Is God God?

[Molly]

Joh 1:3  All thingsG3956 were madeG1096 byG1223 him;G846 andG2532 withoutG5565 himG846 was notG3761 any thingG1520 madeG1096 thatG3739 was made.G1096

[eaglesway]

I don't think created is a word that relates to Jesus. I think He is either:

1)Co-eternal with the Father(dwelling in the bosom of the Father until he was "manifested in these last times").... for confirmation, "Glorify me with the glory I had with you before the world was"

In my opininon, "before the world was signifies" the eternal realm where time is transcended by the NOW of the I AM who was and is and is to come(permeates the past present and future)

2)birthed from within the Father(came out from God), as opposed to created, because(as it is written) all created things came forth through Jesus, the Logos "By faith we know that the worlds were framed by the Word of God so that that which is unseen is greater than that which is seen". The seen, coming forth from the unseen, being  lesser.(RHM's point about the exception is valid and possible but I just don't think Jesus was created- he was the seed, a son, from which all creation sprang forth as a tree- then he was "planted" "buried", so that He might spring up as the firstborn of many brethren a family of redeemers/reconcilers/restorers chosen foreknown elect predestined to set the creation free from futility into their own glorious liberty. ALPHA OMEGA

Jesus was appointed for sacrifice before anything came forth(the Logos, also meaning "the REASON", and the CORE REVELATION as per Heb 1:1-3), as well as appointed for the resurrection and the period of the restoration of all things(IMO). It is ALL about fellowship, koinonea, the creation, fallen, separated, chaotic, dying in death- receives REDEMPTION and RECONCILIATION through His blood, REVEALING His LOVE to ALL so that God becomes ALL IN ALL - the voice of God being like the rushing of many waters, like the voices of ten thousands of ten thousands praising God.

The square root of 100 billion is ten thousand HAHAHAHA    Glory!

[micah7:9]

Joh 8:58  Jesus said to them, `Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham's coming--I am;'

[WhiteWings]

Created by Him.
Obviously He didn't create Himself.
The reference point is the Son. Not the Father. I think that of great importance, and the answer, to your question Mister Red 

[thinktank]

Much windex is needed LOL Come Holy Spirit.

I think, by the reasoning you just presented a person would be safe to say that Jesus was not created. Yet the idea that he came out from God could mean He was birthed. Father  to Son indicates that to me. However, I also have no problem with the theory that Jesus is co-eternal with the Father( I just don't believe He is co-equal, as rhm's verse from 1 cor 15 confirms).

  Adam was not born. He was created, or as Micah prefers, "formed"- and as you have shown....he was formed by the Word and the word was God and was in God in the beginning.

 But as the Word says, "The Father in me does the works" and " I can of mine own self do nothing".

yeesh! Words can be circles forming caves into traps and graves -or paths to follow towards the dawn. I don't want to dig any new "holes". I just want to follow the Word ;o)

Also we have Jesus a priest in the order of Melchizedek, having neither beginning nor ending of days, another verse that might indicate Jesus as being co-eternal with the Father. What is really mind bending to me is that if that were the case, then there would be entire orders of beings that were not created at all, but are somehow co-eternal with the Father- and I find that unlikely, because as RHM showed in the previous post, nothng has come into being that did not come into being through Him so- what does having neither beginning or ending of days mean?

Good work eaglesway. But here is some info on the matter concerning other beings being in existence that were not created at all.

The scriptures show that the Son is called the Only begotten Son. So this means the Father has only One God Son, which means that all things were created by the God Son, who is of the Father.

The thing is that if God the Father who is from eternal, produces  a kid, who is of the same being, after their own kind.. Then that being despite being born in due time, would poses the qualities of eternity as the Father. But yet we do see instances in the scriptures where the power of Jesus is not on par with the Father. So even though the Son is made in the Fathers own image, the power of the Son is not as great as the Father, since Jesus said, that the Father is greater than all. Even as the Father has life in himself so he has given the Son to have life in Himself. So we see that the Father is the life giver of All things, and that also includes the lifegiver to the Son, so that now the Son also has life within himself, so that he created the heavens and the earth.

I reason that even though the Son created the universe and the angelic host, perhaps the host did not worship the Son at that point in time, maybe only the Father was worshiped, until he the Son came to the world to be crucified. So that the Father is now pleased that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and Earth, having by inheritance obtained a better name that the angels, that they should worship Him. Until the fullness of time, when the Son Himself be subjected to the Father, so that God may be all in all.

[eaglesway]

Hi TT, please bear with me in some "speculation" :o)

 It is easy to focus on "only" and minimize "begotten". Father "begets" son.

