Jesus is God

[commonsense]

[/i]
Jesus asks “Why do you call me good?” Then he says that only God is good.” He as much as says, “Only God is good. I am not God; so why do you call me good?”

Paidion, I think you've given the best explanation for this passage. It was the Spirit of God dwelling in Jesus and Jesus living in that Spirit that made him good, just as He says, "I am in the Father and the Father in Me." This is what the New Testament writers are explaining as being "One with God" a spiritual unity.

However, apparently that wasn't enough for Philip. He wanted to physically see the Father. Jesus told Him, "You're looking at Him."

Dwight, God is Spirit. He can't be identified by physical features. Philip was supposed to KNOW the Father after being with Jesus for so long.

David himself had a shepherd - He said the Lord is my shepherd.

You're right. God is the supreme Shepherd.
Genesis 48:15 "May the God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked faithfully, the God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day."

But God raises up shepherds who speak for Him and obey His commands.Just as God raised up David to be His shepherd, He also raised up Jesus to be a shepherd as well. The voice of God is one voice. Truth comes from God, no matter who speaks it. It's an eternal word.

The following verses talk about David.
"That the Lord may fulfill his word which He spoke concerning me saying, "If your sons take heed to their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and soul, you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel."

2 Samuel 7:17 "And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever."

Acts 15:17 "After this, I will return and rebuild the house of David which has fallen down.I will rebuild it's ruins and will set it up so the rest of mankind may seek the Lord."

[darinhouston]

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.

Since you have suggested this is so clearly contradictory, can you point out where the passage says the referent in Hebrews 7:3 is either Jesus or the Son of God?

Dwight, this was a specific question - you might have missed it. Any thoughts?

We've traveled quite a bit from the original post. Dwight, I may have missed it, but have you answered this question?

[dwight92070]

I did answer that, but it appears that someone erased it. Hebrews 7:3 obviously is speaking about Melchizedek. But the description of Melchizedek in verses 1-4 makes it clear that he was a preincarnate appearance of Jesus, the Son of God.

[darinhouston]

I did answer that, but it appears that someone erased it. Hebrews 7:3 obviously is speaking about Melchizedek. But the description of Melchizedek in verses 1-4 makes it clear that he was a preincarnate appearance of Jesus, the Son of God.

In what way does it make this clear? This is another case where there has been wide conjecture and presupposition over the years, but textually speaking -- how is that clear from the text? We don't know anything really outside this text about Melchizadek but by its own terms seems to be talking about an individual distinct from Jesus. And how could he be the pre-incarnate Son of God if (as the text says) he was "made like unto the Son of God." It also implies that Jesus was "made a priest after the order of Melchizadek."

So, again, how does this text alone make it clear that Melchizadek was pre-incarnate Jesus?

[dwight92070]

I did answer that, but it appears that someone erased it. Hebrews 7:3 obviously is speaking about Melchizedek. But the description of Melchizedek in verses 1-4 makes it clear that he was a preincarnate appearance of Jesus, the Son of God.

In what way does it make this clear? This is another case where there has been wide conjecture and presupposition over the years, but textually speaking -- how is that clear from the text? We don't know anything really outside this text about Melchizadek but by its own terms seems to be talking about an individual distinct from Jesus. And how could he be the pre-incarnate Son of God if (as the text says) he was "made like unto the Son of God." It also implies that Jesus was "made a priest after the order of Melchizadek."

So, again, how does this text alone make it clear that Melchizadek was pre-incarnate Jesus?

Dwight - In Genesis 14, we get the following information about Melchizedek. He was the King of Salem, which means the King of Peace, according to the author of Hebrews. He was priest of God Most High - the author of Hebrews (allow me to use "a of H" to designate this) says that he remains a priest perpetually - there's no end to his priesthood. His name means King of Righteousness, according to the "a of H". He's greater than Abraham, the patriarch and the father of all who have faith in God Romans 4:16 and Hebrews 7:7, so he could bless Abraham. Abraham gave him a tenth of the spoils to Melchizedek - Jacob promised a tenth to God in Genesis 28:22. The rest of the information about Melchizedek (Mel) is given to us by the "a of H".
Dwight - The "a of H" tells us that Mel has no father or mother, no genealogy - Mel has no beginning of days nor end of life. Mel was made like the Son of God (Who would come on the scene at 4 B.C.) We know that the Lord was and still is able to take on the physical form of a man, even though He is spirit. He did that later with Abraham in Genesis 18. We know that Mel apparently appeared in physical form here in Genesis 14. We know that Mel was an eternal being and that his priesthood goes on forever, even today, and beyond today. The "a of H" also calls Jesus the Apostle and High Priest of our confession in Hebrews 3:1, and that Jesus arose "in the likeness of Melchizedek" and that both of them possessed "the power of an indestructable life" Hebrews 7:15-16.

