Let's study Romans-with Dr. Utley

[face2face]

Nothing wrong in the sentence of Utley-he is concurring WITH you-are you denying the Deity and and pre-existence of Christ Jesus-since Utley Don't.

let's roll the dice.
Johann.

Absolutely Johann!
You have a text that teaches Jesus is of the seed of David, after the flesh and that his Sonship (eternal existence) is based on his resurrection.
Both of these preclude Deity and Pre-existence. You know the injustice one must do to the text to force both of these on Romans 1? You would need to rewrite the entire Gospel!

The two pillars Bob speaks of are not written in Romans.

First pillar - Jesus is the Son of David (Son of Man)
Second pillar - Jesus became the Son of God through suffering and obedience to the Cross and by his resurrection.

Where in Romans 1 is Deity and Pre-existence taught?

 

[Johann]

Absolutely Johann!
You have a text that teaches Jesus is of the seed of David, after the flesh and that his Sonship (eternal existence) is based on his resurrection.
Both of these preclude Deity and Pre-existence. You know the injustice one must do to the text to force both of these on Romans 1? You would need to rewrite the entire Gospel!

The two pillars Bob speaks of are not written in Romans.

First pillar - Jesus is the Son of David (Son of Man)
Second pillar - Jesus became the Son of God through suffering and obedience to the Cross and by his resurrection.

Where in Romans 1 is Deity and Pre-existence taught?

Socinian-Gotcha!

What do Socinians believe?
Socinian | Definition, History, Beliefs, Unitarianism ...
The Socinians referred to themselves as “brethren” and were known by the latter half of the 17th century as “Unitarians” or “Polish Brethren.” They accepted Jesus as God's revelation but still a mere man, divine by office rather than by nature; Socinians thus rejected the doctrine of the Trinity.

Too tired to respond now 2:42 in the morning-Utley is spot on-you are in error.

See you tomorrow.
Johann.

 

[face2face]

Socinian-Gotcha!

What do Socinians believe?
Socinian | Definition, History, Beliefs, Unitarianism ...
The Socinians referred to themselves as “brethren” and were known by the latter half of the 17th century as “Unitarians” or “Polish Brethren.” They accepted Jesus as God's revelation but still a mere man, divine by office rather than by nature; Socinians thus rejected the doctrine of the Trinity.

Too tired to respond now 2:42 in the morning-Utley is spot on-you are in error.

See you tomorrow.
Johann.

In other words, you or he, are unable to show Deity or Pre-existence from Romans 1.
But when you wake, I am going to really enjoy watching you put the twist on Romans 1.
Like I said earlier...I'm well read on your imported doctrine!
Sleep well Johann.

 

[face2face]

Here is another import:

Bob states:

There are three ways to view verses 3 and 4:

(1) as a reference to Jesus’ two natures, human and divine;
(2) as a reference to two stages in His earthly life, human and resurrected Lord;
(3) as a parallel to “Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Robert James Utley, The Gospel according to Paul: Romans, vol. Volume 5 of Study Guide Commentary Series (Marshall, Texas: Bible Lessons International, 1998), Ro 1:4.

Firstly, the reader of Romans 1:1-4 comparing Utley's work must acknowledge that the Holy Scripture is absolutely silent on point (1). Johann, Utleys and all others, can never prove from the Bible two natures. Johann if honest, must acknowledge this truth.

Secondly, I must acknowledge that Utley in stating point (2) has at the least showed integrity in presenting the Lord as the Apostle does in Romans, however, I sense his term "earthly life" infers pre-existence, BUT lets for the moment assume he can see the intent of the writer of Romans as having established Christ's existence in David, and begotten of His Father by resurrection.

The Scripture does not go beyond this plain teaching of Christ being raised up out of the line of David.

One note worthy comment is that Bob goes well beyond Johann on acknowledging there is more to Romans 1:1-4 than point (1).

Lets see if Johann can follow his teachers example.

F2F

 

[face2face]

So lets look at Romans 1 from a Biblical viewpoint.

What is meant by the Apostle stating Christ is of the seed of David after the flesh?

Firstly, the phrase reveals Christs regal inheritance and the one whom God fulfilled the covenant as spoken to David. No person would deny this truth.

As to his nature, the Lords own final words reveals even in his glorified state that he was descended from David." Christ is the "root
and offspring of David" as per Rev 22:16, and confirmed the ancient promise of 2 Sam. 7.

The writer of Romans understood these two elements that Christ's existence is in David; a truth which stands today and something which cannot be said of the One True God.

