human father”
Mark
I am sorry but the Word of God says different than what you claim.
there is not a clear verse to back up your belief
Romans 1
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared [1] to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
2 Timothy 2
8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:
Revelation 22
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
It seems like some are arguing about “ontological” …. and that for no benefit, except perhaps for being able to say that they are using a good sounding, scientific term or whatever ….
The rather simple point of the Biblical record concerning Jesus’ conception is that Mary became pregnant NOT by a human male person (such as her husband) but by the miraculous working of God WITHOUT the involvement of a human male person.
Thus, whatever is normally needed to be provided by a male human person in order for a woman to become pregnant was miraculously provided by God, else Mary could not have conceived Jesus. What is normally needed to be provided by a human male person for a woman to conceive? A seed of the “human” kind … NOT a seed of the “God” kind. Thus God did provide a seed of the kind “human”, and NOT of the kind “God”, seeing that Mary did in fact conceive.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang writes…
This all started in when I wrote in part to which you agree…”Jesus Christ is not the ontological Son of God. There are innumerable differences on how Jesus is the Son but total agreement on how he is not. So all groups and people that find reason to separate from some and join with others of like faith cannot escape this one worldwide assembly bound by their complete agreement that Jesus is not the ontological Son of God.”
It was Mark C that disputed this over and over and you and almost everyone else had nothing to say and except for the comments of a Unitarian teacher it probably still wouldn’t be over with.
So now at the end you offer your critique and the problem as you see it is the use of the word ontological and not that Mark wanted Jesus to be conceived of the “God” kind of seed?
Michael,
I don’t agree to anything “ontologically” since I am not talking about “ontological” in the first place …
As far as the conception of Jesus is concerned, the matter seems biblically rather clear:
(a) Women give birth to human beings (not any kind of other being, be it animal, God, angel, etc.)
(b) For God to have caused a conception in the woman Mary, He must have provided a seed of the kind “human” … else there could not have been a conception (as both male and female contribution in a conception must be of the same “kind”)
(c) in addition, there is no such thing as a seed of the kind “God” mentioned in the Scriptures, since “God” is not conceived and born in the first place.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
“It seems like some are arguing about “ontological” …. and that for no benefit, except perhaps for being able to say that they are using a good sounding, scientific term or whatever ….”
Wolfgang
Why would you claim the word ontological to be just a fancy word when its definition is exactly what is needed to describe the true nature of the created creatures through conception. it is one of the simplest words used here.
It just means by nature a baby will be created in the form of the father and the mother.
Mary was not the first that God aided in conception, She was just the only virgin which was just a sign. God used Joseph’s seed without intercourse meaning Jesus was born a man in the Lineage of David as it was prophesied.
Jesus was declared the ontological son of God at his resurrection and now possesses the Nature of God’s Being not Human’s being
“Ontological” is the most ill-used term in the whole trinity theory (which is saying a lot). It is thrown out there to intimidate opponents by people who have not a clue what it means, and this includes most of the scholars that use it indiscriminately. Your definition, Robert, is in fact not precise and is not what ontological means at all.
Using sound ontological reasoning it is trivial to prove that Jesus is not God, or does not “possess the Nature of God’s being” in about two seconds.
Much has been made of the words ontology and ontological but they are crucial in defining what one means when they say that God begat His Son in a human being.
Yet most of the people on this board act as if they never used the word or had seen it used on this board in the past, all of which is untrue.
In 2008 on another thread Sean wrote…
Where do you find the Son “ontologically” called God in the Scriptures? I find no such verses?
Neither Mark nor Wolfgang who participated on this thread challenged or objected to Sean’s choice of words.
Mark said to me on this thread…
How come Mark isn’t complicating the matter when he uses these same words as he also did on the other thread?
Wolfgang writes…it seems like some are arguing about “ontological” …. and that for no benefit, except perhaps for being able to say that they are using a good sounding, scientific term or whatever
Now he realizes that on this thread ontological is used to sound good or scientific. But anyway he does agree that Jesus is not the ontological Son of God by his birth from Mary and substitutes the word ontological for “a seed of the God kind” which will do.
When I told Wolfgang that this statement agrees with my contention that Jesus is not the Son of God ontologically from his birth from Mary he disagrees.
Wolfgang then attacks the use of the phrase “a seed of the God kind’ which he himself introduced and used.
