Did Jesus believe He was serving a greater Being (His Father) than Himself? I see conflicting messages in the Bible.

[Angelos]

Before I comment on this snippet of your post, I just want to quickly thank you for your composure here on this thread. I don’t wanna flatter you or anything, but just to say that it can be a rare quality in this forum.

Anyway, in regards to the above quote, you are mistaken (unless I misunderstand your words). Jesus does indeed refer to His Father as “God”. Not only the NT authors, but Jesus Christ Himself. For example in Mark 15:34, John 3:16, John 17:3.

You have definitely misunderstood my point! What I said was that Jesus always called Himself **the Son **(in the third person) and God the Father while making comparisons between Himself and God (in John’s Gospel) and thus stated the dependency of one person on another in Godhead. Jesus’ aim was to make people believe in His divinity rather than help some people doubt His omnipotence.

I just want to add something which is slightly off track:
Something that Ive thought about is that it is possible that Jesus could have called God “Father”, not in regards to Him being eternally begotten of the Father, but perhaps in a similar way that He wanted us to call God, “Father” i.e. Matthew 6:9. Obviously, others have thought about this, and (Im presuming) Unitarians believe in this still. To an extent Catholics do, but obviously we don’t call God the Father “Father” to the extent that Jesus called His Father “my (Father)”.]

There is no place for such a possibility since Jesus is said to be **the unique of the Father **in John’s prologue (1: 14) More, Jesus makes it clear through the parable of the tenants (Mark 12: 1-12) that He is the only Son.

I want to comment that the Catholic Church considers that blasphemy can be commited against others besides God, such as Mary and the saints, even the church.

This is irrelevant to our debate since John 5: 18 is apparently associated with the blasphemy against God: those Jews knew that Jesus was making Himself equal to the Father when He called God His personal Father and claimed to be above God’s Law.

Maybe they thought that Jesus claiming to be the Messiah was blasphemy. Im not sure here, but I find it hard to believe at this stage that they actually believed that Jesus was claiming to be Almighty God, and moreover (and obviously) their Creator. Surely they wouldnt have actually thought that this “rabbi” could sanely claimed to have been God, at least without seeking clarification from Him further. However, there was probably no doubt at all that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (for example when he rode into Jerusalem as the prophecy predicted).

You should read John 8: 59, Mark 14: 62-64, John 19: 7 to see what Jewish leaders of that time considered blasphemy and why they wanted to kill Jesus.

Finally, how do we know that if Jesus was accused by the Jewish leaders for committing blaphemy against God, that it wasn’t for acting like God, not actually claiming to be God? Such as when Jesus forgave a man’s sin, the Jews could have thought that Jesus had the authority to forgive sins on behalf of God, without thinking that He was claiming to be God.

Read my previous response to find the answer. After all, why do you think that Jesus would act like God if he did not claim to be God? Why would Jesus pretend to be God?

P.S.In Mark 2: 10 (healing of the paralytic) Jesus does not say that He forgives sins on behalf of God.

The erroneous belief of Unitarians and Jehovah’s Witnesses that Jesus looked like God although He was not true God is a modern
version of the Gnostic Doceism, one of the earliest heresies that repudiated Jesus’ human nature and tried to interpret Jesus’ body as an illusion or appearance. Anti-Trinitarians cling to the same method nowadays to deny Jesus’ divinity.

Peace to all,
Angelos N.B.

 

[Angelos]

Before I comment on this snippet of your post, I just want to quickly thank you for your composure here on this thread. I don’t wanna flatter you or anything, but just to say that it can be a rare quality in this forum.

Sorry, it took me a long time to notice your compliments since I had to respond in a hurry and this section of your post was not bolded.

Thanks for the things you said about me. I am trying to do my best as long as the Lord allows me to. I am a convert to Christianity from Islam.

Peace to all,
Angelos N.B.

 

[hilaryisaac]

In other words, Jesus is said to be:

 

[FaithofAbraham]

if the NT authors are saying that Christ merely existed in God’s mind or that God had foreordained for him the glory which he was going to receive then there was a way for Jesus and the NT writers to indicate this. They could have communicated this point by using the very words foreknew or foreknowledge used in:

Well here Jesus was foreordained for the priesthood as foretold in prophecy, being called by God for it at his baptism. If that’s what you mean.

Hebrews 5:4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

Hebrews 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

The Word, John says, was there even before the beginning of creation with God and as God, not as an idea in God’s mind, but AS God.

