Jesus - First Born?

[Brian2]

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.

Well thanks for that but unfortunately those I am speaking with don't seem to get much from them and I don't know that anyone else gets anything from them or reads them.
I hope I am doing what God wants me to do and speaking what He wants me to speak but sometimes I certainly doubt that, especially when I spend a lot of time here and I have other things to do.
Interestingly when you retire there seems to still be a lot to do, and I suppose that is a blessing really.

 

[blü 2]

A few points, and taking the NT texts at face value ─

When someone argues a point of spiritualism with ‘DNA of God’, you know you’re not going to have a cogent debate with them.

Only the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke have that problem, but indeed they have it, because whatever DNA the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke obtained from their mother, each got his Y-chromosome from God ─ the stories offer no other possibility ─ well, unless you want to stipulate that Jesus was actually a woman. (By contrast, the Jesus of Mark was adopted like David, and the births of the Jesuses of Paul and of John are unexplained, but it's not essential to account for their DNA.)

Sin comes from the unauthorised desire to acquire something not already in possession. It was the desire to acquire knowledge of good and bad that led Eve (and subsequently, Adam) to fail to keep God’s command.

There can't be sin without intention to sin, and Adam and Eve were unable to intend to do wrong, to sin, because God had expressly denied them knowledge of good and evil.

But that's not the problem anyway. The Garden story is found in Genesis 2 and 3, and no matter how carefully you read it, you'll find no mention of 'sin', 'original sin', 'the fall' (or 'Fall'), or anything like. Instead, God states [his] ONLY reason for expelling Adam and Eve at Genesis 3:22-3 ─ a frank statement by God that [he] is acting to protect his own position.

 

[Brian2]

A few points, and taking the NT texts at face value ─

Only the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke have that problem, but indeed they have it, because whatever DNA the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke obtained from their mother, each got his Y-chromosome from God ─ the stories offer no other possibility ─ well, unless you want to stipulate that Jesus was actually a woman. (By contrast, the Jesus of Mark was adopted like David, and the births of the Jesuses of Paul and of John are unexplained, but it's not essential to account for their DNA.)

The Bible does say that God prepared a body for Jesus. This would have been a combination of Mary's genes and something else, and we don't usually speculate about the something else, whether God made a sperm to impregnate the egg of Mary or what, it does not really matter, it is meant to be a miracle. But Jesus who came from heaven was the spiritual soul joined to the body and became a man with a human body.

There can't be sin without intention to sin, and Adam and Eve were unable to intend to do wrong, to sin, because God had expressly denied them knowledge of good and evil.

But that's not the problem anyway. The Garden story is found in Genesis 2 and 3, and no matter how carefully you read it, you'll find no mention of 'sin', 'original sin', 'the fall' (or 'Fall'), or anything like. Instead, God states [his] ONLY reason for expelling Adam and Eve at Genesis 3:22-3 ─ a frank statement by God that [he] is acting to protect his own position.

There is sin if Adam and Eve had a law that they could break and that they did break. And that is the case and they knew they were going against the command of God to not eat that fruit. They did not know much about good and evil, but they knew that much and so were able to sin. Then their knowledge of good and evil seemed to overwhelm them. They could not obey one law but now they had all this knowledge and did not even know what God was going to tell them to avoid or do. They could not be left to roam the earth as sinners forever, so humans were given a limited time and not allowed at that time to live forever.
You can believe that God was protecting His own position but that is not clear from the text.

 

[Brian2]

Nope, in your theology, you believe that the 100% Divine nature (deity) overcame the temptations.

That is on His own merits. He had and has the same nature as God His Father.
That is something that you also should believe if you believe Heb 1:3.
So Jesus being exactly like His Father enabled Him to not sin.
No need for and theory that Jesus did not having something you call a "sin nature" because His Father was God.

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.

That is a bit confusing for me. Are you saying that Jesus was not Lord and Christ at His birth but was made Lord and Christ at His resurrection?
How about at His Baptism, I thought you believed that is when He became Christ.
Jesus is certainly called the Christ, the Son of God by Peter and even by Himself.