So as for this thread Wolfgang said it best “whatever” Cheers
2. Of or relating to essence or the nature of being.
well maybe us rednecks down here in Texas just understand breeding a little better than y’all yankees do.
try breeding horses and cows without understanding that word.
lol
its just a word.
wasnt my word anyway.
now some of the big words used around here are just senseless and the same ones who use them got caught up on ontological. who would of thought?
Btw
just how would that word profit a trinitarian? there is no way they can claim Jesus to be God’s ontological Son before His ressurection using the Word of God , all they can do is twist things to serve their beliefs just like some nontrinitarians do too as i have seen just lately here.
It’s not just a word … from Wikipedia (which is a decent resource for this kind of thing: “the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality in general, as well as of the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.”
You are leaving out the most important parts of the definition … the relations. To say “Jesus to be God’s ontological Son” is pure nonsense. The father-son relationship is an ontological relationship (it is a relation between two entities) that fully defines, in an unambiguous way, the relationship. Ontologically, father-son relationship implies temporal precedence … fathers precede their sons in time and space as any rational human being understands. Therefore, there is no ontological case for “eternal sonship”, “eternal begetting”, etc.
As promised, an ontological proof that Jesus is not God in about two seconds (depending on how fast you read).
that was needless considering i never claimed Jesus to be God. lol it took you 5 minutes to write and it doesnt even relate to the definition that i was using. you stuck with the philosophical definition when i put the definition of how its being used here.
that shold only take you 1 second to read if you read only the first word and the last as you did with my last post.
You can’t just make words up to suit your needs. “Ontology” is more than just “being”. It has to do with what it means to “be something”, the properties that make a human being a human being as opposed to a dog, or something else. It is a branch of philosophy, so to say that I am “stuck with the philosophical definition” is like saying I can use baseball to define a group of people and not be “stuck with the sports definition.” You can, but that would be silly …
BTW - I did not assume your position on the trinity one way or another, I was just using that as an example.
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ontological
Main Entry: on·to·log·i·cal
Pronunciation: \ˌän-tə-ˈlä-ji-kəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 1782
1 : of or relating to ontology
2 : relating to or based upon being or existence
— on·to·log·i·cal·ly \-k(ə-)lē\ adverb
you see #2
It wasnt my definition and not even my choice to use it but the word can be use to understand the man Jesus didnt become a heavenly being till he was ressurected , he was human by nature through his earthly father Joseph
There is a big difference between someone saying that Jesus is “ontologically God” and someone saying Jesus is “ontologically the son of God.”
The word ontological is used to a large degree in Trinitarian theology, because they believe him to be one of three persons who are ontologically God. They don’t say he’s ontologically the son of God; they say he’s ontologically God the Son. Most of us on this thread do not hold this opinion, however.
On the other hand, to speak of Jesus being “ontologically the son of God,” now we’re talking about what caused him to exist. And once again, Luke 1:30-35 clearly tell us that Mary bore a son by God’s power and NOT by the seed of Joseph, or any human. There is nothing in the Bible that says anything about Jesus not being “ontologically related to God.” There is also nothing in the Bible that suggests that Jesus was ontologically the son of Joseph, or that Joseph’s seed was in any way involved in the conception of Jesus. Just the opposite, in fact. Luke 1 emphatically tells us that Joseph was not the ontological, or biological, father of Jesus.
(BTW, people bred horses and cows without understanding the word “ontological” for centuries before that word was ever coined. The father begot its offspring in the mother, and a baby was born. Simple.)
“Luke 1 emphatically tells us that Joseph was not the ontological, or biological, father of Jesus.”
nowhere in luke 1 does it claim anything of the sort. luke 3 and matt1 states is is through the genes of Joseph which is how Jesus is the seed of David.
and these verses should totally blow your claim out to space
Romans 1
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared [1] to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead
Do you understand what this clearly tell you.Or do you still want to twist everything till it fits your mold.
“(BTW, people bred horses and cows without understanding the word “ontological” for centuries before that word was ever coined”
as i said us rednecks just understand a little better.
it has nothing to do with centuries ago, its a word used by breeders to describe whether a sire or a dam produces an offspring with the nature and the ability. this word i first heard 30 years ago when we was breeding race horses by one of the top vets in the country.
