Jesus was made Lord and Christ at His resurrection

[Davy]

That doesn't answer Robert's question. To give more context to the verses that you quoted, Jesus had just said:

(6) Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me.​

(7) If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on, you know him, and have seen him.”​

meaning that Jesus' character was just like God's, so having known Jesus they also knew what kind of a person God is. The Greek word that's translated as 'know', ginosko, means, according to the Online Bible Greek Lexicon:

1) to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel​

1a) to become known​

2) to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of​

2a) to understand​

2b) to know​

3) Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman​

4) to become acquainted with, to know​

The Greek word translated as 'seen', horao, means, according to the Online Bible Greek Lexicon:

1) to see with the eyes​

2) to see with the mind, to perceive, know​

3) to see, i.e. become acquainted with by experience, to experience ​

4) to see, to look to​

4a) to take heed, beware​

4b) to care for, pay heed to​

5) I was seen, showed myself, appeared​

So by getting to know Jesus they had also perceived and expereinced what God is like - loving, kind, compassionate, merciful and just.

Jesus then went on to say:

(10) Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I tell you, I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does his works.​

(11) Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works’ sake.​

(12) Most certainly I tell you, he who believes in me, the works that I do, he will do also; and he will do greater works than these, because I am going to my Father.​

(13) Whatever you will ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.​

They had come to know God because it was God, Jesus' Father, who was speaking and working through His Son Jesus.

I think this is the answer that Robert was expecting:

John 17:1-8

(1) Jesus said these things, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may also glorify you;​

(2) even as you gave him authority over all flesh, so he will give eternal life to all whom you have given him.​

(3) This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.​

(4) I glorified you on the earth. I have accomplished the work which you have given me to do.​

(5) Now, Father, glorify me with your own self with the glory which I had with you before the world existed.​

(6) I revealed your name to the people whom you have given me out of the world. They were yours, and you have given them to me. They have kept your word.​

(7) Now they have known that all things whatever you have given me are from you,​

(8) for the words which you have given me I have given to them, and they received them, and knew for sure that I came from you, and they have believed that you sent me.​

Still can't steer... around what Jesus said in John 14:8-9, which is to do the SAME thing Gwin is doing. It MUST be weighed with the rest of God's Word, and this is not the only place in God's Word where Jesus is either declared as God, or that Jesus declares Himself as God. And I think I've already been over most of those other Scripture examples here but WITHOUT Gwin addressing those Scriptures.

 

[Wrangler]

Lord Jesus Christ never was literally 'made' (i.e., created)

By definition, sons are made. Scripture confirms Christ was literally made. Acts 2:36 God has made him both Lord and Christ.

For reasons I don't understand, the OP focuses on WHEN the God made Jesus both Lord and Christ. I think God's logos, his plan was from the beginning but Jesus did not confess having received all authority until he was resurrected. I don't think that is a coincidence.

 

[Wrangler]

Exactly! Jesus was born in the flesh, and baptized with the holy spirit, at which point he became the Christ.

Just re-read Luke 2, which does not affirm your position.

The Shepherds and the Angels
8 And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9 And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with great fear. 10 And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.
Luke 2:8-11


This day is Christ, not decades later, right?

 

[Wrangler]

Jesus Christ came in the flesh, and so the Word was made flesh. Not made.

I didn't think we were supposed to talk about this but you are trying to separate what one is made into from the fact that they are made. This illogic is motivated by illogical doctrine. To say Jesus walked on water cannot deny that he walked, etc.

 

[Wrangler]

I believe every faith has some things in common.

Worthy of a separate thread.

 

[Wrangler]

The idea that Jesus was NOT The Christ until He was baptized is

I agree with you Davy. Again, I don't understand the importance the OP places on WHEN.

 

[Robert Gwin]

Just re-read Luke 2, which does not affirm your position.

The Shepherds and the Angels
8 And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9 And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with great fear. 10 And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.
Luke 2:8-11


This day is Christ, not decades later, right?

Hi Wrangler, I understand your understanding of it, and he was the foretold Messiah/Christ the angels were telling God's shepherds in the field. But he was not anointed with holy spirit, thus the actual time he became the Christ until he was 30 yrs old. The one you posted was used for identity, the anointing and baptism of Jesus was the actual event. These are debatable opinions of course, and obviously we both believe we are correct, but now you have the reason I believe the way I do. Thanks for keeping me in check sir.

 

[Robert Gwin]

Worthy of a separate thread.

Just an honest statement Wrangler. Pretty easy to see from peoples posts, for example most of the time you agree with me, and of course visa/versa, but as you can see many don't most of the time. Interestingly one guy posted something I agreed with, and then when I replied to it disagreed with me and started arguing against his own post. I had to giggle on that one Wrangler.

 

[Robert Gwin]

Worthy of a separate thread.