Malachi 3:1 tells us that Jesus is the Lord who will come to His temple.
If that means the Temple in Jerusalem then Jesus is God if it is His Temple.
If that means the He will come to His body (as in John 2:19-22) that would mean that He pre existed and then came to His body.
So anyway it means that He was Lord before and at His birth, and of course He was Lord after His resurrection also when He was told to sit at the right hand of God (Psalm 110--The LORD said to my Lord). He is even the Lord of David even when David is His Father.

It is important imo to preserve the integrity of all the scriptures if possible and to let our theology show that integrity and to not deny some scriptures because of out beliefs.
So anyway we know that Jesus was Christ and Lord before the resurrection and so what Acts 2:36 means in the context of the resurrection is that by the resurrection Jesus was shown to be both Lord and Christ, the things that He had claimed in life when He said He was the Christ, the Son of God. (The Son of God of course being the Lord from heaven and not just a human creation by God)
Jesus was made both Lord and Christ in the sight of everyone despite their beliefs about Jesus. Peter was declaring the truth of what He saw, the risen Christ, and what He knew that meant.

 

[Brian2]

The above is the line of conversation.

I pointed out that it is by your logic and not any scripture that we could say we came from heaven and shared glory with God before the earth was made.

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

How was Jesus really from heaven and really sent by God if He did not really exist in heaven or in God except as an idea in the mind of God?

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

Yes that is the problem when you want Jesus to have been sent by God and when you want Jesus to have had glory with God before the earth existed (John 17:5) and when you say that Jesus did not take the form of a servant and become man. (Phil 2)

Is the "image of the invisible God" the same as "image of God"? If not, why?

"Image of the invisible God" shows that what is being spoken of is not the external appearance. But it means the same as "image of God" because God has always been invisible.

"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"?

Sort of but He remained who He was. He was the Son of God and remained the Son of God, equal in nature with His Father.
But in Phil 2, "emptied Himself" is supposed to be to do with being humble.

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

Yes the Word from God comes from within God and shows what God is like and does the will of God who sends it. But the thing is that you have taken definitions of the Logos and not considered the context of John 1:1, where it says that the Word was God.
So this dry academic definition you have is shown to not be a thing but to be qualitatively like God, having the qualities of God, and to do that, to have those qualities, the Logos has to be alive. Not only is this life a quality of God, but the Logos cannot express other qualities if not alive.

"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.

I can go along with that, but that means that this spirit is not just a generic life force, it must carry the essence of the person. The soul is the totality of the person and when the body of that person is alive the body and spirit are the totality of the person. When the body dies the spirit (which is life after all) is not dead and so this life and the essence of the person in this life is the totality of the dead person. This is the soul of a dead person and whether it is asleep or dormant is not so important I suppose, but it exists. If it does not exist then God has to create a copy of the person at the resurrection instead of bringing the person back to life in another body.
So maybe we are closer to agreement than we think. Unless of course you keep saying that the person goes out of existence at the death of the body.

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

Sounds right.

 

[amazing grace]

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 believe the angel was an angel not God appearing as an angel - God is the CREATOR not one of His CREATED.

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

Well, that could be a step in the right direction, but actually you see the Son as God and equal with God.

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.

You see it as me rejecting Matt. 10:28 - I just see it as my understanding being different than yours.

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.

I don't have a problem. A cluster of grapes is not one grape but many individual grapes, i.e. single separate grapes just as there are many members in the "one body" each member is an individual, i.e. single separate persons.

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.

Nothing we say relate to the "same thing"!

 

[blü 2]

The Bible does say that God prepared a body for Jesus. This would have been a combination of Mary's genes and something else, and we don't usually speculate about the something else, whether God made a sperm to impregnate the egg of Mary or what, it does not really matter, it is meant to be a miracle. But Jesus who came from heaven was the spiritual soul joined to the body and became a man with a human body.

Whichever way you tell the story, the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke had to have a Y-chromosome, and they could only have received their Y-chromosome from God. As I said, all other possibilities are ruled out. (And it's not a problem that the Jesuses of Paul, Mark or John have,)

There is sin if Adam and Eve had a law that they could break and that they did break.