Jesus didnt posses any of Gods nature or ability till he received the holy spirit 30 years later after his birth and was not of the same(heavenly) being as God till he was ressurected.
he was the seed of a man only
AND THE WORD OF GOD STATES OVER AND OVER AGAIN IT WAS THROUGH JOSEPH he was the seed of David
Robert,
it seems to me that instead of “over and over again”, the Word of God states nowhere that Joseph or a seed of Joseph was involved in the conception of Jesus in Mary. As a matter of fact, in both Lk 1 and in Mt 1 it is rather plainly stated that Joseph was not not the biological father of Jesus and thus his seed was NOT involved.
In Lk 1, Mary’s explicit reply to the angel’s words seems to indicate that … or was she only talking about what was the case until that point in time and after the angel’s announcement she in fact did conceive by Jospeh prior to them being married?
In Mt 1:18ff, the gospel writer informs us that Jesus was conceived in Mary BEFORE Jospeh had taken her unto himself as his wife and thus the record rather clearly indicates that Jesus could not have been Joseph’s child.
Now, you conclude from the expression “of the seed of David” that Jesus must have been conceived by Joseph’s seed …. even though this would contradict what is indicated and stated in both Lk 1 and Mt 1. You mention Rom 1 and its reference to Jesus being “of the seed (of the lineage) of David according to the flesh” … so then, is there another possibility how Jesus “according to the flesh” could be of the line of David? It seems that Mary was the only “human kind” parent (both according to Mt 1 and Lk 1) involved in Jesus’ conception. Is Mary mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus? If so, was she of the line of David? If so, we may have a possible answer as to why Jesus “according to the flesh” was of the line of David …
Cheers,
Wolfgang
“In Mt 1:18ff, the gospel writer informs us that Jesus was conceived in Mary BEFORE Jospeh had taken her unto himself as his wife and thus the record rather clearly indicates that Jesus could not have been Joseph’s child.”
19 Then Joseph her husband!!!!!!!!! , being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David!!!!!!!, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife!!!!!: for that which is conceived [2] in her is of the Holy Ghost.
first off they were man and wife but hadnt had intercourse yet.
the holy ghost caused the conception didnt father it.
and as you see Joseph is son of David. the holy ghost used his seed.this is why Josephs genealogy is the only one needed and is why nowhere in the Word of God does it refer to Mary being of the line of David.more than once it states Josephs being from the line of David and this is for a very good reason. He was the natural father of Jesus, it was just accomplished a little different way then normal. thus making it a miracle.
“Is Mary mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus? If so, was she of the line of David? If so, we may have a possible answer as to why Jesus “according to the flesh” was of the line of David … ”
100% no possibility unless you read in things that dont exist
believe what you want
Robert,
I would encourage you to dig a little deeper: http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ontology. There’s a lot more to it than just a word.
Mark C,
What does it mean to be “ontologically the Son of God”, as opposed to “the Son of God.” Am I “ontologically the Son of my dad”? If so, what is the distinction?
Tim
as i said its not even a word i like to use and wasnt me that brought it to this discussion , i just defended its use but would choose a better word. i think its stupid to use big words when then are simple words that work just fine and everyone understands ,not just a select few
concerning the passage in Mt 1:18ff Robert wrote
I already mentioned that the record indicates Mary was pregnant BEFORE she and her husband came together as husband and wife, thus Mary had conceived before she could possibly have conceived by Joseph.
I have no clue what you are trying to say with your second sentence “the holy ghost caused the conception didnt father it” … seeing that it makes no sense whatever.
“I already mentioned that the record indicates Mary was pregnant BEFORE she and her husband came together as husband and wife, thus Mary had conceived before she could possibly have conceived by Joseph.”
your claim that Mt 1:18 states they were not married is absolutely wrong. do you not understand what espoused means?
all this states is they hadnt had sex yet!!!!!
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother( Mary was espoused to Joseph), before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost
Matt1:19-20 states clearly that they were husband and wife
It say Joseph WAS her Husband and take unto thee Mary thy wife not take unto thee Mary FOR thy Wife
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived [2] in her is of the Holy Ghost.
“As far as I can read, the geneaology in Mt 1 most certainly mentions Mary whereas the one in Lk 3 doesn’t. As someone else mentioned already, in Mt 1 there are 3 sets of 14 generations mentioned, and observing this detail, it becomes obvious that the Joseph mentioned in Mt 1 and the Joseph mentioned in Lk 3 are obviously not the same identical person, but two different men as indicated by the fact that they have different fathers.”