Our logic circles really prove nothing and don't get me wrong, I don't kno for sure either way, but IMO the Son does not "have" to be co-eternal with the Father because He is of the same essence. God can do and be whatever and whenever He wants.

However, there is no major denomination that will allow you to believe, even that the Son is co eternal but not co-equal ,and then allow you to be ordained, or in most cases, even fellowship. If you do not believe the Son is co-eternal, you are a devil from a cult, and you do not believe He is God so you are going to hell :o)

If you believe that God "begat" Jesus from within Himself in the beginning like a small sphere within a huge sphere for instance- you are a heretic or even a devil, but really, the concept does not violate anything in John chapter one. The Logos, as the smaller sphere would still be God and with God and In the beginning.
 
I am not sure what I believe(OMG!!!), or if I even believe it can be known with authority on this side of the veil- but I am highly suspect of ANY DOCTRINE that began among the bishops who became the Roman Catholic church, and over which people have been tortured and excommunicated from all the so-called "churches" that have come out of her.

What is seen through a glass darkly is just that, because "my ways are higher than your ways" and "if any man thinks he knows anything he knows not yet as he ought to know".

My whole point in these types of discussions is to point out the holes in the "logic" of dogmatists (I am not suggesting that you are one of those, I find you to be reasonable and open minded) always falls short in certain points. There are "possibilities" that cannot be reasonably eliminated and that should leave us all able to discuss them without fear of being cast as heretics or simpletons if we don't quite buy another persons view, or if we try to poke holes in some sects systematic theology :o)

The certification of some subjects as "above questioning" is one big reason we are in chaos/division/hostility in "churchianity" rather than in order, union and harmony in the New Jerusalem.

Jesus was "given" the name above every name because He pleased the Father

And, so it pleased the Father to "make all the fulness dwell in Him".

In Him dwells the fulness of the deity in bodily form.

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten(monogenes) from the Father, full of grace and truth.

These verses and so many more can be viewed from differing perspectives by reasonable people of good intent within the house of fellowship.

For instance:
It is possible that Jesus' Sonship is given, bestowed, as a result of obedience, not as a result of being in very nature God. Several verses indicate this (Phil 2:10,11;Acts 17:31) Jesus was tempted in all manner like as we are, because He found Himself born of a woman, born under law, born in sinful flesh. He overcame His flesh, which he inherited from his mother, (which she had from her father, Adam) by love for the Father- and thus overturned the sin matrix within the whole creation(yikes! :o). 

That seed, planted, bearing fruit like unto itself, many sons unto glory! Born not of the will of the flesh or the will of man, but born of the will of God they will be revealed in glory and set the whole creation free from the sin matrix/death/chaos, etc. By that seed, the incorruptible seed implanted in our hearts, we are born again unto a "fervent love of the brethren". We have these great and precious promises that we may become partakers of the divine nature as the mustard seed becomes a tree in us. This is how we recognize one another as sons, and it is also how the world recognizes them(John 17, James 3:13-17, Acts 2 and 4, uh oh).

We are told God cannot be tempted with sin. I think it is trite to assert, "well the God in Jesus was not tempted, just the man". Listen, the God in me is not tempted either. Jesus was tempted "in all ways lie as we are". That indicates to me there are some things we may not fully understand about what Jesus was.

Peter declared(Act 2:32,33)

This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses.Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.

The "right hand of God", being in the minds of biblical unitarians, the equivalent of Joseph at Pharoah's right hand "exercising all the power of Pharoah in his presence", by dispensation, is a workable theoretical view for me because Jesus Himself bears witness to the concept in many ways and the apostles define the relationship in that way in several places also.

Certainly this perspective can be drawn from 1 Cor 15:27,28 also

1Co 15:27  For "He has put all things under His feet."But when He says "all things are put under Him," it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.

28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.


These are all thoughts from my own musings- definitely not any attempt to advance a systematic theology or doctrine of the Godhead

The problem with systematic theologies is, Evrybody has one  . Very few people ever really search through the possiblities presented in their "opponents" system. Hence the dogmatism and division.

[jabcat]

I appreciate your post John.  That's a great example of how to discuss this topic without using the hot-button terms and starting a spitting contest about them.  Good thoughts on your understanding (and searching) of the scriptures.  James.

[micah7:9]

Ya all pray for me now, ya hear   Yes eaglesway the Lord had you do a very good reasoning post

[Pierac]

Joh 8:58  Jesus said to them, `Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham's coming--I am;'
 

Concordant Literal Version Exo 3:14 Then Elohim spoke to Moses: I shall come to be just as I am coming to be. And He said: Thus shall you say to the sons of Israel, I-Shall-Come-to-Be has sent me to you.