And my voice is with me, and is me. My voice isn’t another man apart from me.

where does John say Let there be light?

What are God’s first words in Genesis? Why do you think it is called God’s Word, what else do you think it means besides what God says and commands?

I yet John says it means He IS God…sorry but i’d take John’s word .

John doesn’t say Jesus is God eternally, you interpret it that way. For the complete person of Jesus that I KNOW to be eternally God, his human nature would also have to be eternally God. And that doesn’t work well except for maybe LDS.

yuo can by explainig what does " the Word IS God means" and then the Word who is God took a human flesh.

God dwelled in a prophet, so God’s Word became flesh as spoken through a man, not as a voice from Heaven. I can’t make it any clearer, you just don’t agree.

Even though you are proven wrong about Jesus being omnipotent since an omnipotent person doesn’t say he is nothing by himself without power from God. So what else might you be wrong about.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

No. Jesus is omnipotent indeed! The verses you pick up at random actually mean that the Father is the source of the divinity and Jesus is begotten of the Father. It is clear that Jesus talks about the relation of one person to another in the Godhead because He always compares the Son to the Father, not God to Jesus! Being dependent on the Father does not make Jesus inferior to Him, but only shows that the Father and the Son are distinct yet equal persons.

Jesus said that he could not be a good judge on his own will, he needed to seek God’s will to be a good judge.

John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

You are not omnipotent if you rely on God to give things to you. You are a really powerful guy, but not omnipotent.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

This is why human Jesus is always referred to as the Son. There was and is but one personality in Jesus: DIVINE.

Here it says he was divine + human so you contradict them, not me since I don’t believe any of it anyway.

.Jesus Christ, was God and man

Now you are suddenly revising your views on this issue. Restriction does not mean LOSS. Since Jesus always had the divine personality even when in the flesh, it is incorrect to assert that Jesus lost divinity due to incarnation.

If your air supply is restricted you are going to LOSE air to your lungs. So I disagree.

I also know that the word MUST means different things in different contexts. The verse you quoted pertains to Jesus’ obedience to His Father. However, He **chooses to obey **His Father since no one can force Him.

So then you are saying God is not omnipotent and couldn’t force Jesus to obey. How do you know that, sounds whimsical to me.

The words Jesus speaks is not the same as the WORD in John’s prologue!

What else is God’s Word then if it’s not what God tells us and commands for creation and things like that? Of course that’s what it is. It is either done directly by God or through a prophet like Jesus. He commands us what to do, like repent of sin, then we do it and get saved. That’s the whole deal in a nutshell.

Yet Moses was never called the Christ, the Word of God! Moses was not born miraculously! Moses was only a human means of God’s communicating the Law to the Israelites, but Jesus IS the truth and the grace (John 1.18)

Well Moses was not the anointed king of David so of course he would not be called THE Christ. Christ is not a term of divinity, but anointing of a king/priest/prophet, there were many. THE Christ is the head guy of all of them.

Isaac was also born by a miracle, to a barren Sarah. So virgin birth isn’t proof of divinity either.

More, nowhere in the Gospel is Jesus stated to be godlike or a false god. Moses was called a god only figuratively since Pharaoh and his folk were polytheists and believed in many deities. Moses was made a god to those people since Egyptian mythology allowed such an analogy. The Jews never call Moses a god though! Your analogy has no basis.

No. Here Moses is called God to Aaron because Moses speaks the Word of God to Aaron, and Aaron acts like a prophet giving it to the people.

Exodus 4:16 And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou (MOSES) shalt be to him (AARON) instead of God.

Nothing to do with this thing you conjecture about Egyptian mythology. It was the power Moses had as human mediator between man and God. Same position Jesus is in, a new type of Moses.

 

[hilaryisaac]

Here it says he was divine + human so you contradict them, not me since I don’t believe any of it anyway.

Here we consider this union as a fact; the nature of the union will be later taken up. Now it is our purpose to prove that the Divine nature was really and truly united with the human nature of Jesus, i.e., that one and the same Person, Jesus Christ, was God and man.

Honestly, I don’t see a contradiction. It’s the same as what’s been stated all along, Jesus was fully human and fully God.

If your air supply is restricted you are going to LOSE air to your lungs. So I disagree.

So if a big man is slapped by a small boy, and the big man “retrains” himself from beating the boy up, that means he’s “losing” his power? If anything, I think the big man would have been showing even more strength in restraining himself. Even though the power would not be “evident” for the boy to see.

