W
whyeyeman
Guest
The word proskuneo simply means to bow down before. There is no implication of divinity in doing this, just as there is no implication of divinity when people bow down before a statue of Mary and kiss its feet.
- Status
H
HarryStotle
Guest
That would be like saying ‘worship’ ONLY means to ‘bow down before.’ It CAN mean that, but it doesn’t ONLY or simply mean that.
Proskuneo cannot “simply” mean that for Matthew, where Jesus rebukes Satan and tells him to “worship (proskuneo) God ALONE.” Matthew clearly has the stronger meaning of worship in mind when he uses it, the meaning corresponding to the Church’s latria, which is worship reserved for God alone.
The context of stilling the water is what makes the difference. Jesus just finished doing what only God in the Old Testament could do – he stilled the storm, he trampled on the waves, he meant to “pass them by,” he took the divine name I AM. All of these make the two accounts on the sea into theophanies where God is revealing himself in Jesus to the disciples.
That context is what is important here. The disciples worshiped Jesus because they realized this is the God that we as Jews have always worshiped. Matthew even puts the dawning of that realization in their minds when they ask, “Who is this that the waves and the sea obey him?” They answer their own question by falling down and worshiping Jesus.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Peter was speaking to mostly Jews who had, fifty days prior, witnessed the crucifixion and death of a human being who, like all human beings was formed (or made) in the womb of a woman. It is this human Christ of whom Peter is speaking. He had to be, because his audience would not have had the theological understanding of any high Christology in their back pockets.
All of what Peter said was true of the fully human Jesus who was made and who received (within the temporal realm and perspective) the Messianic mission, title and honours that came with it.
Again, from an earthly perspective as a way of expressing to human beings, who would not know the full nature of the “allotment,” this would capture it is far as human listeners and readers could grasp.
This would all be true of the eternal Son of God “emptying himself” of his divinity and taking on human nature at some point in the historical time sequence. From a perspective within that temporal sequence this all applies and makes sense. An eternal perspective, however, would add nuances to what was said, but those nuances do not make what was said false, they merely add a different layer and perspective.
Assuming Christ wasn’t fully human might make it troublesome, but he was; which puts him into the temporal order and from a human perspective, all these words fit and make sense.
Another post.
Last edited:
W
whyeyeman
Guest
Jesus doesn’t say that in response to Satan. He says this:
“You shall worship the Lord your God
and him only shall you serve.”
That doesn’t say you shall worship only God.
“You shall worship the Lord your God
and him only shall you serve.”
That doesn’t say you shall worship only God.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Hmm. This would seem to suggest that Jesus wasn’t “Lord and Messiah” until after His resurrection. That doesn’t hold up: He was both, and from the very instant of His incarnation! We see this in Scripture:
- Elizabeth attests to this: “how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
- So does John, even before Jesus begins His earthly ministry: “[John] saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.’ … The next day John was there again with two of his disciples, and as he watched Jesus walk by, he said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God.’”
- Immediately after hearing John, Andrew “found his own brother Simon and told him, ‘We have found the Messiah’”.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Well, it doesn’t say, “You are free to worship whoever or whatever you want as long as you ONLY serve God,” does it?
That would certainly have implications for restauranteurs who, henceforth, ought only serve God when he comes in, but are free to worship whatever. This can get more than just a little silly, no?
Serving is certainly less theologically significant than worshiping, no?
By implication, if you should ONLY serve God (in the proper way Jesus in Matthew understood that phrase,) then a fortiori you ought ONLY to worship him as the Creator and Sustainer of all, which is why you would ultimately only serve him.
R
RedFan
Guest
I likewise doubt that “Lord and Messiah” was some kind of reward. That wasn’t and isn’t my claim. The issue is Scriptural support for Christ’s divinity or lack thereof
You could be right about Elizabeth’s “Lord” reference being a divine reference – Adonoi is, after all, a frequent surrogate for the unutterable name of God in the OT – although it is far from certain either that Elizabeth believed “Lord” was a surrogate for God, or even that her words were accurately recorded by Luke (who, after all, wasn’t present). I can only point out that there are OT usages of Adonoi which refer to a man as well. We need look no further that David’s Psalm, ‘The Lord said to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool,’” the very verse Peter quoted when he proclaimed at Pentecost that “God has made him both Lord and Messiah,this Jesus whom you crucified." Even after Saul anointed him king, David referred to Saul as “my lord.” How, then, can we know whether “my lord” in his Psalm was intended to refer to a divine being or a human one?
But I cannot accept your argument that the Baptist’s “Lamb of God” declarations were acknowledgements of Christ’s divinity. There is simply zero connotation of the Lamb of God necessarily being divine. Ditto for Andrew’s Messiah" declaration; nobody at the time thought the Messiah would be God Himself.
Yes, Peter’s Pentecost speech does suggest that Jesus became Lord only after his resurrection. But so does the first chapter of Romans.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Psalm 110 isn’t about David calling Saul his Lord.
It was the Psalm alluded to when Jesus got into that little dispute about David’s Lord in all three Synoptics.
Jesus was clear that the Psalm was referring to the Christ, the Messiah.
The whole point of the dispute is that the Scribes and Pharisees were referring to the Messiah as “David’s son.” That could not have been Saul.