This expression from Jesus' lips "I am" (Greek ego eimi) occurs throughout the Gospel of John and in no other text in John can it mean I AM, the God of the Old Testament. Go back to John 4:25-26 for instance. The woman at the well said to Jesus, "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ); when that one comes, he will declare all things to us." And Jesus said to her, "I who speak with you am he."  You will notice that in most Bibles that word he is in italics.  This means that the translators have correctly supplied a word in English that is not in the Greek but that nevertheless makes the intended sense quite clear.  Here Jesus says to the woman - in the context of her question about the Messiah - that he is the Messiah, the Christ.  "I who speak to you am he."  In the Greek it reads ego eimi. Jesus simply says I am he, the Messiah.  Definitely not "I am is the one speaking to you!"

In John 9 Jesus heals the blind man.  Is this really the beggar who used to sit groping in the dark? Some people said, "Yes, it's him all right."  Other said, "No, he just looks like him." But the beggar says, " ego eimi!"  And the translators have no problem writing, "I am the one." So why aren't the translators consistent?  Why not capitalize what this man says as I AM?  Because it is clear that he is not claiming to be the God of the Old Testament. Saying "I am" (ego eimi) does not make somebody God in the Bible!

What Jesus is saying is simply "Before Abraham was born, I am he,"  that is, "I am the Messiah."

Notice the context in John 8:56 where Jesus says, "Abraham rejoiced to see my day." By faith Abraham looked forward and saw the coming Messiah before he came in history. He believed the promise that God would send the Promised One.  On the other hand these Jews did not believe that Jesus was their Messiah. They were claiming to be Abraham's descendents.  Jesus said that this was impossible for they did not recognize him as their Messiah. But Jesus asserts that even before Abraham was born, he is the One who was always in God's plan. This Abraham believe and saw.  The Messiah preexisted in God's plan and therefore in Abraham's believing mind, because he trusted the promise of God.  Jesus positively did not say, before Abraham was, I was."  Also, Jesus did not say, "Before Abraham was, I AM WHAT I AM."

The conclusion is inevitable.  Jesus' claim "Before Abraham was born, I am he" is the straightforward claim that he is the long promised one, the Messiah, the One in question. Jesus is the Savior in God's promise even before Abraham was born.

The Jewish leaders were very well aware of what Jesus was saying about himself! Jesus was not claiming to be God but the Son of God as Shown in John 19:7 . As they give very reason they wanted Him dead!

John 19:6  When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him. 7  The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

John then seals the deal in John 20:31   but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

Here John gives the very reason he wrote his Gospel, so that you would believe Jesus is the Messiah, Son of the living God.

Paul

[Molly]

Matthew 26:65
Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

What was the blasphemy Jesus spoke?  Why was it blasphemy?

Mark 14:64
Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

Same questions.

John 10:33
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Same questions.


Are the priests so stupid that they don't know blasphemy when they see it?

[eaglesway]

Are the priests so stupid that they don't know blasphemy when they see it?

 

[eaglesway]

Great post Paul. And Jesus' rebuttal was not ,"I am God", it was "So what are you making such a big deal about me saying I am the son of God, doesnt your own law say, "You are all gods(elohym) and sons of the most high?"- which was also an insult because the rest of the verse says- "but you will all die like men" and believe me, the Pharisees knew that psalm well and took the meaning. In a way Jesus was actually making himself one of them and asking them why they were such unwilling and unrighteous representatives of the Father

Psalm 82:1-8 A Psalm of Asaph. (Amplified Bible)
 
GOD STANDS in the assembly [of the representatives] of God; in the midst of the magistrates or judges He gives judgment [as] among the gods.

How long will you [magistrates or judges] judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah [pause, and calmly think of that]!

Do justice to the weak (poor) and fatherless; maintain the rights of the afflicted and needy.

Deliver the poor and needy; rescue them out of the hand of the wicked.

[The magistrates and judges] know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in the darkness [of complacent satisfaction]; all the foundations of the earth [the fundamental principles upon which rests the administration of justice] are shaking.

I said, You are gods [since you judge on My behalf, as My representatives]; indeed, all of you are children of the Most High.

But you shall die as men and fall as one of the princes.

Arise, O God, judge the earth! For to You belong all the nations.

[WhiteWings]

http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/christian_life/was_jesus_christ_created_or_begotten_3113.0.html

There is a longer thread about begotten somewhere.  Unfortunately it's impossible to search Guest accounts 

[gregoryfl]

The word [dabar] is begotten in the mind of God, not created. When the debar is sent forth, it is the agent by which all exists that exists, by the orderly arranging of the 22 letters of the Creator's alphabet in various ways to birth [yalad] whatever exists. The begetting takes place first, in the mind of God, as the begetting takes place first in the womb of the mother. The birth takes place afterward, out of God, as the birth takes place out of the mother.