Language is a fascinating thing, but we should be more careful not to imply just one meaning to one word.

So then you are saying God is not omnipotent and couldn’t force Jesus to obey. How do you know that, sounds whimsical to me.

God is omnipotent but He couldn’t force Jesus - or anyone - to obey. God has never forced anyone to obey.

In any case, He didn’t have to force Jesus to obey. Jesus and God are one, therefore if it’s the Father’s will, Jesus would do it, since it would also be His own desire.

What else is God’s Word then if it’s not what God tells us and commands for creation and things like that? Of course that’s what it is.

It is so clear that John 1:1-5 introduces the Word of God as a being, with its multiple references to Him/He. Clearly, the Word of God in this case is not simply ‘the commandment’ of God.

Isaac was also born by a miracle, to a barren Sarah. So virgin birth isn’t proof of divinity either.

How does barren equate to virginity? Isaac was not born of a virgin, was he? Did I miss something out? Did something in the OT state or imply that Sarah was virgin?

 

[inJESUS]

Well here Jesus was foreordained for the priesthood as foretold in prophecy, being called by God for it at his baptism. If that’s what you mean.

i already said that the idea of people/things being preordained by God is Biblical. This does not mean that you apply the same definition where John could but does not.

God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what the Scripture says…

who have been **chosen according to the foreknowledge of God **the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance." 1 Peter 1:2

The inspired authors could have also used the following language if all they wanted to say is that God had foreordained Jesus for His mission long before he was created in his mother’s womb:

“The word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.’” Jeremiah 1:4-5

But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man," Galatians 1:11-16

Yet the inspired John does not use what what you are saying, even though he could, if that’s what he wanted to say,yet he wrote:

"In the beginning was the Word,

and the Word was with God

and the Word was God.

The Word, Jesus, is not said to be in the mind of God, but is said to BE God…a language so different from the quotes i provided. And a very straighforward statement. The Word IS God. The Word IS Jesus…it can’t be any clearer. In order to promote your belief, you will have to change what John wrote.

He was in the beginning with God

all things were made through him,

Him = The Word who IS God, not an abstract idea in the mind of God.

and *without him was not anything made *that was made.

If the authors say everything was made for Him, period, you got a point…but “by Him” necessitates a pre-existence …before the creation of anything. This pre-existence, if it is simply in the mind of God, then everything is eternal as well, but not one single thing or human is said to be at the begining with God, before creation, and AS God, even though every human exists in God’s mind before his creation.

And the Word ( Who IS GOD) became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen HIS GLORY, glory as of the **only **Son FROM THE FATHER , full of grace and truth."

does this apply to any other human, even though he exists in God’s mind? is any prophet said to be the word of God who is God and became flesh as the only son from the Father?

And my voice is with me, and is me. My voice isn’t another man apart from me.

 

[MH84]

MH84, i do not see a link between my idea and your quote. Can you explain your question pls?

**Psalm 2 predicts that the Messiah will become the Son of God, or more accurately, God will become a father to the Messiah.

This psalm verses were used in Hebrews 5:

4No one takes this honor upon himself; he must be called by God, just as Aaron was. 5So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him,
** “You are my Son;
today I have become your Father.”**

6And he says in another place,
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”

I hope the above clarify what I was trying to say.

Further issues relating to the topic of the thread:

Look at the following verses of Hebrews which adds to a readers confusion (mine anyway):

7During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

Remember, the author apparently knows that Jesus is God the Son. However he says that:

1. Jesus was heard “because of His reverent submission”.
2. Jesus learned obedience, even though He was a dvine Person according to the Catholic Church.
3. Jesus was made perfect, as opposed o always being perfect. Moerover, it says that once He was mae perfect, then, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him.

I want to emphasise my point of this thread. Some parts of the NT may indicate that Jesus was God (mainly John 8:58), but others indicate that He was dependant on the mercy and help of God. Its like Jesus was not guranteed to be who He now is: the glorified Lord.

These verses are an example of what Im saying:

36You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. 37You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— 38how 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.

1. Jesus had to be anointed with power.
2. Jesus did good because God was with Him. Further, it was said that “God” was with Him, not the “Father”.

There are a couple of further points here indicating that Jesus wasn’t believed to be Almighty God by Peter, otherwise he wouldnt have phrased their sentences like this; he would have clarified that Jesus was still God despite the fact that His divinity was veiled.**

 

[inJESUS]

Jesus said that he could not be a good judge on his own will, he needed to seek God’s will to be a good judge.