No, there can't be sin without intention. Or maybe there can be sin by gross negligence, but to be a sinner you'd still have to know it was wrong.

However, in the Garden story, God has unambiguously denied A&E knowledge of good and evil, so either way they're incapable of sin.

And as I pointed out, nowhere in the story is it suggested that they sinned.

You can believe that God was protecting His own position but that is not clear from the text.

What else was he doing, do you say? It certainly has nothing to do with sin.

 

[amazing grace]

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.

I probably should have worded it differently - To hold the title "Son of God" one has to be a being who is NOT God; the "Son of" something sets it apart from the original.
Same holds true for man as in your statement: To hold the title "Son of Man" one has to be a being who is NOT Man; in the same sense as the "Son of" something sets it apart from the original. The same hold true for a frog - the "son of the frog" is naturally set apart from the original.

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.

"plural one" How can something be plural and one at the same time? - plural in itself defines more than one so that is a complete contradictory statement.
My body, soul, and spirit are not separate, distinct beings but make up my complete being. My body can not and does not go off and do something leaving my soul and spirit somewhere else.

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.

Nope, there is NO scripture that reveals God the Creator becoming one of his created beings but there are scriptures that can be taken to infer this concept which we can see throughout this thread.

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?

No. God is the Savior who chose His servant to carry out His plan of salvation and in that capacity, as God's agent, Jesus carried out that plan of salvation becoming the savior, saving humanity from their sins. IOW - ultimately God is the Savior, who brought about our eternal salvation through Jesus Christ. Any person for that matter could be considered a "savior" in that they save someone or something from danger and there are verses that show God sending "saviors" to help deliver the Israelites in their times of trouble. Also, in reference to this verse - God could be relating this to the "other gods", the "gods of the nations" and in that correlation, there is no Savior but Him for there is no other God but Him.
Yep, Acts 4 - let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified whom God raised from the dead . . . This Jesus . . . there is salvation in no one else (this Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth), for there is no other name (this Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth) under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.

 

[Soapy]

Luke 2:11 tells us that.



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.



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.



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.

Well done for expressing the truth in the majority of what you said:

• “The Holy Spirit at the Baptism was to empower Jesus to do what He had been sent to do as Christ.”

Jesus is empowered by the Spirit of God at his baptism - Anointed WITH the ‘Spirit from on high’ just as was prophesied by God (Who speaks things before they happen…):

• “Behold my servant, my chosen one in whom I am well pleased. I will put MY SPIRIT ON HIM and he will do my bidding” (Isaiah 42;1)
• “This is my Son in whom I am well pleased”
• ‘At…the baptism which John performed … GOD ANOINTED Jesus of Nazareth with HOLY SPIRIT AND POWER… and he went around doing good!’ (Acts 10:37-38 - Paraphrased to simplicity) Note that the writer called him ‘Jesus of Nazareth’, not ‘Jesus Christ’. Jesus BECAME ‘The Christ’ BECAUSE of this anointing.

However, there were only ten disciples in the upper room when Jesus appeared there. And there is no verse saying that Thomas later received the Holy spirit from Jesus….

In fact, even those disciples who were in the upper room WENT BACK TO THEIR DAY JOBS after Jesus left them… so what purpose did ‘receiving the Holy Spirit’ serve at that event? Does that not sound like a spurious verse to you?

Why then did Jesus tell the disciples (latterly, Apostles) to wait in Jerusalem until they received the Spirit of God which was a GIFT FROM THE FATHER. God had promised this from an earlier time. Jesus only DELIVERED it just as a post person delivers a gift from a distant Father to a Son - a gift from the Father which he promised the Son? As it says in the first verse of the book of Revelation:

• ‘The Revelation of Jesus Christ WHICH GOD GAVE TO HIM (which God gave to Jesus) to give to John…’

 

[Soapy]

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?

I don’t know what you understand about the word, ‘Begotten’, but I looked it up and Strong’s Concordance and it says, ‘One and Only’.

