Jesus - First Born?

[Brian2]

Brian2:

1. how is an anointing carried out?
2. Give another example of an anointing in the Scriptures.
3. Who anointed Jesus at his birth?
4. What exactly does Acts 10:37-38 say about Jesus’ anointing?

I did not say that Jesus was anointed at His birth. I said He was anointed before that.
Since Jesus was both Lord and Christ at His birth, that means He must have been anointed to be Christ before His birth.

Acts 10:38 ...........how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

 

[Brian2]

No, Brian2. God granted Jesus to have life in him… that is a future event at the end of time when Jesus raises the dead at the resurrections.

Tell me: What do you understand about these two sentences:

• ‘Saul killed 1000 men; David, 10,000 men
• ‘Adam became a living spirit; Jesus Christ, a life giving Spirit

It is telling us why there is a natural body and a spiritual body. It is saying we first took after the first Adam whom scripture tells us became a living soul. (dust and spirit combined) and at the resurrection we take after the second Adam who started off as a life giving spirit. He does not become anything, He starts off with life in Him and as a spirit. This is when He was in heaven before the earth was made. I'm sure you remember when Jesus tells us about being in heaven with His Father before the earth was made. That is when He was a life giving spirit, exactly like His Father is.
Humans started off with natural bodies, just as Adam had and then later came the spiritual bodies which take after the man from heaven, Jesus.
1Cor 15:46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

 

[Soapy]

You have just contradicted yourself. You just said that the soul was not living when the boy died and then you went on to say that the soul is not killed when the body is killed.
Not only that, but you are misrepresenting what I have told you since I am the one who has been pointing to Jesus words at Matt 10:28 as meaning that the soul does not die when the body dies.

Change your glasses, Brian2.

Read ANY TEXT I have ever written regarding the Soul, Spirit, and body. I have said that the Soul is none-living at anyone’s death. None-Living is not dead. It means it is not active. A certain type of frog can go into a state of none-living in deep winter. It certainly isn’t dead but will be completely nonfunctional in every way. Come the spring and it is as if the spirit is put back into the frog - it springs back into a living croaking jumping frog.

How could I say that when I know what I’m talking about. The Soul is the PERSON.

Brian2, you are getting more and more desperate and it’s doing you no good!! You clearly know you are going wrong and your posts are verging on something awful. I have outlined very carefully and simply what I’m saying but you keep changing your belief but then claiming it’s me that is saying elsewise. My belief has not changed from day one because the theme is simple as 1 + 2 = 3. It doesn’t matter how you change your view, mine has and is only ever 1 + 2 = 3.

 

[Soapy]

I did not say that Jesus was anointed at His birth. I said He was anointed before that.
Since Jesus was both Lord and Christ at His birth, that means He must have been anointed to be Christ before His birth.

Acts 10:38 ...........how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

Answering the questions I listed would have been simple enough if you were being truthful. However I know you are not presenting the truth to me - even to the point of doubling back on your own thinking.

Acts 10:37 sets the context (The time of the baptism that John preached).

Acts 10:38 tells exactly that God ANOINTED JESUS (to become ‘Christ’, since ‘Christ’ means ‘The Anointed one’) :

• ‘Jesus Christ’ : Jesus, the anointed one

Back that up with:

• “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because He (YHWH) has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free” (Luke 4:18)

 

[Brian2]

I think I know but what is your scripture reference?
We can "say" we came from heaven, came from God and shared God's glory but actually, we came from our parents through the reproduction process. We will share in the glory promised us when we are glorified.
There is nothing that confuses critical thinking more than God who is 3 persons but one God.

What are you talking about? I did not say we came from heaven. I just said that you logic tells us that the same thing said about us (that we came from heaven from God) as was said about Jesus if all it means is that Jesus existed in the mind of God. In your logic we are as much "people from heaven" as Jesus was.
But no, Jesus was really from heaven.

Talk about confusion! When was Jesus a life-giving spirit before his resurrection?

When He was a spirit, the image of the invisible God, in heaven before He became a man.

If you want to believe that Jesus emptied himself of being God, of his deity ----- okay.

I don't think I said that. He remained what He was, the Son of God, the image of the invisible God, the same nature as His Father. He was all this as a man and just put His Divine Powers and attributes aside so that He could be and live as a man on earth and not as God on earth.