Ron

[sheila]

 very good posts,everyone.  Something 'jumped out' at me,that Molly put on there.....'that thou being a man,makest thyself God" Going back to the

  garden and tree of kogae...when the seducer said,you shall not die..but be like God,knowing good and evil[are ye not gods/look the man has become like one of us!]

  irony of what they accused him of,they were guilty of. And how backwards...for what had occurred..was not man,making himself God, BUT GOD MAKING

  HIMSELF MAN.

   so, to me, the conclusion of the matter is..offspring of viper is 'man of sin' making himself God.[tokogae].and he will die....and offspring of Christ is "God making

  Himself man[TOL]    for this very reason..when you test the spirits...the adversary will not confess that 'the word of God come in flesh

[Molly]

Interesting, Sheila.  I never thought before about humility and tenderness being attributes of God, although I have always recognized those qualities in him.

If one were really God become man, he would have those qualities, the same as Christ--making himself of no effect, but taking on the form of a servant.

It's kind of mind blowing.  Especially since we humans are always trying to do the opposite.


For I know that my  Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:...

and... in my flesh I shall see God.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATBLXyJxyTI

[sheila]

    HE.....IS>>>>BEAUTIFUL!!!

[thinktank]

Interesting, Sheila.  I never thought before about humility and tenderness being attributes of God, although I have always recognized those qualities in him.

If one were really God become man, he would have those qualities, the same as Christ--making himself of no effect, but taking on the form of a servant.

It's kind of mind blowing.  Especially since we humans are always trying to do the opposite.


For I know that my  Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:...

and... in my flesh I shall see God.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATBLXyJxyTI

You might enjoy this scripture Molly

Isaiah 57:15
 For thus saith the high and lofty One who inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy: "I dwell in the high and holy place with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

[thinktank]

Hi TT, please bear with me in some "speculation" :o)

 It is easy to focus on "only" and minimize "begotten". Father "begets" son.

------

Yes I think many don't focus on the beget part and the Son part.

TT

Our logic circles really prove nothing and don't get me wrong, I don't kno for sure either way, but IMO the Son does not "have" to be co-eternal with the Father because He is of the same essence. God can do and be whatever and whenever He wants.

However, there is no major denomination that will allow you to believe, even that the Son is co eternal but not co-equal ,and then allow you to be ordained, or in most cases, even fellowship. If you do not believe the Son is co-eternal, you are a devil from a cult, and you do not believe He is God so you are going to hell :o)

-----------
Yeah I know, my views are slightly unorthodox, but I don't believe they diminish the Godness of Jesus. Just that many in the church are so used to seeing Jesus in a certain manner, so when a new view comes along they become worried.

TT

If you believe that God "begat" Jesus from within Himself in the beginning like a small sphere within a huge sphere for instance- you are a heretic or even a devil, but really, the concept does not violate anything in John chapter one. The Logos, as the smaller sphere would still be God and with God and In the beginning.

TT

Thank you, I'm glad you understand the concept of what I believe, without violating John chapter 1.
 
I am not sure what I believe(OMG!!!), or if I even believe it can be known with authority on this side of the veil- but I am highly suspect of ANY DOCTRINE that began among the bishops who became the Roman Catholic church, and over which people have been tortured and excommunicated from all the so-called "churches" that have come out of her.

TT
Interesting you bring that up. Recently I have come across catholic webstes, which make the point that during protestant revolution the history books were altered so that to make the catholic church the enemy, so that there would be division. This is new material to me and I have been led to believe in the past that the catholic church killed many millions of herectics and that the true church went underground. But now those beliefs have been challenged and I must revaluate the history of the catholic church. One I cannot deny that the catholic chruch produced many saints of God and it seemed strange that an evil pagan type church would produce holy saints of God
TT

What is seen through a glass darkly is just that, because "my ways are higher than your ways" and "if any man thinks he knows anything he knows not yet as he ought to know".

My whole point in these types of discussions is to point out the holes in the "logic" of dogmatists (I am not suggesting that you are one of those, I find you to be reasonable and open minded) always falls short in certain points. There are "possibilities" that cannot be reasonably eliminated and that should leave us all able to discuss them without fear of being cast as heretics or simpletons if we don't quite buy another persons view, or if we try to poke holes in some sects systematic theology :o)

The certification of some subjects as "above questioning" is one big reason we are in chaos/division/hostility in "churchianity" rather than in order, union and harmony in the New Jerusalem.