Therefore ‘Only Begotten’ would mean an overemphasised: ‘The One and Only’.

And since ‘Son’ means ‘He who does the Will of the Father’ it makes it clear me that ‘Only Begotten Son’ would mean:

• ‘The only one of created humanity who fully does the works of God, the Father: YHWH’

One of the natural attributes of God is that he has free Will. God made man a free will also which clearly demonstrates the love and confidence and trust that God had in his ‘Image’.
So, the only begotten son did have this nature of God.

As for Will, the only begotten Son of God could turn his Will to seek his own benefit (as Adam did) but this one chose to subdue his Will to that of God. He chose to let God guide him in all he did and thus if us written:

• ‘All who are led by the Spirit of God are Son… of God’

So, no… the begotten son does not AUTOMATICALLY do the Will of the Father. He does it WILLINGLY of his own freedom as to be able to do something else:

• “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” (Luke 22:42)

And we cycle back to this: Since Jesus is the only person of humanity who is fully led by the Spirit of God at this time, he most certainly deserves the title of ‘Only Begotten Son of God’. But the time is coming when, through belief in Jesus Christ, more people of humanity will become ‘Sons of God’.

Personally, I like the idea that ‘Begotten’ means ‘Adopted’, whence Jesus Christ is then ‘The only adopted Son of God’ for the exact same reasons above… hence through Jesus Christ many more sons will be adopted to Sonship in God but Jesus will remain the Pre-Eminent Son of God!

And note this verse by two different Bible translations:

• God said to him, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father.” (Heb 5:5)
• God said to him, “You are my Son; today I have BEGOTTEN YOU” (Heb 5:5)

 

[Soapy]

A few points, and taking the NT texts at face value ─

Only the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke have that problem, but indeed they have it, because whatever DNA the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke obtained from their mother, each got his Y-chromosome from God ─ the stories offer no other possibility ─ well, unless you want to stipulate that Jesus was actually a woman. (By contrast, the Jesus of Mark was adopted like David, and the births of the Jesuses of Paul and of John are unexplained, but it's not essential to account for their DNA.)


There can't be sin without intention to sin, and Adam and Eve were unable to intend to do wrong, to sin, because God had expressly denied them knowledge of good and evil.

But that's not the problem anyway. The Garden story is found in Genesis 2 and 3, and no matter how carefully you read it, you'll find no mention of 'sin', 'original sin', 'the fall' (or 'Fall'), or anything like. Instead, God states [his] ONLY reason for expelling Adam and Eve at Genesis 3:22-3 ─ a frank statement by God that [he] is acting to protect his own position.

I don’t suppose you ever read:

• ‘Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned…’ (Romans 5:12)
• ‘Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.’ (Romans 5:14)
• ‘But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!’ (Romans 5:15)

 

[amazing grace]

“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.

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.

Thanks!
From my understanding blepo can either refer to see, discern with the bodily eye or metaphorically to have the power of understanding, to discern mentally, observe, perceive, discover, understand, etc. So, I believe that "the Son can do nothing of his own accord but only what he sees the Father doing. . . .For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing." [John 5:19,20]
Through revelation from the Holy Spirit (aka God) which Jesus was anointed with at his baptism is how God his Father showed Jesus all that He himself was doing and how Jesus "saw" what God his Father was doing and in the same manner Jesus again says "I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me." [John 5:30]

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

I had to hunt to find where you drew this from and I found it! It was pulled out of a context of verses that I believe I used in a summary type to show that everything Jesus did, said, received - was given to him by God his Father NOT specifically in connection with Jesus being tempted.
The mighty works and wonders and signs that Jesus did was because it was God working through him via the Spirit upon him.
Since Jesus was NOT God the Father; how would the Father have to be tempted first? Because God was IN Christ? I honestly don't know how to answer that question mainly because I don't understand your reasoning.

I'm a he.

oh, okay thanks!

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.

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

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)

Correct - kind produces kind - seed of a woman, Abraham and his seed not referring to many but to one seed, who is Christ, Christ would come from the seed of David = humanity.
I do not believe in Greek mythology nor in any other gods. Jesus was NOT God nor a god.
I would like to know how God reproduces after his kind and is it even possible?