The Jews were expecting a conquering Messiah to come and deliver Israel not a suffering servant Messiah - that is why they did not accept Jesus as the Messiah. And they sure weren't expecting God Himself to come in the flesh.
Yep, "therefore thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am the one who has laid as a foundation in Zion, a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation: ‘Whoever believes will not be in haste.’"

It doesn't matter what the Jews were expecting or not, they are wrong.
What I was talking about is that to be qualitatively God (as in John 1:1) the Word had to have been alive, as God is alive.
You say the Word was a dead something in the mind of God, but that cannot be the case if the Word was qualitatively like God. Being alive is one of those qualities.

The logos, the word became flesh - God did NOT.

OK

Jesus Christ shed his blood for the remission of sins. Jesus Christ was crucified and died and was dead for three days and three nights. God raised him from the dead, not abandoning His soul to Hades (the grave, the place of the dead), or letting His Holy One see corruption. (Acts 2) Again, God cannot die - He is immortal.

Again, a man can die but the death of the body is not the death of the soul. Jesus did not go out of existence at death unless you want to deny Matt 10:28.

Correct, Jesus NEVER claimed to be God (that in itself should tell us something!) John's Jesus, the Son of God, was totally dependent upon God his Father - God is dependent on no one. Jesus told us that his Father was the only true God and Jesus said he was going to his Father and our Father, his God and our God.

Becoming a man meant becoming dependant on God. It meant putting aside His Divine attributes as depending on God.
Becoming a man also meant that His Father became His God. Jesus Father became His God when He was in the womb. (Psalm 22:10)
Before that He was in the form of God and so equal to God, but decided to obey His Father and not claim the equality that was rightly His. (Phil 2) After all Jesus does tell us that all things that the Father has are His, the Son's. (John 16:15) This includes all power and authority and the name of His Father etc and as a man, He could put these aside and inherit them back later when He was exalted (Phil 2)

Correct, Jesus needed to be baptized to receive Holy Spirit, aka the Spirit of God and God gave the spirit without measure ( gives - didomi in the present tense, active voice, a continuous giving) to him to empower Jesus His Son to live a sinless life. God at work in and through His Son.
Jesus was recognized by the angel of the Lord as "Christ the Lord" at his birth but God "made" him both Lord and Christ after his death, resurrection and ascension. (Acts 2)

Jesus lived a sinless life for the 30 years before He was baptised.
Jesus received the Holy Spirit to empower Him in His ministry which He was embarking on.
Since the angel tells us that the baby was Christ the Lord that means that He was the anointed Christ before His birth.
What Acts 2 is saying is that Jesus resurrection confirmed that Jesus was both Lord and Christ.
We already know that He was both Lord and Christ at His birth.

 

[Brian2]

Answering the questions I listed would have been simple enough if you were being truthful. However I know you are not presenting the truth to me - even to the point of doubling back on your own thinking.

Acts 10:37 sets the context (The time of the baptism that John preached).

Acts 10:38 tells exactly that God ANOINTED JESUS (to become ‘Christ’, since ‘Christ’ means ‘The Anointed one’) :

• ‘Jesus Christ’ : Jesus, the anointed one

Back that up with:

• “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because He (YHWH) has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free” (Luke 4:18)

And yet also Jesus the baby was the Lord and Christ at His birth. He was the Lord, sent from heaven to be the Christ. He was anointed for that task in heaven and as a man on earth He was anointed with the Holy Spirit when it became time to be empowered to do it.
If you think that Jesus did not exist in heaven with God then you have to deny Luke 2:11 which says that the baby was the Christ. Being the Christ means that He had already been anointed as the Christ.

 

[Brian2]

Change your glasses, Brian2.

I don't need glasses to know what I believe and have been saying all along.

 

[Soapy]

And yet also Jesus the baby was the Lord and Christ at His birth.

Jesus was ‘Lord’ at his birth? Where is that written?

Jesus was Christ at his birth? Where is that written?

He was the Lord, sent from heaven to be the Christ.

Jesus was not sent from Heaven. Jesus never said he came from Heaven. He said God anointed him at his parish AND SENT HIM to do good and heal the sick, and declare the good news, etc. This was following the anointment and test in the wilderness - he declared himself in the synagogue after reading from the scroll.

He was anointed for that task in heaven and as a man on earth He was anointed with the Holy Spirit when it became time to be empowered to do it.

Now you are saying that Jesus was anointed TWICE? Where is it written that Jesus was anointed in Heaven prior to coming to earth?