Jesus was "given" the name above every name because He pleased the Father

And, so it pleased the Father to "make all the fulness dwell in Him".

In Him dwells the fulness of the deity in bodily form.

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten(monogenes) from the Father, full of grace and truth.

These verses and so many more can be viewed from differing perspectives by reasonable people of good intent within the house of fellowship.

For instance:
It is possible that Jesus' Sonship is given, bestowed, as a result of obedience, not as a result of being in very nature God. Several verses indicate this (Phil 2:10,11;Acts 17:31) Jesus was tempted in all manner like as we are, because He found Himself born of a woman, born under law, born in sinful flesh. He overcame His flesh, which he inherited from his mother, (which she had from her father, Adam) by love for the Father- and thus overturned the sin matrix within the whole creation(yikes! :o). 

That seed, planted, bearing fruit like unto itself, many sons unto glory! Born not of the will of the flesh or the will of man, but born of the will of God they will be revealed in glory and set the whole creation free from the sin matrix/death/chaos, etc. By that seed, the incorruptible seed implanted in our hearts, we are born again unto a "fervent love of the brethren". We have these great and precious promises that we may become partakers of the divine nature as the mustard seed becomes a tree in us. This is how we recognize one another as sons, and it is also how the world recognizes them(John 17, James 3:13-17, Acts 2 and 4, uh oh).

We are told God cannot be tempted with sin. I think it is trite to assert, "well the God in Jesus was not tempted, just the man". Listen, the God in me is not tempted either. Jesus was tempted "in all ways lie as we are". That indicates to me there are some things we may not fully understand about what Jesus was.

Peter declared(Act 2:32,33)

This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses.Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.

The "right hand of God", being in the minds of biblical unitarians, the equivalent of Joseph at Pharoah's right hand "exercising all the power of Pharoah in his presence", by dispensation, is a workable theoretical view for me because Jesus Himself bears witness to the concept in many ways and the apostles define the relationship in that way in several places also.

Certainly this perspective can be drawn from 1 Cor 15:27,28 also

1Co 15:27  For "He has put all things under His feet."But when He says "all things are put under Him," it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.

28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.


These are all thoughts from my own musings- definitely not any attempt to advance a systematic theology or doctrine of the Godhead

The problem with systematic theologies is, Evrybody has one  . Very few people ever really search through the possiblities presented in their "opponents" system. Hence the dogmatism and division.

TT

That is true. But the scriptures demand and needs a church with order. For thousands of years the church has been split up over doctrines and become weak. I believe God wants to unite the church.

There are certain things I dislike about scriptures, regarding church rules etc. I do not like the idea of excommunicating or casting away the brother etc, but this is what the scriptures teach. But even those teachings have been abused by the church, where even a slight tumbling causes over zealous excommunicating, I guess it;s a matter of trusting Gods judgement, trusted to holy men of God. If there are no holy men leading the church, then there is no church, only a wolf fleecing  and devouring the flock, so better to leave, until God provides sheperds, who judge with righteous judgment and are able to exercise divine authority.

[Pierac]

Great post Paul. And Jesus' rebuttal was not ,"I am God", it was "So what are you making such a big deal about me saying I am the son of God, doesnt your own law say, "You are all gods(elohym) and sons of the most high?"- which was also an insult because the rest of the verse says- "but you will all die like men" and believe me, the Pharisees knew that psalm well and took the meaning. In a way Jesus was actually making himself one of them and asking them why they were such unwilling and unrighteous representatives of the Father

Eaglesway my post was not intended for you... I was simply showing Micah7:9  the correct understanding of John 8:58 as it was quoted with out comment as if everyone would understand it's meaning. Your reading into my post... not out of my post. My post had nothing to do with docterine or beliefs, just the understanding of a simple verse... 

Now I will share with you the simple Hebraic understanding of... Son of God! (No theology of docterine attached)

Son of God - This title for Jesus has been given meanings and attributes that were never intended. People have erroneously used the human father-son relationship to describe this title of Jesus'. They have thought that since a human son has the actual essence (made of the same matter) of his father, that therefore, this title implies that Jesus being the Son of God is of the same essence of God.

Son of God - In the Old Testament Israel is described as God's first-born (Exodus 4:22) and is called His son. There is therefore precedence for calling the Messiah "Son of God" for he is Israel's representative par excellence (ZEB, vol.4, pg.203-204).