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.

There is a slight difference on our perception of the reality of being a man. Is one actually a man if one is considered 100% man/100%God?

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:

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.

Kind produces kind - Christ came from the "seed of a woman", "Abraham and his seed not referring to many but to one seed, who is Christ", "Christ would come from the seed of David" = humanity.

Jesus was conceived via the Holy Spirit the power of the Most High; therefore the child to be born will be called holy----the Son of God. - yep, Jesus was miraculously conceived by God in the womb of Mary. God caused a human life to begin in the womb of Mary by an act of supernatural creation. I believe that via the power of God a human child, Jesus of Nazareth, was miraculously conceived in Mary thus he carries the titles "Son of man" and "Son of God" definitely not "God the Son".

But what you imply is that since Jesus was conceived via the power of God that makes Jesus God or a god.

 

[blü 2]

I don’t suppose you ever read:

• ‘Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned…’ (Romans 5:12)

Yes. I pointed out that it has no basis in the original story, where sin is never mentioned, not even once. Paul (according to a book I read some time back) was reflecting the 'fall of man' story that arose out of the midrash tradition (where you take a passage of scripture and completely reimagine it) among the Jews of Alexandria late in the 2nd century BCE.

Whether that's correct or not, it's certainly the case that the Tanakh offers no support for the idea.

Nor did it become usual just because Paul said it. No, that was down to Augustine of Hippo around 400 CE, who realized such a threat would be good for sales, and made it very popular.

• ‘Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.’ (Romans 5:14)
• ‘But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!’ (Romans 5:15)

Just more Paul. Just as baseless.

Read the darn Garden story for yourself! It does NOT mention sin, it does NOT mention any fall of man, no, it gives an entirely different reason for booting A&E out of the Garden towit, to prevent them from becoming [his] rivals in power. Don't take my word for it ─ actually read Genesis 2 and 3, not least 3:22-23.

 

[amazing grace]

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”.

Being in the form of God - Jesus Christ was in the outward appearance of God, so much so that he said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” (Christ always did the Father’s will, and perfectly represented his Father in every way.)
He did not consider equality with God something to be grasped. The verse doesn't specifically state what Jesus emptied himself of but the KJV does say "his reputation" so if I were to "assume" something that's not actually stated I would say that instead of elevating himself as God's Son, the Messiah, he emptied himself, i.e. made himself nothing but behaved as a servant in service to others.
This is the mind of Christ we should emulate - as Paul gave exhortation to the Philippian believers - Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Jesus life was a life of service to others even to the point of death to the glory of God the Father. Jesus gave his life to save ours.

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”?​

I don't believe that I have ever stated that "Jesus was created on the fly, out of thin air" nor have I ever heard it said! Being miraculously created by God via conception in the womb of a woman makes Jesus God's only begotten. No other before or since has been miraculously created by God via conception and birth.

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?​

If the verse is speaking of "reputation" - His status as God's Son, God's Messiah (Christ), God's anointed king all prophesied before his creation but becoming fulfilled at his birth, through his life of obedience, through his death and his resurrection.

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?​

I don't see the significance of Adam and Eve in relation to Philippians 2 except for the fact that Adam was made in the image of God and Adam and Eve did grasp at equality with God wanting God's knowledge of good and evil. Or I may not understand your question.

 

[Brian2]

I believe the angel was an angel not God appearing as an angel - God is the CREATOR not one of His CREATED.

"Angel" means "messenger", so in Trinitarian speak the angel could be just the form God chose to accompany Israel in, iow, could be the Son or Holy Spirit in a form other than their real form.
But yes, God is not one of His Created, if He was, how could everything have been created through Him or by Him.
However the Divine Son of God chose to put on a human form and likeness. The eternal Spirit of Jesus was united to a body and became a man.

Well, that could be a step in the right direction, but actually you see the Son as God and equal with God.

Yes, equal in nature, both having God nature, uncreated perfection, love.

You see it as me rejecting Matt. 10:28 - I just see it as my understanding being different than yours.