Dwight - So when did the priesthood pass on from Melchizedek to Jesus? I don't know that we have a time given in scripture, as to when God swore that Jesus was a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110). But if Mel's priesthood goes on forever (and yet Jesus has assumed that priesthood), why are we not talking about Mel today?- at least not anywhere near as much as we talk about Jesus. At the very least, Mel is a type of Christ, but I believe He was Christ (preincarnate), given that His attributes can be found in no other human.

[moderator note: I took the liberty to re-format this post to make it more readable and clear between quotes and responses]

[darinhouston]

At the very least, Mel is a type of Christ, but I believe He was Christ (preincarnate), given that His attributes can be found in no other human.

I'm willing to grant that Mel is a type of Christ.

That is certainly conventional reasoning. I think it has some logical flaws we don't need to go through here (but might be an interesting separate topic), but it's at the very least a pretty round-about way of showing how you believe Mel was "clearly" a pre-incarnate Christ. You also conclude by recognizing it could well not be, so I guess your clarity has some wiggle room. I think this is a good example where you will go to great lengths in twists and contortions to support what you say is "simplicity" and "clarity" in a passage but you will not grant the same to someone seeing a passage differently from you.

So, if you grant that Mel could be a type of Christ, that does take us back to square one with the passage and we're left with some conjecture but not a lot of clarity in the relationship between Jesus and Mel. However, as I am pondering on this (and it's just a pondering as I've never considered this before), it seems that it isn't exactly a conventional "typification" either in that it seems backwards. Jesus is compared with Mel, and shown to be like Mel instead of the typical typology where that OT figure is shown to have been like Jesus. I think that requires more thought and reflection.

[darinhouston]

This is a pretty good discourse on the subject which avoids the trinitarian issues altogether and explains why it's in Hebrews in the first place absent any context of pre-existence or divinity of Christ. While this interpretation doesn't in any way disprove divinity or pre-existence (again), this is simply not in view with the passage. It has some odd language to our ears, but with this in mind helps explain some of that strangeness.

https://www.xenos.org/essays/melchizede ... ood-christ

In short, the Jewish priesthood was temporary, for a time and specific purpose in the history of the nation of Israel. Those priests had authority and successors due to their genealogies and parentage.

Jews might have a tough time recognizing Jesus as High Priest at all, let alone "forever" since his genealogy was inconsistent with that Aaronic priesthood they were familiar with (though he clearly had a genealogy and a parentage - from Judah). So, the writer of Hebrews felt the need to justify his priesthood which was different than what they were familiar with.

So, H presents the special case of Mel to show that there is a different type of priest than the Aaronic priesthood which had served its purpose and was no longer needed. A priesthood which was based not on parentage or genealogies (not having one could be the same as saying he had none that were relevant to the Aaronic lineage). A priesthood that preceded even the Jews and derived its authority completely outside of the Jewish nation and the sacrificial system. Mel was such a person who Abraham treated as a priest even without all those trappings or national identity. Jesus has come in that same way and is that type of priest, the one with eternal authority from God apart from his Jewishness or his lineage.

So, the Jews should not be stumbled by his lineage, but should be challenged to accept this new priesthood and new system in place of the sacrificial system to maintain favor with God.

When we just turn it into another confusing proof-text for a pre-incarnate Jesus, we lose that.

[Paidion]

Darin, what do you make of the following words of Jesus?

(John 8:58 NIV) "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

[darinhouston]

Darin, what do you make of the following words of Jesus?

(John 8:58 NIV) "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

If you don't mind, I'll move this to another topic. This things keeps growing legs and finding relevant conversations later gets difficult.

[darinhouston]

Paidion, rather than move this to a new topic, I thought I'd direct you to the latest discussion of John 8:58. Since it does come up from time to time, I moved it to its own post. Unfortunately, it did get drug off topic again, but there's a good exchange there on the subject.

https://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=6020

Another thread/topic on the subject here:

https://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=6055