John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

You are not omnipotent if you rely on God to give things to you. You are a really powerful guy, but not omnipotent.

since we are talking about John, we better read how he explains what he says in this passage in light of his previous passage in John 5:19.

He explains that the Son can do nothing unless the Father is doing it, and then he says the Son can do absolutely everything the Father does. In other words, John is not talking about Jesus being not omnipotent, but about Him being omnipotent AS the Father …so the inability to do something is not based on his not being omnipotent because He us but John is saying that the source is the Father…the Source of the Word is the Father, but the Word is equal to the Father as His essence and the Word is God and can do only what the Father does and everything the Father does cuz Father and His Word are One.

And when Jesus reveals to John in a vision about judgment, He does not say the Father will search the hearts and then pass on the verdict to Jesus to utter it! He clearly says He is THE ONE who searches the hearts and mind to give to each human according to his deeds.

For a human to be judge over my soul, He must have the mind, wisdom, power and knowledge of God.

Since John says everything the Father does and have is everything the Son does and have, it means the Son has the mind, wisdom, power and knowledge of God.

To say that Jesus “wait for His power” from the Father is non-Biblical because the Bible says Jesus HAS all the power and knowledge of God. When you are omnipotent, no one can take it from you.

 

[inJESUS]

Psalm 2 predicts that the Messiah will become the Son of God, or more accurately, God will become

a father to the Messiah.

This psalm verses were used in Hebrews 5:

I hope the above clarify what I was trying to say. sorry i still don’t get it. My previous reply was about the Word being God, not “in the mind of God” according to John. I do not see how your quote is related to my idea.

 

[MH84]

This is irrelevant to our debate since John 5: 18 is apparently associated with the blasphemy against God: those Jews knew that Jesus was making Himself equal to the Father when He called God His personal Father and claimed to be above God’s Law.

This is a point that I have wondered about for so long. If someone says that God is his Father, how can that person be God as well? Jesus did not say, “God the Father is my Father”, but said, “God is my Father”. So Jesus seems to be saying that God (a separate Being from Him) is is Father, not that a Person of God is His Father.

You should read John 8: 59, Mark 14: 62-64, John 19: 7 to see what Jewish leaders of that time considered blasphemy and why they wanted to kill Jesus.

**Mark 14:62-64 **
62"I am," said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

63The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64"You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"

Jesus wasnt saying He is God here, but that He was to be seated at the right hand of God.

John 8:58-59
58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

Jesus appears to be using the divine name for Himself here.

John 19:7
7The Jews insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.”

The term, Son of God doesnt necessarily mean God. Moreover, the term doesnt mean that Jesus was of the same substance as the Father.

Genesis 6:4
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Matthew 5:9: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called “sons of God”.

Paul says that through faith in Christ, people can be “sons of God” (Galatians 3:26).

Remember, there was no distinction between capital letters and lower case letters in the Greek/Hebrew texts.

 

[MH84]

Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he (FATHER GOD) made the worlds;

It means that God made everything with the idea of Jesus as His human king in mind, the shadow of which was Adam. God created by to, according to, with the purpose of, Jesus

It doesn’t mean Jesus created the universe.

This is wrong according to the bible.

KJB: 2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

ESV: 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

NASB: 2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

 

[MH84]

sorry i still don’t get it. My previous reply was about the Word being God, not “in the mind of God” according to John. I do not see how your quote is related to my idea.

 

[Angelos]

Here it says he was divine + human so you contradict them, not me since I don’t believe any of it anyway.

Here we consider this union as a fact; the nature of the union will be later taken up. Now it is our purpose to prove that the Divine nature was really and truly united with the human nature of Jesus, i.e., that one and the same Person, Jesus Christ, was God and man.

In order to comprehend that your allegations and accusations make no sense, you must learn to distinguish the word NATURE from PERSONALITY. The statements you have repetitively posted so far never endorses the idea that Jesus was or became a human PERSON. Please re-read your quote and focus on the parts bolded by me.

If your air supply is restricted you are going to LOSE air to your lungs. So I disagree.

Here you are once more committing the logical fallacy known as faulty comparison. If you compare pears to apples, your comparison becomes erroneous. The thing restricted (air supply) is apparently different from the thing lost (lungs) in your analogy.

So then you are saying God is not omnipotent and couldn’t force Jesus to obey. How do you know that, sounds whimsical to me.

This reminds me of another fallacy: contradictory premises. Here is an example:

“If God can do anything, he must be able to make a stone that he can’t lift.”