You know Wrangler I am going to make a second comment on this. Likely you are aware where all these "Christian" faiths come from Acts 20:29,30. Obviously when they break away from the faith God no longer accepts them. You likely realize that there is only one faith God accepts Eph 4:5 and from the time of the first covenant, has only accepted one group of people. You surely realize that those of that faith all speak in agreement with accord to God's word 1 Cor 1:10. So starting a post where we all agree, simply would reaffirm their belief that they had the truth. Me personally, I would rather be shown where I am wrong, based on Scriptural evidence, that is what changes us sir, if we at some point see fro ourselves we are not in harmony with God's word, a sincere person of God will change his ways, not try to change God to meet their determining what is right or wrong.

 

[Wrangler]

Hi Wrangler, I understand your understanding of it, and he was the foretold Messiah/Christ the angels were telling God's shepherds in the field. But he was not anointed with holy spirit, thus the actual time he became the Christ until he was 30 yrs old. The one you posted was used for identity, the anointing and baptism of Jesus was the actual event. These are debatable opinions of course, and obviously we both believe we are correct, but now you have the reason I believe the way I do. Thanks for keeping me in check sir.

Hmmm. There is no "became the Christ" verse. What I cited was the announcment before his birth that he IS the Christ.

The notion of 'becoming' is very Western. See Oswald's Spengler's Decline of the West.

David was anointed king 2 decades before he became - or was crowned - king. Sure, the Christ did not begin his ministry for 3 decades and he obviously lacked God's Spirit until his baptism. However, none of this changes his identity. Having said that Hebrews 1 implies there was a time when he was not the Son of God given "Today" you have become my son implies a time before that day. However, I think that has to do with him being given all authority after the cross.

Given all this happed 2,000 years ago, what is your concern about WHEN he became the Christ?

 

[Wrangler]

Interestingly one guy posted something I agreed with, and then when I replied to it disagreed with me and started arguing against his own post. I had to giggle on that one Wrangler.

I remember that one. Too funny!

 

[Wrangler]

Likely you are aware where all these "Christian" faiths come from Acts 20:29,30.

Hmmm. I think you know that I am fond of denomination and deny, for the most part, these are false teachers or prophets. My position is the various denominations primarily have a different focus.

For instance, Catholics have a crucifix that has Jesus still on the cross to focus on the sacrifice. Protestants have a plain cross to focus on the resurrection. Not to say there are not doctrinal differences but day-to-day, the difference is focus of the same doctrines. Consider this, Jesus is our lord and Christ regardless of when he was made these things by God. Amen?

 

[Wrangler]

You surely realize that those of that faith all speak in agreement with accord to God's word 1 Cor 1:10. So starting a post where we all agree, simply would reaffirm their belief that they had the truth. Me personally, I would rather be shown where I am wrong, based on Scriptural evidence

I pointed this out to AJ a few months back 1 COR 1:10 is not a command but a lament (I appeal to you). They only reason Paul wrote 'live in harmony with each other. Let there be no divisions in the church. Rather, be of one mind, united in thought and purpose.' is because there was no such thing in the church during the Apostolic age but:

• tension
• division
• different thoughts or focus (seeds of denomination)
• disunity

Isn't this consistent with Christ's words?
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn “’a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--
Mat 10:34-35

 

[keithr]

Still can't steer... around what Jesus said in John 14:8-9, which is to do the SAME thing Gwin is doing. It MUST be weighed with the rest of God's Word, and this is not the only place in God's Word where Jesus is either declared as God, or that Jesus declares Himself as God. And I think I've already been over most of those other Scripture examples here but WITHOUT Gwin addressing those Scriptures.

You shouldn't just "weigh" it with other Scriptures; it must be in harmony with the rest of the Scriptures. Jesus declared that the Father is the only true God (John 17:3), and never does Jesus claim to be the Father, nor is he declared to be the Father. Therefore Jesus saying "He who has seen me has seen the Father" can't possibly mean that Jesus was claiming to be the Father and to be God. As John wrote (John 1:18), no human has ever seen God at any time.

1 Corinthians 8:6 (WEB):

(6) yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.​

 

[Jim B]

You shouldn't just "weigh" it with other Scriptures; it must be in harmony with the rest of the Scriptures. Jesus declared that the Father is the only true God (John 17:3), and never does Jesus claim to be the Father, nor is he declared to be the Father. Therefore Jesus saying "He who has seen me has seen the Father" can't possibly mean that Jesus was claiming to be the Father and to be God. As John wrote (John 1:18), no human has ever seen God at any time.

1 Corinthians 8:6 (WEB):

(6) yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.​

"The Father and I are one" John 10:30

"I ask not only on behalf of these but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one" John 17:20-22

You shouldn't just "weigh" it with other Scriptures; it must be in harmony with the rest of the Scriptures.