"Son of God" denotes an intimate relationship with the Father. It is obvious that sonship must not be understood in a crude pagan way. This bears out Dalman's contention that the Hebrew concept of "son" does not denote an extensive circle of relationships" (ZEB, vol.4, pg. 205). Adam was called the "son of God" (Luke 3:38), God calls King Solomon His "son" in 1 Chronicles 28:6.

For Paul, "Son of God" is essentially a Christological description expressing "the Son's solidarity with God" (ZEB, vol.4, pg.204). Closeness to the Father is the basic meaning of "Son of God" (Ibid). This closeness was a relationship that was shared by God's anointed kings of Israel. Since Jesus is the ideal king of Israel, he is naturally the ideal Son of God. This is how the term came to be synonymous with Messiah and king of Israel. They are all different ways of saying the same thing.

The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible vol. 4 pg. 204 states:

"The last chapter of the first epistle of John makes every possible emphasis upon the principle that Sonship is the mark of Messiahship. The same is the case with the fourth gospel where the Son of God is synonymous with Messiah and occurs more frequently than any other title. Haenchen maintains that the same equation:

Messiah = Son of God = Son of Man  applies to Mark's gospel. The same can be said of the rest of the New Testament."

Aspects of Monotheism pg.90 states:

"The notion that the Davidic king was the son of God is well established in the Hebrew Bible in 2 Samuel 7:14 and in Psalm 2:7. It was only natural then that the coming messianic king should also be regarded as the Son of God. To say that the king was the son of God, however, does not necessarily imply divinization."

This is the meaning of the title "Son of God."  Messiah = Son of God = king of Israel = Son of Man.   The Messiah does have the closest and most intimate relationship with the Father. Let's take a look at some verses to confirm this.

"The kings of the earth rise up, and the princes conspire together against the LORD and His anointed (Messiah)"… "I myself have set up my king on Zion (Israel)"… "The LORD said to me, "You are my son" (Psalm 2:2,6-7).

Here we see God speaking of the Messiah using all three titles; Messiah, king of Zion, and son.

"He first found his own brother and told him, "We have found the Messiah"…"Rabbi, you are the Son of God: you are the King of Israel" (John 1:41& 49).

John cannot be clearer on this title; the Son of God is the King of Israel. This is the Jewish meaning of "Son of God." Any other definition will take away from the true meaning of the title into something that was never intended by its Jewish author.



Paul

[micah7:9]

"Eaglesway my post was not intended for you... I was simply showing Micah7:9  the correct understanding of John 8:58 as it was quoted with out comment as if everyone would understand it's meaning. "

I thank you but I see no reason for a correction, Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Verily, verily, I am saying to you, Ere Abraham came into being, I am."
 Does not everyone, at least on this forum know who I AM is?  The "he" is added   

[Pierac]

"Eaglesway my post was not intended for you... I was simply showing Micah7:9  the correct understanding of John 8:58 as it was quoted with out comment as if everyone would understand it's meaning. "

I thank you but I see no reason for a correction, Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Verily, verily, I am saying to you, Ere Abraham came into being, I am."
 Does not everyone, at least on this forum know who I AM is?  The "he" is added   

Joh 9:1  As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth.
Joh 9:2  And His disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?"
Joh 9:3  Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.
Joh 9:4  "We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming when no one can work.
Joh 9:5  "While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world."
Joh 9:6  When He had said this, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his eyes,
Joh 9:7  and said to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (which is translated, Sent). So he went away and washed, and came back seeing.
Joh 9:8  Therefore the neighbors, and those who previously saw him as a beggar, were saying, "Is not this the one who used to sit and beg?"
Joh 9:9  Others were saying, "This is he," still others were saying, "No, but he is like him."  He kept saying, "I AM."

Perhaps everyone on this forum knows the same about the blind man, as he spoke the same words as Jesus!
What's your point?

Paul

[eaglesway]

Great post Paul. And Jesus' rebuttal was not ,"I am God", it was "So what are you making such a big deal about me saying I am the son of God, doesnt your own law say, "You are all gods(elohym) and sons of the most high?"- which was also an insult because the rest of the verse says- "but you will all die like men" and believe me, the Pharisees knew that psalm well and took the meaning. In a way Jesus was actually making himself one of them and asking them why they were such unwilling and unrighteous representatives of the Father

Eaglesway my post was not intended for you... I was simply showing Micah7:9  the correct understanding of John 8:58 as it was quoted with out comment as if everyone would understand it's meaning. Your reading into my post... not out of my post. My post had nothing to do with docterine or beliefs, just the understanding of a simple verse... 