More, the supposition that God is not omnipotent is a faulty conclusion you infer from wrong premises.

What else is God’s Word then if it’s not what God tells us and commands for creation and things like that? Of course that’s what it is. It is either done directly by God or through a prophet like Jesus. He commands us what to do, like repent of sin, then we do it and get saved. That’s the whole deal in a nutshell.

No way! The WORD is the uncreated and eternal Wisdom of God, through WHOM He created everything - the Word cannot be a creature because everything was created through Him - and through Whom God reveals Himself in the perfect way. That Word became flesh and dwelled among us, taking human form and nature from the Virgin.

Well Moses was not the anointed king of David so of course he would not be called THE Christ. Christ is not a term of divinity, but anointing of a king/priest/prophet, there were many. THE Christ is the head guy of all of them.

Isaac was also born by a miracle, to a barren Sarah. So virgin birth isn’t proof of divinity either.

The Gospel dissents from you:

John 1: 49 Nathanael answered him and said: Rabbi: Thou art the Son of God. Thou art the King of Israel.

Mark 14: 61-64 Again the high priest asked him and said to him: Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed God? And Jesus said to him: I am. And you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God and coming with the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rending his garments, saith: What need we any further witnesses? **You have heard the blasphemy. **What think you? Who all condemned him to be guilty of death.

Virgin birth is the proof of divinity indeed because Isaac had a biological father unlike Jesus. God also made a miracle for Zechariah and Elizabeth so that they could have a child. The Virgin conceived Jesus miraculously although She did not need a miracle to be a mother. The miraculous conception took place for Jesus, not for Mary! It was impossible for the Unique Son of God to be born of a human father because there was no need for it! Jesus existed prior to His incarnation as the second person of Godhead (Word)

No. Here Moses is called God to Aaron because Moses speaks the Word of God to Aaron, and Aaron acts like a prophet giving it to the people.

Exodus 4:16 And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou (MOSES) shalt be to him (AARON) instead of God.

Nothing to do with this thing you conjecture about Egyptian mythology. It was the power Moses had as human mediator between man and God. Same position Jesus is in, a new type of Moses.

The reason Moses was made a god to Pharaoh had a lot to do with the Egyptian mythologhy! God thus spoke to Pharaoh as he would understand.

Exodus 4:16, on the other hand, is another figurative language used by God Himself because Moses had difficulty speaking and was not eloquent! Moses was made like God to Aaron since Aaron spoke on behalf of Moses. Since messengers speak on behalf of God and Aaron spoke on behalf of Moses - who failed to speak on behalf of God -, Aaron figuratively became the messenger of Moses, which put Moses in the place of God.

Nothing similar can be said about Jesus in the NT! It is ridiculous to assume that Jesus chose His apostles because He was unable to speak or reveal the Father.

**John 1: 18 **No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the Bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 3: 13 And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.

Jesus nowhere in the NT likens Himself to Moses in terms of revealing God to Jews as a god.

Peace to all,
Angelos N.B.

 

[Angelos]

This is a point that I have wondered about for so long. If someone says that God is his Father, how can that person be God as well? Jesus did not say, “God the Father is my Father”, but said, “God is my Father”. So Jesus seems to be saying that God (a separate Being from Him) is is Father, not that a Person of God is His Father.

I fail to get what you mean by this. When Jesus said “God is my Father”, He meant that He was the Son of God. When I say person X is my father, it entails that I am the Son of person X. God is called Father because He is the first person of the Trinity begetting the second person.

**Mark 14:62-64 **
62"I am," said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

63The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64"You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"

Jesus wasnt saying He is God here, but that He was to be seated at the right hand of God.

Jesus implied His divinity here because He said that He would descend from the sky for judgment with the Father. The claim to be sitting at the right hand of God actually made Jesus level with God. This is why the Jewish high priest tore his garments in protest against the supposed blasphemy.

John 8:58-59
58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

Jesus appears to be using the divine name for Himself here

.

I really wonder why you use the verb “appear” here. Jesus does not appear to use the divine name for Himself, but He uses it indeed! Why would He use the divine name for Himself if He were not divine?

John 19:7
7The Jews insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.”

The term, Son of God doesnt necessarily mean God. Moreover, the term doesnt mean that Jesus was of the same substance as the Father.

It meant Jesus’ having the same substance as the Father. Jews told Pilate that Jesus had to be killed according to the Law. The Mosaic Law ordered the execution of people who claimed to be God.