 

[robert derrick]

To say Jesus walked on water cannot deny that he walked, etc.

Not that is what is called an interesting challenge.

The problem is that something being done to someone, is not the same as someone doing something themselves.

Especially when it comes to be created, and being made something after being.

Nice try though.

I know that you don't accept challenges like I do, so if you want to make more new ones in private, then I'd be glad to see them.

I won't both offering you challenges in turn.

 

[keithr]

"The Father and I are one" John 10:30

"I ask not only on behalf of these but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one" John 17:20-22

You shouldn't just "weigh" it with other Scriptures; it must be in harmony with the rest of the Scriptures.

You don't say it, but I get the impression that you think that those verses are not in harmony with the verses I quoted. How do you harmonise Jesus' words that God is in Jesus, Jesus is in Christians, Christians are in Jesus, and Jesus and Christians are in God, and we are all one, with other verses that say that Jesus is God's only begotten Son, and that Jesus refers to our Father as the only true God and as his God?

Do you think that Jesus being in our Father and Jesus and our Father being one means that Jesus is God? In that case when Jesus is praying to God that Christians would be in our Father and be one with Him, that would mean that Jesus was praying that all Christians would become God too. That doesn't make any sense! To harmonise the Scriptures means you have to find an interpretation of all the Scriptures so that they do not contradict each other. In this case, the interpretation of "we are one" and "they may be one" cannot be interpreted to mean that Jesus is God.

Jesus said, Revelation 3:12 (WEB):

(12) He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will go out from there no more. I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, and my own new name.​

So Jesus will have a new name, different from God's name. Our heavenly Father is our God and Jesus' God. Jesus is not God! Just as Paul wrote, "there is one God, the Father, ... and one Lord, Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 8:6).

 

[Robert Gwin]

Hmmm. There is no "became the Christ" verse. What I cited was the announcment before his birth that he IS the Christ.

The notion of 'becoming' is very Western. See Oswald's Spengler's Decline of the West.

David was anointed king 2 decades before he became - or was crowned - king. Sure, the Christ did not begin his ministry for 3 decades and he obviously lacked God's Spirit until his baptism. However, none of this changes his identity. Having said that Hebrews 1 implies there was a time when he was not the Son of God given "Today" you have become my son implies a time before that day. However, I think that has to do with him being given all authority after the cross.

Given all this happed 2,000 years ago, what is your concern about WHEN he became the Christ?

No concern, would have to follow the conversations back, but I think we understand what Christ means differently sir. Christ simply means anointed. Messiah and Christ are the same word in different languages. Jesus and born again Christians are all anointed with holy spirit and immortal as well Wrangler. Not really a relevant point for salvation, but the Bible is clear about how old Jesus was when he was anointed with holy spirit, and his age when he commenced his work, which coincided. The prophecy in Daniel also pointed to the year 29 CE for the arrival of the Messiah. Dan 9:24-27

 

[Robert Gwin]

Hmmm. I think you know that I am fond of denomination and deny, for the most part, these are false teachers or prophets. My position is the various denominations primarily have a different focus.

For instance, Catholics have a crucifix that has Jesus still on the cross to focus on the sacrifice. Protestants have a plain cross to focus on the resurrection. Not to say there are not doctrinal differences but day-to-day, the difference is focus of the same doctrines. Consider this, Jesus is our lord and Christ regardless of when he was made these things by God. Amen?

That is very true Wrangler. I tend to focus on our salvation however, perhaps I am the one that satan talks about in Job 2, and with my thorns in the flesh that I have, no doubt if I knew for sure that I would definitely not receive the gift that God gives, everlasting life, I would be quite a different person. As I have already lived that life, in my mind I know serving Jehovah is infinitely better, but the desires of the flesh are very strong.

The thing is, while I think it would be nice that God would accept those of all faiths, I know that He only accepts one, and He identifies it beyond any doubt in His word. He expects our obedience, and is clear about what will happen to those who do not obey Him. If someone is teaching something contrary to to what God teaches in His word, especially if they know it is false, why do you think God would forgive them? Over and over we can observe God's displeasure with our disobedience, it has always been a requirement.

 

[Robert Gwin]

I pointed this out to AJ a few months back 1 COR 1:10 is not a command but a lament (I appeal to you). They only reason Paul wrote 'live in harmony with each other. Let there be no divisions in the church. Rather, be of one mind, united in thought and purpose.' is because there was no such thing in the church during the Apostolic age but:

• tension
• division
• different thoughts or focus (seeds of denomination)
• disunity

Isn't this consistent with Christ's words?
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn “’a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--
Mat 10:34-35

Actually Wrangler in most anything there are boundaries, tie that in with 2 Jn 9-11, can you see where it could become an issue sir? Really think about what those verses are saying to us, and I think with your honest heart that you will see the boundaries. Have we discussed where all these "Christian" faiths originated?