Luke was a gentile and peoples names had meanings so it could be his use of a name with that meaning, but who knows but God
anyway John states Jesus was the Son of Joseph
John 1:45
Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph
“PS: Your “encouragement” for me “to believe what I want” is not needed … I normally do exactly that !”
i see that is very true and you will forsake the truth for your belief also
“As far as I can read, the geneaology in Mt 1 most certainly mentions Mary whereas the one in Lk 3 doesn’t. As someone else mentioned already, in Mt 1 there are 3 sets of 14 generations mentioned, and observing this detail, it becomes obvious that the Joseph mentioned in Mt 1 and the Joseph mentioned in Lk 3 are obviously not the same identical person, but two different men as indicated by the fact that they have different fathers.”
Of the 42 generations listed over 2000 years that put a generation to be at 48 years when within 48 years there could of been 3 generations created and without a doubt at least 2 therefore as i mentioned already that one genealogy fills in the gaps the other skip over.
to say that a baby was created an average of 48 years apart when God created women to conceived at around 14 years old or earlier tells you the genealogy of Jesus is missing a few in the family tree.
besides nowhere does it state it was Mary’s genealogy, that is just pure fiction
1Jechonias begat Salathiel; and 2Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 13 And3 Zorobabel begat Abiud; and 4Abiud begat Eliakim; and 5Eliakim begat Azor; 14 And 6Azor begat Sadoc; and 7Sadoc begat Achim; and 8Achim begat Eliud; 15 And9 Eliud begat Eleazar; and 10Eleazar begat Matthan; and11 Matthan begat Jacob; 16 And 12Jacob begat 13 Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born 14Jesus, who is called Christ.
it seems who ever counted before couldnt count, there are 14 generations without Mary being one of them.
besides all it says here about Mary is Joseph was her husband, doesnt even mention she was the mother
as for there being 3 set with only 41 listed if you read how the sets are divided you will see David ends one set and starts the next therefore being counted in both sets making the total 42
17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations(David is counted here); and from David ( and counted again here)until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
on·to·log·i·cal (ŏn’tə-lŏj’ĭ-kəl)
adj.
Of or relating to ontology.
Of or relating to essence or the nature of being.
Of or relating to the argument for the existence of God holding that the existence of the concept of God entails the existence of God.
I don’t really like to use the word either, since it can be misunderstood. But since others were using it on this thread, I used it according to the definition given, i.e., “relating to or based upon being or existence.” Thus we are all “ontologically” the children of our fathers, because our very existence is due to them having brought us into existence. In that light, “ontologically the son of God” simply means that he exists because God fathered him, brought him into existence by begetting him in Mary’s womb.
The difference between that phrase and “son of God” to me is that others can be called “son of God” in other senses, but Jesus is the only one whose very existence is directly from God and not any man. As I said, I don’t like using the word “ontologically” to express this. I prefer to use the words the Bible uses - “the only begotten son of God.”
Robert writes
I made NO claim anywhere that Mary and Joseph weren’t espoused and as such considered “husband and wife” … I repeatedly have stated that Mary was pregnant already BEFORE she and her husband came together as husband and wife (or as you term it “hadn’t had sex yet”)
V. 18 then does state that “she was found with child OF THE HOLY GHOST ” … seems to rather plainly exclude Joseph to be the father of Mary’s child, does it not?
The record in Mt 1 continues:
Again, the record plainly states that “that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost” and NOT - as you suggest - “that which is conceived in her is your child” .. or?
Yes, after this encouragement, Joseph and Mary did “come together” (have sexual relations) as husband and wife … even prior to the birth of Jesus.
you seem to see not very much of what others write …. could it be because you already have done what you expect others to do?
“you seem to see not very much of what others write …. could it be because you already have done what you expect others to do?”
all i do is take whats clear to define whats not so clear as where you take something not clear to nullify whats clear.
who works with the truth?
certainly not you, but all i can do is hope for more truth
A few definitions are in order. The following are from Online Bible:
espouse - Gk. mnesteuo - to be promised in marriage, be betrothed.
husband (in Matt. 1:19) - Gk. aner - a man (properly as an individual male).
wife (in Matt. 1:20) - Gk. gune - a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow.