Of course. 'when someone kills the body they cannot kill the soul' can be easily be mistaken to mean 'when someone kills the body they kill the soul'.

I don't have a problem. A cluster of grapes is not one grape but many individual grapes, i.e. single separate grapes just as there are many members in the "one body" each member is an individual, i.e. single separate persons.

That is what I say also.
Many individual persons, one body of Christ.
3 individual persons, one God.
2 individual persons, one body during sexual intercourse.

 

[Brian2]

Whichever way you tell the story, the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke had to have a Y-chromosome, and they could only have received their Y-chromosome from God. As I said, all other possibilities are ruled out. (And it's not a problem that the Jesuses of Paul, Mark or John have,)

The Y-Chromosome is just not a problem at all. It's a miracle and does not mean that God is a make with Y chromosomes.

No, there can't be sin without intention. Or maybe there can be sin by gross negligence, but to be a sinner you'd still have to know it was wrong.

And you are saying that when God gave Adam and Eve a command not to eat the fruit, that they did not know it was wrong to eat it.
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil has that name but just what the name meant is not defined.
It seems to have meant that when they ate the fruit they would have experienced evil in their lives and learned about good and evil also.

However, in the Garden story, God has unambiguously denied A&E knowledge of good and evil, so either way they're incapable of sin.

That just comes from what you define the meaning of the name of the tree to be.

And as I pointed out, nowhere in the story is it suggested that they sinned.

The broke God's commandment to them. That shows us that they sinned, even if the word is not used in the story.

What else was he doing, do you say? It certainly has nothing to do with sin.

God put the tree of life in the garden and so that would suggest that God wanted A@E to eat from it some time.
Eating from it after they had showed that they would do evil means that they would just live forever and keep sinning.
That would mean that a Hitler could been able to just live forever and keep on slaughtering.
Not good for anyone.

 

[blü 2]

The Y-Chromosome is just not a problem at all. It's a miracle and does not mean that God is a make with Y chromosomes.

A miraculous Y-chromosome when God is stated to be the father is God's chromosome. What else could it be? Yours?

And you are saying that when God gave Adam and Eve a command not to eat the fruit, that they did not know it was wrong to eat it.

They didn't know anything was wrong. God had deliberately denied them knowledge of good and evil. They therefore had no notion that disobedience was wrong, nor could they gain it until after they'd eaten the fruit.

I didn't write the story but I did read it, and that's exactly and expressly built into the story.

Nor in the story are they ever accused of disobedience or indeed of 'sin' of any kind. You've read Genesis 3:22-23 by now so you know why they were kicked out of the Garden and you know it wasn't for sin or for disobedience or anything of the kind.

.The tree of the knowledge of good and evil has that name but just what the name meant is not defined.
It seems to have meant that when they ate the fruit they would have experienced evil in their lives and learned about good and evil also.

It means that they didn't have knowledge of good and evil before they ate and they had knowledge of good and evil after they ate (though why wearing no clothes is 'evil' has to be explained in terms of the story's cultural background).

Ain't rocket science. The tangle only arises when Christians, failing to check out whether Paul was correct or not, try to wish their own story on it ─ which as I keep pointing out, simply isn't there.

The broke God's commandment to them. That shows us that they sinned, even if the word is not used in the story.

No it doesn't show that, it doesn't say that, and it doesn't imply that.

There is NOTHING to support the claim that 'sin' or a 'fall' occurred. It's NOT in the story. Christians are trying to wish it on the story but IT'S NOT THERE to be wished.

God put the tree of life in the garden and so that would suggest that God wanted A@E to eat from it some time.

I see no basis for such an inference, and nothing in the story supports it. On the exact contrary they get kicked out to prevent them doing exactly and specifically that.

Eating from it after they had showed that they would do evil means that they would just live forever and keep sinning.

That's like saying if the giant had caught Jack before he chopped down the beanstalk, the world would now be full of giants. But he didn't, even in the story, let alone in fact. And no Fall happens in the Garden story (and if it did, it would still only have happened in a story, but the first point is the one you're forcing me to hammer here).