If you think that Jesus did not exist in heaven with God then you have to deny Luke 2:11 which says that the baby was the Christ. Being the Christ means that He had already been anointed as the Christ.

No Brian2, it means the baby is the long awaited prophesied ‘Messiah’/‘Christ’. If he was already anointed ‘with holy Spirit and power’ then why was he anointed a second time with the same? And only after his anointing at the river Jordan did he begin his mission and start doing miracles using the power he had been anointed with.

 

[amazing grace]

As he was at the burning bush where the ground was holy and YHWH spoke from the bush.

Let's look at Stephan's account of that event: Now when forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him (Moses). . .in a flame of fire in a bush. . . there came a voice of the Lord; I am the God of your fathers. . .take off the sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy ground. This Moses, whom they rejected, saying, Who made you a ruler and judge?----this man (Moses) God sent as both ruler and redeemer by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush. . . .This is the one (Moses) who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers. That is the Jewish Law of Agency at work and understood by Stephen and is also how the OT believers would have understood it. The main point of the Jewish Law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "a person's agent is regarded as the person himself" (Ned. 72B; Kidd, 41b). Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principal, who therefore bears full responsibility for it with consequent complete absence of liability on the part of the agent." Shaliah: The Law of Agency (emphasis mine)

You no doubt see the Father as having a goodness that is better than anything that Jesus has/had.
I see Jesus as being as good as any man could be and as being identical in nature to His Father, iow as good as His Father.

I see God the Father as being greater than the Son.

It is Jesus who is coming to earth to judge in the NT.
It is YHWH who is coming to earth to judge in the OT.
If only Jesus is coming to judge, that means that YHWH who is coming to judge is Jesus who is coming to judge.
If the presence of YHWH is in Jesus then Jesus can be identified as YHWH and speak as if He is YHWH,,,,,,,,,,,,,, just like the Angel of YHWH and Angel of His Presence in the OT.
Col 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form.
John 20:28 "My Lord and my God"

I believe what scripture tells me and which I quoted..
Yes, Jesus was given the Spirit without measure.
Thomas was not calling Jesus Almighty God.

The child came back to life when his soul came back to his body. (the soul that is not killed at the death of the body).
Why do I bother giving Bible quotes when you do not believe them. You think that the soul is killed when the body is killed.

The child came back to life when he started breathing. Didn't Adam become a living soul when God breathed the breath of life into him, i.e. started breathing?
I have already given my understanding of that Matt. 10:28 - you rejected it.

During sex we can see 2 people but one flesh.
In the body of Christ there is one body and many members joined in spirit because we all share the same Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit.

Well . . .yep, it takes 2 people and during that act they are still 2 people that become united through marriage and consummation of that commitment. They begin their married life in unity and purpose regarding their household and in raising their children.
Yep, "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. For the body does not consist of one member but of many. . . .If all were a single member, (one thing) where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. . . .Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it."

A rope can be one rope with many fibres.

True, but what's that got to do with Jesus being simultaneously both God and man?
I really don't think a rope is a good comparison.

 

[Soapy]

I don't need glasses to know what I believe and have been saying all along.

What you see in those glasses us not what is shown in scriptures. You may think it is but it’s clear that what you write is not in context of reality of the scriptures.

 

[amazing grace]

So in your theology Jesus had the Spirit of God without measure so that Jesus would not sin. God at work in and through His Son.
So why say that Jesus was just a man like the first Adam? who did not have the Spirit of God without measure etc.
In my theology Jesus was a man who resisted temptation on His own merits.

Yes, God was IN His Son via His Spirit working in and through him in everything he did or said..
All I can say concerning Adam was that he was made in the image of God. The scripture goes no further than that.
Nope, in your theology, you believe that the 100% Divine nature (deity) overcame the temptations.

Yes Jesus is identified as Lord and Christ at His birth and when it says that God made him both Lord and Christ, it means that through the resurrection God confirmed who Jesus was all along, Lord and Christ.
I don't think you should use Acts 2:36 to show that Luke 2:11 is untrue.

I wasn't using Acts 2:36 to show that Luke 2:11 was untrue.
This is what Luke 2:11 says: "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savor, who is Christ the Lord." The angel announcing the birth of Christ - the one who is going to be Christ the Lord.
Then Acts 2:36 says: "This Jesus God raised up. . .Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God . . . Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has MADE him both Lord and Christ." Because of all that was said before, because Jesus accomplished all that he was sent to do God MADE him both Lord and Christ - the reality of what was announced in Luke.