But notice the counterpoint from Jesus is that if David calls the Messiah his “Lord,” then the Messiah would have to be more than merely David’s son, as the Pharisees called the Messiah.
If you read the rest of the Psalm 110 there is language such as “womb of the dawn” that suggests the Messiah within the context of this Psalm would not be merely a human son, king and priest, but exists eternally and would rule “forever,” i.e., not within any future temporal boundaries.
B
Benadam
Guest
There is lot in between Sabellius and Arius. I think understanding Jesus as not co-eternal with His divine nature would make a Bible believer forget that Jesus said, 'the Father is in me and I am in the Father".Benadam:
If He did not “get it from a source outside of Himself,” then He gave it to Himself. That is different from the Father “eternally giving His authority to the Son.” If you see no difference, you must also see no distinction between Father and Son – and you adopt the heresy of Sabellius in your zeal to avoid the heresy of Arius.
W
whyeyeman
Guest
Most old testament prophecies have dual meanings. For example, Deuteronomy 18:15-20 refers to both Joshua and Jesus.
A
Autumn-Smoke
Guest
So MANY posts to read through, so pardon me if some of this has been said before.
Isaiah 9:6, a prophecy of Jesus’ birth, has a few titles for Jesus: …’‘For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.’’
Then there’s John 14:8 "Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.” Jesus replied, “Philip, I have been with you all this time, and still you do not know Me? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
I believe Jesus was speaking as God the Father when he said: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were unwilling.” How often did Jesus weep over Jerusalem? The scripture shows us one time. However, the Old Testament is FULL of God trying to draw the people of Israel unto himself and lamenting over them. How often indeed!
Isaiah 9:6, a prophecy of Jesus’ birth, has a few titles for Jesus: …’‘For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.’’
Then there’s John 14:8 "Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.” Jesus replied, “Philip, I have been with you all this time, and still you do not know Me? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
I believe Jesus was speaking as God the Father when he said: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were unwilling.” How often did Jesus weep over Jerusalem? The scripture shows us one time. However, the Old Testament is FULL of God trying to draw the people of Israel unto himself and lamenting over them. How often indeed!
W
whyeyeman
Guest
Philippians 2:9 - Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name
If you are to assume that this prophecy is a description of Jesus, then that suggests Jesus is God the Father. He is not. It rather means that he has been handed the Father’s authority and power. That is what “name” means in the Hebrew context.
Acts 2:22 - “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—”
God the father does his works through Jesus. Hence, if you see Jesus, you see the father doing his works, and therefore you see the Father. To assume anything else from this passage is to say that Jesus is the Father, which is false.
I don’t know about this.
V
Vico
Guest
You qualified that statement by first excluding the Gospel of John.
So John has it.
Last edited:
W
whyeyeman
Guest
Yes, John teaches preexistence. But wether or not that is a literal preexistence or Jesus being forever in the plan of God’s creation is debatable.
R
RedFan
Guest
I think understanding Jesus as not co-eternal with His divine nature would make one an Adoptionist.
John’s gospel reports Jesus praying for his followers thus: “As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us.” If your interpretation of being “in” the Father or the Son were correct, we should all consider ourselves just as much a part of the Godhead as Jesus!
Last edited:
W
whyeyeman
Guest
That’s the sort of dodgy justification for the trinity that annoys me. Jesus said “I and the Father are one” therefore he must be God!
Ignoring that he also said this:
John 17:22 - The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one.
Ignoring that he also said this:
John 17:22 - The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one.
R
RedFan
Guest
“My friends, we must guard as well against interpretations that press the meaning of Scripture beyond what is supported by the text. Consider Christ’s declaration in John’s gospel, ‘Very truly I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.’ Some see in this a reference to the Mosaic “I AM WHO I AM,” rendered ego eimi ho ōn in the Greek of the Septuagint, the Greek that Christ never spoke. John writes in Greek, and quotes only the ego eimi, only the ‘I am,’ and not the ho ōn, ‘the One who is,’ ‘the Being,’ ‘the existent One.’ According to John, Christ never used these additional words that designate the very name of God; yet, we are told by our preachers, he meant to imply them. Surely, they tell us, Christ would have simply said ‘I was’ rather than ‘I am’ if he meant the reference only temporally. Surely, they assert, the Jews who were prepared to stone him for this pronouncement correctly understood him as making a blasphemous declaration of divinity. My brothers and sisters, we must resist such speculations. There is a claim here of preexistence, to be sure; but that is not the same as claiming to be God! It is, in truth, claiming no more than to be the first-born of God. Thus does the venerable Justin Martyr describe the pre-existent Christ as ‘distinct from Him who made all things,’ ‘first power after God,’ ‘the first-born of God.’
“And so it is that we must ask ourselves how Christ can be, as the Apostle Paul wrote to the Colossians, ‘the first-born of all creation,’ unless he himself was created. And if created, in what sense can he be thought of as God?”
Or so Arius would have mused.
Last edited:
W
whyeyeman
Guest
What Christology do you hold?
R
RedFan
Guest
That of the Nicene Creed.
V
Vico
Guest
The Son of God is the person that has assumed the incarnation of Jesus Christ (body and soul). The body and soul are created, the human nature, however there is also the divine nature to consider. The preexistence is the divine not the human nature.
Last edited:
- Status