Jesus is God

[darinhouston]

Dwight, you mentioned that Jesus being the "Son of God" was evidence that Jesus was eternal. Curious what you do with the following?

"The angel answered and said to her, "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."

It wasn't because of his eternal sonship that he was called the son of God. It was because he was begotten by the H.S. coming upon Mary.

[steve7150]

In Hebrews 7:3, the writer tells us that the Son of God has "NEITHER BEGINNING OF DAYS nor end of life ..." We know that the man Jesus had both a birth and a death - and a human mother, but His Father was God. But, as the Son of God, one of Jesus' titles, given to Him by Gabriel (who also told Mary His name) before He was born (Luke 1:32), He had no "beginning of days nor end of life ..." He always was an eternal being, which is ONLY true of God Himself. The Son of God, who is clearly identified as Jesus in scripture, had no (human) father or (human) mother. Yet, at the same time, Jesus HAD a human mother. We can't fully understand how both of those could be true, but they are true, nonetheless. He always was and always will be.

This clearly contradicts the theory that Jesus was begotten by God some time before creation - because He would have had a beginning His days, if that were true. Also, it contradicts the theory that Jesus was created by God some time before He created anything else - because that too would mean that He had a beginning, which He did not have.

Jesus was human and yet He was God at the same time.



I think he was indeed the Word & literally existed inside God Almighty in some manner which is how he had no beginning yet he is not God the Father. I think although he always existed, at some point he came out of God , maybe you could say begotten in a certain way since he began to exist outside of God. The beginning of his existence outside of God might be seen as begotten.

[steve7150]

Luke 1:35 wrote:
"The angel answered and said to her, "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."









Yes he became the Son of God as a human but i do think he existed preincarnate as "The Word" the Angel of the Lord & possibly in other ways like "the Word of the Lord."

[steve7150]

It simply does not say (and I might suggest doesn't imply): "In the beginning Jesus was called The Word, and then Jesus was called Jesus when he became flesh."






Perhaps i'm missing something but "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" seems clear? Is this a bad translation because it sounds clear to me.

[dwight92070]

Dwight: The scripture tells us that before Jesus was born or begotten in Mary's womb, He was called "The Word" - John 1:1. "The Word became flesh - Jesus, but before His birth He existed with the name "The Word".

This is more careless exegesis. What we know from this passage is that there was something called The Word that pre-existed Christ (though "the beginning" isn't defined and could be beginning of the new creation).

Dwight: You tell me that there was "something called The Word" and then accuse me of careless exegesis? John 1:1 says "The Word was God". The Word was not "something" - The Word was God.

It does not say Jesus was called The Word. It said The Word became or was "enfleshed in" Jesus. So, it was something before Jesus and became something else in Jesus (if it's even a material/metaphysical thing in the first place).

Dwight: Once again, horrible exegesis. Now you call "The Word" "it"- before you called it "something." It doesn't say that "something" became flesh nor does it say "it" became flesh - The Word became flesh. John tells us (Actually Jesus Himself tells us, since He gave John the revelation) in Revelation 19:13 who is called The Word. "He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God." That's Jesus. It doesn't take much gray matter to know that Jesus was called "The Word" before His life on earth, just as He is called in Revelation.

It simply does not say (and I might suggest doesn't imply): "In the beginning Jesus was called The Word, and then Jesus was called Jesus when he became flesh."

Dwight: I think what would be more accurate is that you don't want it to say that.

[dwight92070]

Hmmmm... If Dwight is right, it looks like God has a God!

Paidon: You've made this mocking statement before and now you're doing it again. Let me ask you a question: Is the Father called Lord? Of course He is. Is the Son called Lord? Of course He is. I would assume you believe that. Well then, if you do, it looks like the Lord has a Lord.
Please explain to me how there can be two Lords.

As a matter of fact, He does - "The Lord says to my Lord; "Sit at My right hand..." Psalm 110

Does God have a God?

Hebrews 1:8-9 "But of the Son He says, 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, ...Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You ..."
Please explain to me how there can be two Gods.

[dwight92070]

Dwight, you mentioned that Jesus being the "Son of God" was evidence that Jesus was eternal. Curious what you do with the following?

"The angel answered and said to her, "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."

It wasn't because of his eternal sonship that he was called the son of God. It was because he was begotten by the H.S. coming upon Mary.

Dwight: That was the author of Hebrews who said that in Hebrews 7:3. As I just today said in another post, the names "Son of God" and "Jesus' apparently did not always exist, that Gabriel first used those names in the verse you quoted. But the person to whom those names identify IS ETERNAL. He has a multitude of Names: Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace, Emmanuel, The Word, The Word of God, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, The Great Shepherd, Savior, Messiah, Lord, God, Redeemer,

Dwight: I'm curious what you do with that! (Not really - I know what you will do - explain it all away as you do all the rest of the verses that are clear, plain and easy to understand, but you don't want to accept)

[darinhouston]

Dwight: I'm curious what you do with that! (Not really - I know what you will do - explain it all away as you do all the rest of the verses that are clear, plain and easy to understand, but you don't want to accept)

Then what's the point of discourse with you? And you complain of Paidion? This is not an edifying discussion and I think I'm about done - you aren't interested in anything but stating that texts are clear and plain where academia and literature abounds in discourse on these subjects. And if you don't want someone to "explain it away" then there's no point in asking a question -- it's certainly what you do.

[Paidion]

(Isa 9:6 ESV) For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

I'll take a stab at "explaining it away".

Dwight is one who calls Him "Mighty God" or at least "God".
But calling Him God differs from Him actually being God.

[darinhouston]

(Isa 9:6 ESV) For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

I'll take a stab at "explaining it away".

Dwight is one who calls Him "Mighty God" or at least "God".
But calling Him God differs from Him actually being God.

Paidion, this is an interesting discourse on the grammar of this verse.

http://www.christianmonotheism.com/medi ... %209-6.pdf

Here's a brief excerpt where Sean Finnegan shares a translation note from the NET bible.

There is great debate over the syntactical structure of the verse. No subject is indicated for the verb “he called.” If all the titles that follow are ones given to the king, then the subject of the verb must be indefinite, “one calls.” However, some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, “and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, ‘Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.’” (tn 16 from NET on Isaiah 9:6)

Another interesting bit is that at least the immediate referent was an earthly king, right? If so, then there would seem to be no problem with it as to Jesus with or without a Trinitarian perspective. Yet another interesting thought -- wouldn't this be a confusing passage for a Trinitarian since it's about the Son and not the Father - what do they think it means to call Jesus Everlasting Father in that context?