 

[amazing grace]

That really wasn't the point I was trying to make. My point is that something or someone can pre-exist in God's foreknowledge which is not a literal pre-existence.

Yes, we all pre exist in God's foreknowledge, which is not a literal pre-existence. So we could all say that we came from heaven and came from God and shared God's glory before the foundation of the world. And that makes what Jesus said and what others said about Jesus pre existence as just something that means nothing special about Jesus and ends up just confusing people who read it with it's plain meaning.

I think I know but what is your scripture reference?
We can "say" we came from heaven, came from God and shared God's glory but actually, we came from our parents through the reproduction process. We will share in the glory promised us when we are glorified.
There is nothing that confuses critical thinking more than God who is 3 persons but one God.

The above is the line of conversation.

What are you talking about? I did not say we came from heaven. I just said that you logic tells us that the same thing said about us (that we came from heaven from God) as was said about Jesus if all it means is that Jesus existed in the mind of God. In your logic we are as much "people from heaven" as Jesus was.
But no, Jesus was really from heaven.

Yes, Jesus really was from heaven, aka came from God, aka sent by God.

When He was a spirit, the image of the invisible God, in heaven before He became a man.

Since I don't believe Jesus pre existed then I don't believe he was a spirit in heaven before He became a man.

I don't think I said that. He remained what He was, the Son of God, the image of the invisible God, the same nature as His Father. He was all this as a man and just put His Divine Powers and attributes aside so that He could be and live as a man on earth and not as God on earth.

Is the "image of the invisible God" the same as "image of God"? If not, why?
"put his Divine attributes aside so that he could be and live on earth as a man and not God on earth". . . Isn't that the same as "emptied himself of being God, of his deity"?

It doesn't matter what the Jews were expecting or not, they are wrong.
What I was talking about is that to be qualitatively God (as in John 1:1) the Word had to have been alive, as God is alive.
You say the Word was a dead something in the mind of God, but that cannot be the case if the Word was qualitatively like God. Being alive is one of those qualities.

You asserted that the Jews did not accept Jesus. . . .I believe it does matter who the Jews were looking for in the coming Christ and it wasn't God. I don't equate the logos, the word in John 1 as a person.
I think you should study the definition of logos . Of course, I leave out the one Trinity definition within all the definitions but what the definition boils down to "a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea, what someone has said, the sayings of God".
"So shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." Isaiah 55:11

OK

Again, a man can die but the death of the body is not the death of the soul. Jesus did not go out of existence at death unless you want to deny Matt 10:28.

"while the ark was being prepared, in which eight persons [ESV] [souls KJV], were brought safely through the water". (1 Peter 3:20)
Soul is synonymous with person - God breathed into Adam the breath of life and Adam became a living soul, i.e. person. It is the spirit, the spirit within man that goes back to God who gave it. (Ecc. 12:7) God will animate our bodies with our individual spirits at the resurrection.

Becoming a man meant becoming dependant on God. It meant putting aside His Divine attributes as depending on God.
Becoming a man also meant that His Father became His God. Jesus Father became His God when He was in the womb. (Psalm 22:10)
Before that He was in the form of God and so equal to God, but decided to obey His Father and not claim the equality that was rightly His. (Phil 2) After all Jesus does tell us that all things that the Father has are His, the Son's. (John 16:15) This includes all power and authority and the name of His Father etc and as a man, He could put these aside and inherit them back later when He was exalted (Phil 2)

A Son is dependant upon his Father and Jesus was dependant on the only true God, his Father.

Jesus lived a sinless life for the 30 years before He was baptised.
Jesus received the Holy Spirit to empower Him in His ministry which He was embarking on.
Since the angel tells us that the baby was Christ the Lord that means that He was the anointed Christ before His birth.
What Acts 2 is saying is that Jesus resurrection confirmed that Jesus was both Lord and Christ.
We already know that He was both Lord and Christ at His birth.

Addressed previously.

 

[Brian2]

Jesus was ‘Lord’ at his birth? Where is that written?

Jesus was Christ at his birth? Where is that written?

Luke 2:11 tells us that.