And one last point ─ it's GOOD that humans know the difference between good and evil so what Eve did was heroic, even though that was not her intention.

Why would a just god punish anyone for doing mankind a major favor, even if it's only in a tale?

 

[Soapy]

Yes. I pointed out that it has no basis in the original story, where sin is never mentioned, not even once. Paul (according to a book I read some time back) was reflecting the 'fall of man' story that arose out of the midrash tradition (where you take a passage of scripture and completely reimagine it) among the Jews of Alexandria late in the 2nd century BCE.

Whether that's correct or not, it's certainly the case that the Tanakh offers no support for the idea.

Nor did it become usual just because Paul said it. No, that was down to Augustine of Hippo around 400 CE, who realized such a threat would be good for sales, and made it very popular.


Just more Paul. Just as baseless.

Read the darn Garden story for yourself! It does NOT mention sin, it does NOT mention any fall of man, no, it gives an entirely different reason for booting A&E out of the Garden towit, to prevent them from becoming [his] rivals in power. Don't take my word for it ─ actually read Genesis 2 and 3, not least 3:22-23.

So where did sin come from?

 

[Soapy]

However the Divine Son of God chose to put on a human form and likeness. The eternal Spirit of Jesus was united to a body and became a man.

Are you saying that ‘the divine SON of God’ who IS GOD

• (who he is the son of… what does it mean to be ‘Son of God’?)

chose to become what he created

• (Who did the creating if all three are God and we are told that God created all things and the Son of God us not called ‘Father’ yet the meaning of ‘Father’ is ‘He who creates; he who brings into being; he who gives life’?)

and bring salvation to mankind

• (Can it be true salvation if it was that Johnny caused the humanity train to crash and put zillions of human life at risk of death and the penalty for the salvation was that one passenger must perform a dangerous deed that was certain to save all on board (Climb up and remove a billion volt cable knowing it means certain death to him) but God came and removed the deadly cable and saved all? How does that atone for what Johnny did? Man sinned against God and yet God atoned for the sin of man who caused the sin?!!??!!!)

and the reward for dying got the salvation f mankind is to acquire the throne of a man (king David) as ruler over all creation

• (The Son of God, if he is God, is ruler over HEAVEN… which is an infinitely greater kingdom than THE CREATED WORLD. How would it be a REWARD, for a majestic selfless act, to receive the rulership over an infinitely smaller kingdom that is limited in ability, having to confirm to limiting laws of physics - yet HEAVEN is completely unrestricted!)

and the Son of God becomes the Son of Man: God becomes man and lives in his own creation as ruler over his own creation!

 

[Soapy]

Thanks!
From my understanding blepo can either refer to see, discern with the bodily eye or metaphorically to have the power of understanding, to discern mentally, observe, perceive, discover, understand, etc. So, I believe that "the Son can do nothing of his own accord but only what he sees the Father doing. . . .For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing." [John 5:19,20]

Jesus is not visibly seeing God. God is discerned, perceived, understood by all that goes on around oneself that is of glory and majesty and mightiness, and love. The ACTIONS perceived in the created world are as a result of the SPIRIT of God acting on and in the creation.

Jesus tells us (naysayers ignore these verses) that by himself he can do nothing… He means ‘Doing the greats deeds’.

He says that all [the great deeds] that he does ARE BECAUSE OF GOD [The ACTIONS of the Spirit of God] working in and in him. Jesus tells us that he does not do the deeds by his own Will but by subduing his own Will to that of the God’s Will.

And, though he has the Spirit if God IN HIM, he ALWAYS PRAYS TO THE FATHER for the fathers AUTHORITY to use the power of the Spirit in him.

That does make him a Servant to God but more importantly he is a WILLING AND JOYFUL SERVANT to God (and yes, how is Jesus ‘God’ if he is a servant to ‘God’??!!)