The writer of Romans also acknowledges the Lords royal descent in relation to the throne of Israel. He alone has the "right" to David's throne, as per Ezek 21:27: Luke 1:30-33.

Something he is yet to do!

So what is Bob unable to prove?

Firstly, the Savior of humanity had to be both Son of Man and Son of God, that he might become "the Word made flesh" and
bring to fruition God's atoning work for the salvation of mankind. Modern philosophers would aim to give Jesus two natures simultaneously so as to maintain Deity - a doctrine nowhere taught.

However,

The man known as Jesus of Nazareth stood, in relation to the Deity, as no other man stood. Being a new creation, God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. This meant that Christ while taking part in sin's flesh, also shared His Father quickness to discern spiritual things.

We understand this uniqueness in Christ from these words:

Isaiah 11:3 And shall make him of quick understanding, and his delight shall be in the reverential and obedient fear of the Lord. And he shall not judge by the sight of his eyes, neither decide by the hearing of His ears; 4 But with righteousness and justice shall he judge the poor and decide with fairness for the meek, the poor, and the downtrodden of the earth; and he shall smite the earth and the oppressor with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of his lips He shall slay the wicked. 5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his waist and faithfulness the girdle of his loins.

This prophecy is key in understanding that the Christ was unique, unmatched, unparalleled....but not Deity.

F2F

 

[face2face]

As a side note to the OP title, it should read "Lets study Romans with the Apostles", as they are the ones who had to authority to teach.

So what did the writer mean when he penned "according to the flesh?"

What do we know as fact!

Jesus humanity came via his birth through Mary (Luke 3:23)
As such he is called "The Son of Man" more so than the Son of God (for good reason!)
His existence is due to David (Matt 1:16) i.e his person and nature.
The covenants of promise gave the assurance he would be "made of a woman" (Gal 4:4)
As such he would be flesh and blood, the same as those he was raised up to save (Heb 2:14-17)
We know death had dominion over Christ during his life (Romans 6:9) this dominion was removed in Christ through his death!
As such he was held in condemnation like those he offered his life to save (Romans 8:1-3) again, condemnation was removed through his death.

Therefore;

Yahweh his Father would "chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes οϊ the children of men" (2 Samuel 7:14; Heb 2:14 & Gen 3:15 crushed heal!)

Christ came in sin's flesh, that sin might be overcome. (Romans 8:1-3) More particularly sin's power Heb 2:14-17

God cannot condemn sin in His Son, if its not present to condemn!

This fact becomes a vital element in Paul's exposition concerning the means whereby we obtain justification with God.

Bob, has not been revealed the wonder in God's victory over sin's flesh, because he has man-made doctrines which get in the way.

F2F

 

[Johann]

In other words, you or he, are unable to show Deity or Pre-existence from Romans 1.
But when you wake, I am going to really enjoy watching you put the twist on Romans 1.
Like I said earlier...I'm well read on your imported doctrine!
Sleep well Johann.

I sense that you are desperate-and did a lot of "working" while I was asleep.

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

Concerning his Son (peri tou huiou autou). Just as Jesus found himself in the O.T. (Luk_24:27, Luk_24:46). The deity of Christ here stated.
According to the flesh (kata sarka). His real humanity alongside of his real deity. For the descent from David see Mat_1:1, Mat_1:6, Mat_1:20; Luk_1:27; Joh_7:42; Act_13:23, etc.
RWS

Scriptural proofs of Christ’s Deity are so abounding as to be beyond the scope of this brief message. Suffice it to say that He is called God (Hebrews 1:8; Matthew 22:44); He claimed to be God (I AM or Jehovah—John 8:24, 56 58, 59; equal with the Father—Matthew 28:19; Mark 14:62; John 10:30, 31, 32; John 14:8, 9; John 17:5; exercised God’s prerogative—Mark 2:5 to 7; Luke 7:48 to 50; omnipresent—Matthew 18:20, omniscient—John 11:11 to 14; Mark 11:6 to 8 omnipotent—Matthew 28:18; Luke 7:14; John 5:21 to 23; John 6:19; divine power over nature—Luke 9:16, 17; John 2:9; John 21:6; Luke 8:24; received human worship due only to God—Matthew 14:33; Matthew 28:9; John 9:38; Matthew 20:28, 29; arose from the dead— Romans 1:4); all of the Bible writers ascribe Deity to Him—Micah 5:2; Isaiah 7:14; Psalm 2:2 to 9; Psalm 45:6, 7; Psalm 110:1, 4; John 1:1, 3, 10; John 20:31; Acts 20:28; Acts 2:36; Romans 9:5; I Corinthians 15:47; Galatians 4:4; Philippians 2:6; Colossians 1:15 to 19; I Timothy 6:15, 16; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 7:3; James 2:1; II Peter 1:17; Revelation 1:8, 17, 18; Revelation 19:16.