Jesus was not sent from Heaven. Jesus never said he came from Heaven. He said God anointed him at his parish AND SENT HIM to do good and heal the sick, and declare the good news, etc. This was following the anointment and test in the wilderness - he declared himself in the synagogue after reading from the scroll.

Jesus tells us He came from heaven.
Jesus was sent by God after His baptism to do the work of the Messiah after He was anointed to do it.
The apostles were given the Holy Spirit by Jesus before He ascended to heaven (John 20:22)
The apostles at Pentecost were anointed with the Holy Spirit to preach and do the work they were sent to do.

Now you are saying that Jesus was anointed TWICE? Where is it written that Jesus was anointed in Heaven prior to coming to earth?

The scriptures say that Jesus was chosen before the foundation of the earth. I don't think it says anything about anointing, but I reasoned that from Him being the Christ at His birth. (Luke 2:11) If He was Christ when He was born then He was anointed to be Christ before He was born.

No Brian2, it means the baby is the long awaited prophesied ‘Messiah’/‘Christ’. If he was already anointed ‘with holy Spirit and power’ then why was he anointed a second time with the same? And only after his anointing at the river Jordan did he begin his mission and start doing miracles using the power he had been anointed with.

Yes the baby was the long awaited Christ.
You answered your own question about why Jesus was anointed at His baptism (And only after his anointing at the river Jordan did he begin his mission and start doing miracles using the power he had been anointed with.)
And I will repeat what I said above about different reasons for receiving the Holy Spirit.
The apostles were given the Holy Spirit by Jesus before He ascended to heaven (John 20:22)
The apostles at Pentecost were anointed with the Holy Spirit to preach and do the work they were sent to do.
The Holy Spirit at the Baptism was to empower Jesus to do what He had been sent to do as Christ.

 

[Brian2]

Let's look at Stephan's account of that event: Now when forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him (Moses). . .in a flame of fire in a bush. . . there came a voice of the Lord; I am the God of your fathers. . .take off the sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy ground. This Moses, whom they rejected, saying, Who made you a ruler and judge?----this man (Moses) God sent as both ruler and redeemer by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush. . . .This is the one (Moses) who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers. That is the Jewish Law of Agency at work and understood by Stephen and is also how the OT believers would have understood it. The main point of the Jewish Law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "a person's agent is regarded as the person himself" (Ned. 72B; Kidd, 41b). Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principal, who therefore bears full responsibility for it with consequent complete absence of liability on the part of the agent." Shaliah: The Law of Agency (emphasis mine)

This is the one (Moses) who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers.
The angel in the wilderness with Moses was the Angel of God's Presence. God's presence was in the Angel and so Moses and YHWH were able to speak face to face even though Moses did not see the full glory of God. This was a Messenger from YHWH but was also the Presence of YHWH since YHWH promised to go with Moses and the people.
Isa 63:8 For He said, “They are surely My people, sons who will not be disloyal.” So He became their Savior. 9 In all their distress, He too was afflicted, and the Angel of His Presence saved them. In His love and compassion He redeemed them; He lifted them up and carried them all the days of old. 10But they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit. So He turned and became their enemy, and He Himself fought against them.…

The Angel was the form in which God chose to appear. Still God but in a certain form. That is how I see it anyway.

I see God the Father as being greater than the Son.

I see God the Father as having the natural authority of a Father over a Son.

The child came back to life when he started breathing. Didn't Adam become a living soul when God breathed the breath of life into him, i.e. started breathing?
I have already given my understanding of that Matt. 10:28 - you rejected it.

Of course I reject an understanding that denies what the scripture says-------- that at the death of the body the spirit is not killed.
You have to reject that with your understanding of human death.

Well . . .yep, it takes 2 people and during that act they are still 2 people that become united through marriage and consummation of that commitment. They begin their married life in unity and purpose regarding their household and in raising their children.
Yep, "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. For the body does not consist of one member but of many. . . .If all were a single member, (one thing) where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. . . .Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it."

Individually members of the one body.
2 people who are joined physically at sex.
3 persons who are joined through the same Spirit to be the one God.
I don't see your problem.

True, but what's that got to do with Jesus being simultaneously both God and man?
I really don't think a rope is a good comparison.

The rope shows that the oneness of YHWH can be a compound oneness.
It was not meant to be about Jesus being simultaneously both God and man.
It helps if we are talking about the same thing I guess.

 

[Brian2]

What you see in those glasses us not what is shown in scriptures. You may think it is but it’s clear that what you write is not in context of reality of the scriptures.