Now I will share with you the simple Hebraic understanding of... Son of God! (No theology of docterine attached)

Son of God - This title for Jesus has been given meanings and attributes that were never intended. People have erroneously used the human father-son relationship to describe this title of Jesus'. They have thought that since a human son has the actual essence (made of the same matter) of his father, that therefore, this title implies that Jesus being the Son of God is of the same essence of God.

Son of God - In the Old Testament Israel is described as God's first-born (Exodus 4:22) and is called His son. There is therefore precedence for calling the Messiah "Son of God" for he is Israel's representative par excellence (ZEB, vol.4, pg.203-204).

"Son of God" denotes an intimate relationship with the Father. It is obvious that sonship must not be understood in a crude pagan way. This bears out Dalman's contention that the Hebrew concept of "son" does not denote an extensive circle of relationships" (ZEB, vol.4, pg. 205). Adam was called the "son of God" (Luke 3:38), God calls King Solomon His "son" in 1 Chronicles 28:6.

For Paul, "Son of God" is essentially a Christological description expressing "the Son's solidarity with God" (ZEB, vol.4, pg.204). Closeness to the Father is the basic meaning of "Son of God" (Ibid). This closeness was a relationship that was shared by God's anointed kings of Israel. Since Jesus is the ideal king of Israel, he is naturally the ideal Son of God. This is how the term came to be synonymous with Messiah and king of Israel. They are all different ways of saying the same thing.

The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible vol. 4 pg. 204 states:

"The last chapter of the first epistle of John makes every possible emphasis upon the principle that Sonship is the mark of Messiahship. The same is the case with the fourth gospel where the Son of God is synonymous with Messiah and occurs more frequently than any other title. Haenchen maintains that the same equation:

Messiah = Son of God = Son of Man  applies to Mark's gospel. The same can be said of the rest of the New Testament."

Aspects of Monotheism pg.90 states:

"The notion that the Davidic king was the son of God is well established in the Hebrew Bible in 2 Samuel 7:14 and in Psalm 2:7. It was only natural then that the coming messianic king should also be regarded as the Son of God. To say that the king was the son of God, however, does not necessarily imply divinization."

This is the meaning of the title "Son of God."  Messiah = Son of God = king of Israel = Son of Man.   The Messiah does have the closest and most intimate relationship with the Father. Let's take a look at some verses to confirm this.

"The kings of the earth rise up, and the princes conspire together against the LORD and His anointed (Messiah)"… "I myself have set up my king on Zion (Israel)"… "The LORD said to me, "You are my son" (Psalm 2:2,6-7).

Here we see God speaking of the Messiah using all three titles; Messiah, king of Zion, and son.

"He first found his own brother and told him, "We have found the Messiah"…"Rabbi, you are the Son of God: you are the King of Israel" (John 1:41& 49).

John cannot be clearer on this title; the Son of God is the King of Israel. This is the Jewish meaning of "Son of God." Any other definition will take away from the true meaning of the title into something that was never intended by its Jewish author.



Paul

That was a great post too Paul, with the exception of the fact that you seem to assert that you have wrapped up the entire controversy in your post, to the satisfaction of anyone who has eyes to see that you completely understand it. I think there is a little deeper mystery than that. In my opinion, John asserted many interesting things about Jesus in his narration. I think some of those things may exceed the parameters you set forth, if I am understanding you correctly.

[micah7:9]

"Eaglesway my post was not intended for you... I was simply showing Micah7:9  the correct understanding of John 8:58 as it was quoted with out comment as if everyone would understand it's meaning. "

I thank you but I see no reason for a correction, Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Verily, verily, I am saying to you, Ere Abraham came into being, I am."
 Does not everyone, at least on this forum know who I AM is?  The "he" is added   

Joh 9:1  As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth.
Joh 9:2  And His disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?"
Joh 9:3  Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.
Joh 9:4  "We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming when no one can work.
Joh 9:5  "While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world."
Joh 9:6  When He had said this, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his eyes,
Joh 9:7  and said to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (which is translated, Sent). So he went away and washed, and came back seeing.
Joh 9:8  Therefore the neighbors, and those who previously saw him as a beggar, were saying, "Is not this the one who used to sit and beg?"
Joh 9:9  Others were saying, "This is he," still others were saying, "No, but he is like him."  He kept saying, "I AM."

Perhaps everyone on this forum knows the same about the blind man, as he spoke the same words as Jesus!
What's your point?

Paul

When Jesus says I AM He is saying I AM. He is I AM and there is a great difference when Jesus says I AM 
(YLT)  when, therefore, he said to them--`I am he ,' they went away backward, and fell to the ground.