Thus, in our vernacular, Joseph would be called “Mary’s man,” and Mary would be called “Joseph’s woman.” But in that culture there was a much greater commitment involved, even more than engagement in our culture. A couple was joined in a betrothal ceremony, and it would require a divorce to break that bond. But they would be betrothed for a period of time before taking their marriage vows and being fully married. Joseph and Mary were betrothed but not yet married (and thus had not had sexual relations) when the angel appeared to them, and when she conceived a child by God by means of His Holy Spirit
Definition can be made at any time to give creditability to anyones belief.
i could create my own dictionary if i wanted to and if it backed someones belief it would be held in high regards by that person.
the online bible supports the trinity belief and it seems you do too but yours is bi-nity.
just take whats clear and you will need no dictionary to understand
Show me any reference that says otherwise. If one is going to deny established definitions of words, and claim that they mean things that they do not, then words are useless as a tool of communication, and we may as well give up.
1. The Online Bible support of the Trinity does not affect the definitions of words. Check any concordance or Bible dictionary. They have the same definitions.
2. Binity means two persons are God. I never said anything of the sort.
I agree. But since you were using words incorrectly according to their meaning, I thought definitions were in order. You emphasized that the words ‘espoused’ as well as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ meant they were married, but the actual words used in Matthew 1 show that this was not the case.
the words was used correctly to the subject it was about.
and yes definitions were created by a belief that caused that particular understanding and so with any concordance.
50 years ago gay meant happy, now look at the definition, so 300 years from now there will be a dispute over what the gay ninties was about.
common sense is the only answer to understanding the Word of God which means that you use the clear to define what is unclear like what you claim but is never put the way you state it anywhere in the Word of God but is clearly disputed over and over again by whats perfectly clear
I repeat: Show me any reference that says otherwise. If one is going to deny established definitions of words, and claim that they mean things that they do not, then words are useless as a tool of communication, and we may as well give up.
That’s why we need Bible reference books that give us the definitions of words according to how they were used in the Bible.
But common sense is out the window if you deny the very meanings of words. You emphasized that the words ‘espoused’ as well as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ meant they were married, but ANY reference work will show that that is not the meaning of the Greek words used there. You can argue your interpretation all you want, but there is no arguing what the words mean. And if you insist they mean something else, then there is no standard, and anyone can use words to mean whatever they want, and nobody else can say they’re right or wrong. This is not the best way to do theology, is it?
here are refences to how they are to be understood, so who is it thats throwing common sense out the window?
you!
es·pouse (-spouz)
tr.v. es·poused, es·pous·ing, es·pous·es
1.
a. To take in marriage; marry.
b. To give (a woman) in marriage.
2. To give one’s loyalty or support to (a cause, for example); adopt.
wife
Pronunciation: \ˈwīf\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural wives \ˈwīvz\
Etymology: Middle English wif, from Old English wīf; akin to Old High German wīb wife and probably to Tocharian B kwīpe female pudenda
Date: before 12th century
1 adialect : woman b: a woman acting in a specified capacity —used in combination
2: a female partner in a marriage
1hus·band
Pronunciation: \ˈhəz-bənd\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English husbonde, from Old English hūsbonda master of a house, from Old Norse hūsbōndi, from hūs house + bōndi householder; akin to Old Norse būa to inhabit; akin to Old English būan to dwell — more at bower
Date: 13th century
1: a male partner in a marriage
2British : manager, steward
3: a frugal manager
Robert,
There’s only one little problem with your definition. It’s the definition of the English word, ‘espouse.’ But what I pointed out in post #353 was the definitions of the Greek words as they were used in the Bible. You said yourself that words change, as in your example of the word ‘gay’. So we need to understand how the words were used, in Biblical languages, and in the culture of Biblical times. And as I said, ANY Bible reference book will show you the meanings of those words in question.
Brief correction: I meant to say, your definitions are of all three words, not just ‘espouse.’ But they are the English words, not the Biblical Greek words.
even the greek definitions change so your arguement is baseless.
the fact is greek definitions were change to support the pagan beliefs of the 4th century.
you have nothing to work from but common sense which is using the clear to define whats unclear.
theology is not needed to understand, or should anyone be needed to teach one another, i good preacher should just promote the belief that there is only one God and show people whats Perfectly CLEAR.
the truth is written in your mind and heart which can not be corrupted by any man like it was before Jesus and is being done today by so called men of God
Then, as I said, anyone can use any words to prove anything, and there is no foundation for anyone knowing anything for sure. No one can argue with your “logic” so I won’t try.
the only logic i use is common sense which is using what you can understand easily to understand the harder things.
your right you cant argue with that or even i couldnt argue with a person that does that.