I am talking about what I know I believe and have been saying and how you misrepresent that and how you contradict even what you say that you believe.

 

[Oeste]

Logically, to be hold the title "Son of God" one has to be a being who is NOT God.

Logically, to hold the title “Son of Man” one has to be a being who is NOT Man.

To be logically consistent, both arguments would have to be true, so I do not see the proffered argument as logical.

So we are back to the Son of frog being frog, the Son of man being man, and the Son of God being God.

If it is logical for you to believe that God is one, that He alone is God yet He actually exist as a three-in-one being;

Correct! I see "one" as a plural "one".

If you can see yourself as a three-in-one being (body, soul and spirit) then it shouldn't be too difficult to see God as a three-in-one being also.

and if it is logical to you that God lowered His status as Almighty God and as Creator and became one of His created;

Very logical, but only because scripture reveals this to us.

Jesus emptied himself and was born to Mary as a son.

So, if you can readily accept a Christology where Man is empowered to become as God, I see nothing that would prohibit you from accepting a Christology where God empties himself to become as man. Biblical Unitarians and Mormons apparently share the former view, while Christian Orthodoxy shares the latter.

and if it is logical to you that God came to earth in the flesh to pay Himself for the sins of mankind and that is what gives you a more rigorous, richer, fuller Christology then I am happy for you.

Well, God did declare Himself our only Savior, so any price to redeem us would have to be paid by Him.

​

“You are My witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may consider and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me no god was formed, and after Me none will come. 11I, yes I, am the LORD, and there is no Savior but Me. (Isaiah 43)​

12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4)​

Scripture tells us there was, is, and will be only one Savior for mankind. However, I believe Unitarianism suggests there may be more.

Is this correct?

 

[Oeste]

Surely it must be time for me to stop and let maybe @Oeste continue. But I think he is probably smarter than me and may not want to carry on the discussion about this for as long as I have.
Maybe I will continue for a while on the subject of death but stop on the person of Jesus and His pre existence............. in heaven................. with the Father.

Lol, I wish I could carry the conversation as much, as long, and as effectively as you have. Perhaps when I retire I'll have more time but I'm not sure when that will be. Next year perhaps?

Certainly @Soapy and @amazing grace bring different perspectives, but if you want to resolve scripture into a coherent, consistent and holistic whole, I think the RF community will gain much by reading your posts. I certainly enjoy reading them.

 

[Oeste]

“Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise." John 5:19

1. Jesus cannot be man because man can not peer in on the Father. Jesus can SEE what the Father doing! No dark shades, no averting of the eyes, no blinding light that obscures the vision…he actually observes and SEES the Father.

Jesus mentally perceives or knows (sees) what his Father is doing through OT scripture and the character of his Father or as in Jesus receives revelation from God his Father. This is not referring to a vision nor actual "sight".

IMO, this represents an excellent example of a Unitarian response that simply doe not faithfully represent the text.

The idea that Jesus “mentally perceives” what his Father is doing through OT scripture” breaks the plain meaning of the text to arrive at a secondary meaning that agrees with none of the surrounding text.

There is absolutely no indication that Jesus is perceiving what his Father is doing "from Old Testament scripture", and I am not sure where or how such a concept would arise. Secondly, the plain text indicates the word βλέπω (blepō) used here is more appropriately rendered as one using their faculty of sight and not of mental perception. Lastly, the explanation tells us nothing of how Jesus, if he is just man, is able to do what he "mentally perceives" or "knows" his Father has done. I can watch a movie about a plane or a rocket taking off, but that doesn't mean I can now fly a plane or land a rocket.

"Men, of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know

This does not answer my prior point. Since God is working through Jesus, how is Jesus tempted unless the Father is tempted first?

I think his/her point is:

I'm a he.

"The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." (Gen. 1:12)
And then also with the animals - "And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." (Gen. 1:29)
So - The only begotten son of a frog is a frog; The only begotten son of a dog is a dog; The only begotten son of a man is a man;
His/her conclusion: The only begotten son of God is God.

Exactly right, you nailed it!

The only begotten "Son of God" is God for the exact same reason the only begotten "Son of frog" is frog, "Son of dog" is dog, and "Son of man" is man.

Kind produces kind, and as stated earlier, I believe even a 5th grader can follow along and reach a similarly logical conclusion.

Needless to say, I don't believe their so-called logic works!