Through revelation from the Holy Spirit (aka God) which Jesus was anointed with at his baptism is how God his Father showed Jesus all that He himself was doing and how Jesus "saw" what God his Father was doing and in the same manner Jesus again says "I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me." [John 5:30]
I had to hunt to find where you drew this from and I found it! It was pulled out of a context of verses that I believe I used in a summary type to show that everything Jesus did, said, received - was given to him by God his Father NOT specifically in connection with Jesus being tempted.

The mighty works and wonders and signs that Jesus did was because it was God working through him via the Spirit upon him.

Correct!!!

Since Jesus was NOT God the Father; how would the Father have to be tempted first? Because God was IN Christ? I honestly don't know how to answer that question mainly because I don't understand your reasoning.

God is never tempted because temptation is the desire to gain something, in a sinful way, that you do not already have. God is the creator and owner of all things so, no! But Jesus is Man and can be tempted as is demonstrated by the wilderness scenario and at many other times up until he died on the cross. He could have been tempted at the last to say things to Pontius Pilate that would have gotten him released. Instead, he says nothing, even to the angst of Pilate who desired to set him free having seen that in fact Jesus Christ WAS INNOCENT! But Jesus SET HIS WILL to that of the Father’s and allowed himself to die an excruciating death but more than the physicality but that ALL THE SIN FROM ADAM and his offspring were put in him and he died as a criminal (Guilty of Sedition) and sinner (Guilt of the world).

Correct - kind produces kind - seed of a woman, Abraham and his seed not referring to many but to one seed, who is Christ, Christ would come from the seed of David = humanity.
I do not believe in Greek mythology nor in any other gods. Jesus was NOT God nor a god.
I would like to know how God reproduces after his kind and is it even possible?

God is Spirit… Spirit CANNOT PROCREATE. God only CREATES…. Creates other (lesser) Spirits of Angels… all levels) and Spirits of man and beast and all creatures.

Man is Flesh… Flesh creates Flesh… But since man is image of God (Trinitarians purposely ignore that ALL MANKIND is IMAGE OF GOD not just Jesus … it’s just that Jesus holds himself as a PERFECT - not-sinning - image of God) man can create Spirit… careful!! I mean like a computer games programmer CREATES Spirits in the games he creates. A writer creates Spirits in the characters in the books hd writes… Actors, film and drama people create Spirits in characters they portray in the films and soaps and comedy shows… AND SADLY, now we have Artificial Intelligence creating ITS OWN SPIRITS in barely controllable aspects of human society leading to possible deceptions in the world (The ‘Wounded Beast’ prophesied in the Book of Revelation).

There is a slight difference on our perception of the reality of being a man. Is one actually a man if one is considered 100% man/100%God?

And is one GOD if one is considered 100% Man and 100% God… and is ‘He’ the GREATER or LESSER than the sole 100% God or sold 100% Man?

Damn Good Question which will receive no valid response from Oeste!!

Of course there really isn’t an answer except ‘No’ since there isn’t any such condition as ‘100% God AND 100% Man’ even down to the idea of an ‘100% God’. Indeed can there be such a things as a ‘percentage God’? Furthermore, if God subsumed flesh then that DESTROYS the whole of the reality that ‘GOD IS IMMUTABLE’: ‘YHWH’ - ‘I am He who changeth not!’.

Kind produces kind - Christ came from the "seed of a woman", "Abraham and his seed not referring to many but to one seed, who is Christ", "Christ would come from the seed of David" = humanity.

Not only David but further back as the promised messiah as the descendant of Abraham.

Jesus was conceived via the Holy Spirit the power of the Most High; therefore the child to be born will be called holy----the Son of God. - yep, Jesus was miraculously conceived by God in the womb of Mary. God caused a human life to begin in the womb of Mary by an act of supernatural creation. I believe that via the power of God a human child, Jesus of Nazareth, was miraculously conceived in Mary thus he carries the titles "Son of man" and "Son of God" definitely not "God the Son".

But what you [Oeste] imply is that since Jesus was conceived via the power of God that makes Jesus God or a god.

God does not ‘Create God’. God is self contained single entity that creates external entities. It is impossible to create a ‘Clone’ of a self contained entity that IS the entity that created it… the whole thing is nonsense and only an possibility in the minds of desperate ideologists.