I believe that those 3 letters He spoke was the power that sent them backwards. The "he"I find is in italics, not in original?
At least thats how I have been given to understand I AM.
"What Jesus is saying is simply "Before Abraham was born, I am he,"  that is, "I am the Messiah.""Paul
Yes He is the Messiah, but He is much more that the Messiah, He is God.

[Pierac]

Great post Paul. And Jesus' rebuttal was not ,"I am God", it was "So what are you making such a big deal about me saying I am the son of God, doesnt your own law say, "You are all gods(elohym) and sons of the most high?"- which was also an insult because the rest of the verse says- "but you will all die like men" and believe me, the Pharisees knew that psalm well and took the meaning. In a way Jesus was actually making himself one of them and asking them why they were such unwilling and unrighteous representatives of the Father

Eaglesway my post was not intended for you... I was simply showing Micah7:9  the correct understanding of John 8:58 as it was quoted with out comment as if everyone would understand it's meaning. Your reading into my post... not out of my post. My post had nothing to do with docterine or beliefs, just the understanding of a simple verse... 

Now I will share with you the simple Hebraic understanding of... Son of God! (No theology of docterine attached)

Son of God - This title for Jesus has been given meanings and attributes that were never intended. People have erroneously used the human father-son relationship to describe this title of Jesus'. They have thought that since a human son has the actual essence (made of the same matter) of his father, that therefore, this title implies that Jesus being the Son of God is of the same essence of God.

Son of God - In the Old Testament Israel is described as God's first-born (Exodus 4:22) and is called His son. There is therefore precedence for calling the Messiah "Son of God" for he is Israel's representative par excellence (ZEB, vol.4, pg.203-204).

"Son of God" denotes an intimate relationship with the Father. It is obvious that sonship must not be understood in a crude pagan way. This bears out Dalman's contention that the Hebrew concept of "son" does not denote an extensive circle of relationships" (ZEB, vol.4, pg. 205). Adam was called the "son of God" (Luke 3:38), God calls King Solomon His "son" in 1 Chronicles 28:6.

For Paul, "Son of God" is essentially a Christological description expressing "the Son's solidarity with God" (ZEB, vol.4, pg.204). Closeness to the Father is the basic meaning of "Son of God" (Ibid). This closeness was a relationship that was shared by God's anointed kings of Israel. Since Jesus is the ideal king of Israel, he is naturally the ideal Son of God. This is how the term came to be synonymous with Messiah and king of Israel. They are all different ways of saying the same thing.

The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible vol. 4 pg. 204 states:

"The last chapter of the first epistle of John makes every possible emphasis upon the principle that Sonship is the mark of Messiahship. The same is the case with the fourth gospel where the Son of God is synonymous with Messiah and occurs more frequently than any other title. Haenchen maintains that the same equation:

Messiah = Son of God = Son of Man  applies to Mark's gospel. The same can be said of the rest of the New Testament."

Aspects of Monotheism pg.90 states:

"The notion that the Davidic king was the son of God is well established in the Hebrew Bible in 2 Samuel 7:14 and in Psalm 2:7. It was only natural then that the coming messianic king should also be regarded as the Son of God. To say that the king was the son of God, however, does not necessarily imply divinization."

This is the meaning of the title "Son of God."  Messiah = Son of God = king of Israel = Son of Man.   The Messiah does have the closest and most intimate relationship with the Father. Let's take a look at some verses to confirm this.

"The kings of the earth rise up, and the princes conspire together against the LORD and His anointed (Messiah)"… "I myself have set up my king on Zion (Israel)"… "The LORD said to me, "You are my son" (Psalm 2:2,6-7).

Here we see God speaking of the Messiah using all three titles; Messiah, king of Zion, and son.

"He first found his own brother and told him, "We have found the Messiah"…"Rabbi, you are the Son of God: you are the King of Israel" (John 1:41& 49).

John cannot be clearer on this title; the Son of God is the King of Israel. This is the Jewish meaning of "Son of God." Any other definition will take away from the true meaning of the title into something that was never intended by its Jewish author.



Paul

That was a great post too Paul, with the exception of the fact that you seem to assert that you have wrapped up the entire controversy in your post, to the satisfaction of anyone who has eyes to see that you completely understand it. I think there is a little deeper mystery than that. In my opinion, John asserted many interesting things about Jesus in his narration. I think some of those things may exceed the parameters you set forth, if I am understanding you correctly.

Again, I was not addressing any controversy in my post!  I was simply trying to explain the Hebraic understanding of "Son of God".  Your misinterpretation of my explanation of a simple verse in John for another poster and my revelation of the Hebraic meaning of the biblical term "Son of God"  offered for you some how.... wraps up the entire controversy is confusing to me.  What controversy are you talking about? 


Paul