Genesis 6:4
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Matthew 5:9: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called “sons of God”.

Paul says that through faith in Christ, people can be “sons of God” (Galatians 3:26).

Remember, there was no distinction between capital letters and lower case letters in the Greek/Hebrew texts.

I shall remind you of my previous responses. Through the parable of the tenants, the meaning of the phrase Son of God was made explicit by Jesus Himself. **John 5: 17-18 **overtly states that Jesus’ sonship attested to His divinity. Although we are called sons of God, this does not mean that we are equal to God, which does not change the meaning of the phrase Son of God used by Jesus for Himself. John the Evangelist calls Jesus the Unique Son (1:14). Besides, there are many verses in the Gospels demonstrating that Jesus referred to His personality when He called Himself the Son of God (e.g. Matthew 12: 27) Finally, the introduction to Hebrews clarifies what the phrase Son of God means:

Hebrews 1:1-3 God, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, In these days, hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world. Who being the brightness of his glory and the figure of his substance and upholding all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high.

Peace to all,
Angelos N.B.

 

[inJESUS]

inJESUS;3517805:

You were saying that the authors thought that Jesus was eternally the Son of God, not just in the mind of God. But in Psalm 2 and Hebrews, it says that God will become

a Father to Jesus. They seem to be implying that the Messiah was yet to be born (or anointed), but we believe that the eternal Word always existed. the eternal Word always existed , the incarnation, however, happened in a certain time in history when the Word incarnated into Mary’s body and appeared among men.

 

[inJESUS]

**

Remember, the author apparently knows that Jesus is God the Son.**

 

[inJESUS]

[These verses are an example of what Im saying:

1. Jesus had to be anointed with power.

God was with Him. Further, it was said that “God” was with Him, not the “Father”. yet God is the Father just as Paul specifies in another passage " God the Father". Why does Paul add “the Father” to God?

There are a couple of further points here indicating that Jesus wasn’t believed to be Almighty God by Peter, otherwise he wouldnt have phrased their sentences like this; he would have clarified that Jesus was still God despite the fact that His divinity was veiled.

and how is he supposed to talk about Jesus the man?
[/QUOTE]

 

[FaithofAbraham]

The statements you have repetitively posted so far never endorses the idea that Jesus was or became a human PERSON.

Sure they do. Jesus was tempted as humans are not as God would be, yet he resisted sin.

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Jesus cried and prayed to God to save his life as a man would. God doesn’t pray to anyone to save his life:

Hebrews 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

So it’s fantasy to say Jesus wasn’t a human person.

More, the supposition that God is not omnipotent is a faulty conclusion you infer from wrong premises.

God is omnipotent, Jesus is not because he is a man who needs power from God. If Jesus was ever God, he lost power to save himself as a God would when he prayed to God to save him, among other things. So what I’m saying is entirely true.

No way! The WORD is the uncreated and eternal Wisdom of God, through WHOM He created everything - the Word cannot be a creature because everything was created through Him - and through Whom God reveals Himself in the perfect way. That Word became flesh and dwelled among us, taking human form and nature from the Virgin.

Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Jesus was created, made from the seed of David. So I am correct that God’s spirit dwelled in a human prophet who spoke God’s Word, that’s how God’s Word is made flesh, it is spoken through a man not by God directly from Heaven.

The Gospel dissents from you:

John 1: 49 Nathanael answered him and said: Rabbi: Thou art the Son of God. Thou art the King of Israel.

Mark 14: 61-64 Again the high priest asked him and said to him: Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed God? And Jesus said to him: I am. And you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God and coming with the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rending his garments, saith: What need we any further witnesses? **You have heard the blasphemy. **What think you? Who all condemned him to be guilty of death.

You just don’t understand what SON OF GOD means. It’s not a claim of divinity, it’s a claim of power from God.

Romans 8:14 For as **many **as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Virgin birth is the proof of divinity indeed because Isaac had a biological father unlike Jesus.

So did Jesus since he is the resurrected son of David and Bathsheba who died as a child for David’s sin, that’s why there was a virgin birth, he was resurrected from the dead into Mary’s womb so he could live again to claim the throne.

The reason Moses was made a god to Pharaoh had a lot to do with the Egyptian mythologhy! God thus spoke to Pharaoh as he would understand.

It’s because God gave Moses power to make miracles happen like God would. And Moses spoke the Word of God to Aaron. So he was like God on earth. Same as Jesus, they are spokesmen for God.