This word ontological has really made this thread confusing when I all I wanted to know was whether or not Jesus was the Son of God in the same sense as any other child, the product of something from the body of the mother and something of the body of the father.
I know God is the Father of Jesus but did He contribute something of Himself in doing so?
To end the confusion with the word ontological lets limit its definition to two choices. If God did contribute something of Himself in the conception of Jesus then let’s call him the ontological Son of God and if God simply created what was necessary for conception then we will say he is not the ontological Son of God.
So now everyone can answer without getting all twisted up over the definition and answer the question, is Jesus the ontological Son of God from his birth from Mary?
The problem with that is that the word ontological, according to the definition given on this thread, has to do with being and existence. Therefore your choices don’t really reflect that definition. Jesus “is” and “exists” as the Son of God because God begot him in Mary’s womb.
Furthermore, the Bible doesn’t refer to God “contributing something of Himself.” Any answer to your question would be simply speculation. We have repeatedly stated what the Bible clearly says about how Jesus was the Son of God. I prefer to keep it simple and avoid all the confusion that complex theological terminology engenders.
“Jesus “is” and “exists” as the Son of God because God begot him in Mary’s womb.
Furthermore, the Bible doesn’t refer to God “contributing something of Himself.” ”
furthermore, the bible doesnt refer to that God Begot Jesus in Mary’s womb.
that is pure fiction and is nowhere in the bible or in the Word of God
Mark C writes… Bible doesn’t refer to God “contributing something of Himself.”
Response- You are correct that the Bible makes no reference to God contributing something of Himself like human fathers do and the evidence that God made no personal contribution to the conception of Jesus would be in the fact that Jesus was a human being ,had mortal life, he could be tempted, sin and die. And if Jesus had sinned then he would have been rendered dead in that day by being unable to resurrected to eternal life.
But Jesus did not sin and died and was resurrected and God declared “thou art My Son, this day I have begotten thee”
This second birth deemed figurative by most has a far different Jesus than the one born to Mary. Jesus now had his Father’s life, just as his Father he could no longer be tempted, sin or die.
And in him dwelt the fullness of Deity, an exalted spiritual body, visible only to the inhabitants of heaven just like his Father.
It looks like God contributed something of Himself at this birth.
Robert writes… furthermore, the bible doesn’t refer to that God Begot Jesus in Mary’s womb.
That is pure fiction and is nowhere in the bible or in the Word of God
Response- Actually it does.
Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
The word translated as conceived should be the word born.
the holy ghost can not concieve , it can only cause it with the seed of David which was taken by the holy ghost from Joseph to father Jesus. No seed of David , no King. no righteous branch of Jesse, No CHRIST, no death, no ressurection, no mediator, No begotten of the dead, flat out the end of the story right there
the prophets just spoke what God commanded them to say
the word born changes nothing
Robert writes…the word born changes nothing.
Response- The word born changes everything if you could see it.
what is conceived is born, what was born was conceived.
nope changes nothing.
just how you use the word born which can mean conceived.
cant see it because its not there, doesnt exist in the truth
Michael
I am going to tell you what i told Mark
Use whats CLEAR to understand whats unclear, you have no need for a dictionary if you do that.
that verse is an unclear and all of the prophecies of Jesus Dispute it. You can not be the seed of David and be the seed of God. there is no reason for the Bible to mention Joseph was the seed of David and give proof by including his Genealogy as the genealogy of Jesus. This was inspired by God to be wrote and fits Gods plan as told by the prophets.
so change the words , but it still will need to be defined by whats clear.
ok back on bloodline of Jesus
since Jospeh seems to show 2 different bloodlines we can state that he did have 2 different bloodlines as all of us do.one through is father and one through his mother.
being they never list the mother than either Jacob or Heli is his biological grandfather.my guess is it was Jacob. this brings us to the conclusion that Joseph was the seed of David without doubt.through Joseph the birthright is passed to Jesus and all prophesies are fulfilled.
If Jesus was born the literal Son of God the genealogy would have stated that like it did Adam.
so now you have several possibilties without having to twist the truth.
Jesus was begotten by God when God raised him from the dead, and before that he was called the Son of God as we all can be called that. Gods power was the first thing Begotten by God which Jesus received from the Holy spirit at his baptism thus the Word becoming flesh and Jesus was the First Being to be begotten at his ressurection