Oh well, let's take a look at my logic then. If it's illogical it should be scrapped.

Jesus was prophesied to come from "the seed (offspring) of the woman". (Gen. 3:15) "after its kind" = human being, a man. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring (his seed). It does not say "And to offsprings, (seed)" referring to many but referring to one, "And to your offspring, (seed)" who is Christ. (Gal. 3:16) "after its kind" = human being, a man.

Correct!

Kind produces kind.

So frogs produce it’s kind, which is frog (e.g., Hermit)

Dogs produce its kind, which is dog (e.g., Lassie)

Men produce its kind, which is man (e.g., Adam)

And a God would produce its kind, which is a God (e.g., Zeus & Hera -> Ares)

And if we look at 1 Cor. 15, (yes, I understand it is in reference to the resurrection but there is within this context another point to this subject) - But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish . . . . each kind of seed its own body - what kind of body did Jesus Christ have?

Well, the kind of body Christ had might tell us how he is man, but that is not the dispute we have. Trinitarians and biblical Unitarians both believe Jesus is man. The dispute we have is whether Jesus is also God.

The body of a human being, a body that contains everything that animates a human being to be a living being - emotions, thoughts, a will of their own, etc. So, IMO, the conclusion would be: The only begotten son of a God is a man.

Yes, this tells us the title “Son of Man” is appropriately applied to Jesus.

At this point, I thought you had done an excellent job developing your reasons as to why we could rightly call Jesus “Son of Man”. I felt you accomplished this half of the task rather well.

As a reader, I was now looking forward to the next leg of your presentation, your argument as to why Jesus can be rightly called “the only begotten Son of God”. I was expecting these arguments to be presented in the same consistent way you presented Jesus as “Son of Man”.

Unfortunately, I saw none of this. Instead, your next sentence simply reads:

So, IMO, the conclusion would be: The only begotten son of a God is a man.

Anyone reading this is left at a total loss on how you reached this conclusion based on the arguments presented so far. Essentially, you’ve told us Jesus had flesh, this flesh was that of man, and since it was flesh like man it makes him a Son of God!

Compare your explanation of why Jesus is the Son of God with that of scripture:

“The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the Holy One to be born will be called the Son of God.” Luke 1:35

Jesus is born Holy through the intervention of the Holy Spirit, and this is why he is called the Son of God. That is quite different from stating he is "Son of God" because he has the flesh of man!

Again, I do not see how the Unitarian narrative fits the biblical text. Instead, there is this consistent (narrative <-> bible) gap which I simply don’t experience with the Trinity.

IMO, such reasonings would only encourage believers to drop scripture as unreasonable, even to the point of pursuing other sources as more practical than scripture.

 

[Oeste]

Son of God’ means:

• ‘He who fully does the Will of God’
• “For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.” (Romans 8:14)
• “the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” (Romans 8:15)

That's great Soapy.

But how about "only begotten Son"?

Does a begotten Son automatically do the will of his Father?


In other words, does the word "begotten" tell us more about the Son's nature, or does it tell us more about the Son's will?

 

[Oeste]

I also have a few questions, for both @Soapy and @amazing grace.

Consider the following verse:

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus:​

​

6Who, existing in the form of God,​

​

did not consider equality with God​

​

something to be grasped,​

​

7but emptied Himself,​

​

taking the form of a servant,​

​

being made in human likeness. (Philippians 2)​

I am very interested in how Unitarians interpret “emptied”. The word here is κενόω (kenoo, Strong’s 2758) which means “to empty, deprive; (pass.) to be hollow, emptied, of no value”.

1. Unitarians state Jesus was created, on the fly, out of thin air, by the Father, to be born by Mary. While being born by Mary would show him as "Son of Man", how does being created out of thin air show him to be the only begotten of the Father? Wouldn’t this expose him more as the “Son of Air” rather than as the “begotten Son of God”? In other words, what is it about being created that makes Jesus “only begotten”?​

​

2. Since Jesus was “created” as a perfectly good human, what exactly did Jesus have that needed to be emptied? Please advise who gave it to him, when he received it (before, during, or after his creation), how long he kept it, and why Jesus felt the need to empty himself of it?​

​

3. Is whatever Jesus divested himself of something Adam and Eve had as well? If so, when did they receive it, who gave it to them, how long did they keep it, and when, if at all, they were able to empty it as well?​

Thanks!