Some who claim to believe the Bible teach that because Jesus is called the “only begotten Son” or the “first begotten” that He was born or created of God as the first of His creation and then all else was created by Christ.

To you @F2F-was Jesus a "created being?"

If Christ be but the greatest of creatures, then all of the above scriptures are in error.

Such passages as John 1:14, 18; John 3:16, 18; Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5 I John 4:9; Revelation 1:5; Matthew 1:25; Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15, 18 do not teach that the Son of God came into existence at some point in time, but refer to His position in the Godhead, His humanity, and His resurrection, cf. Hebrews 1:5 and Acts 13:33.

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


Joh 1:15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

Joh 1:16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

Joh 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.


The fact that “all things were created by Him” (Colossians 1:16, 17; John 1:3), excludes the thought that He Himself was created. We bow our knees at the name of Jesus, and confess that He is Lord, to the glory of God the Father; as every one must some day bow and confess Him either as Saviour or Judge (Philippians 2:10, 11).

THE DEITY OF CHRIST FROM THE OT (Micah 5:2)

The two lines from Micah 5:2, "His goings forth are from long ago" and "From the days of eternity," are parallel. The verb, "going forth" (BDB 422, KB 425, Qal imperative) is very common. It was used in Micah eight times:

1. of the Lord's coming in Mic. 1:3

Mic 1:3 For, hinei, Hashem cometh forth out of His dwelling place, and will come down, and tread upon the high places of ha'aretz.
Mic 1:4 And the mountains shall melt under Him, and the valleys shall be split apart, like wax before the eish, and like mayim that are poured down a steep place.
Mic 1:5 Because of the peysha (transgression) of Ya'akov is all this, and because of the chattot Bais Yisroel. What is the peysha of Ya'akov? Is it not Shomron? And what are the high places of Yehudah? Are they not Yerushalayim?

2. of God's law going forth in 4:2

3. of repentant Israel being restored in Mic. 7:9 (i.e., a new exodus, 7:15). It can refer to the Messiah's origin (Genenius, NRSV, NJB) or actions (cf. Mic. 4:4,5a).

These two poetic lines could refer to

1. the pre-existence of the Messiah (cf. Pro. 8:22-31; John 1:1,14-15,30; 8:56-59; 16:28; 17:5,24; 2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:6-7; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3; 10:5-9)


Pro 8:22 YHWHH3068 N-proper-ms Yah·weh יְֽהוָ֗ה possessed meH7069 H8804 V-Qal-Perf-3ms+1cs qā·nā·nî קָ֭נָנִי at the beginningH7225 N-fsc rê·šîṯ רֵאשִׁ֣ית of His way,H1870 N-csc+3ms dar·kōw דַּרְכּ֑וֹ N1 BeforeH6924 N-msc qe·ḏem קֶ֖דֶם His worksH4659 N-mpc+3ms mip̄·‘ā·lāw מִפְעָלָ֣יו from then.H227 Prep-m+Adv mê·’āz מֵאָֽז׃
Pro 8:23 From everlasting,H5769 Prep-m+N-ms mê·‘ō·w·lām מֵ֭עוֹלָם I have been establishedH5258 H8738 V-Nifal-Perf-1cs nis·saḵ·tî נִסַּ֥כְתִּי from the beginning,H7218 Prep-m+N-ms mê·rōš מֵרֹ֗אשׁ before there was everH6924 Prep-m+N-mpc miq·qaḏ·mê- מִקַּדְמֵי־ an earth.H776 N-fs ’ā·reṣ אָֽרֶץ׃

2. a way of referring to famous descendants of the past (i.e., Noah, Abraham, or more probably, David).

This whole verse alludes to a Davidic king, of David's line, from David's hometown. David was viewed as the ideal king.

The term "eternity" (BDB 761) is 'olam.



I think, although there are hints in the OT of an incarnation, the Jewish leaders of Jesus' day were surprised at His claims of equality with God (e.g., Mark 2:5-7; John 1:1-14; 8:58 and Paul, 2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; Phil. 2:6; Titus 2:13). A partial list of OT texts that have been used to assert the full deity of Jesus follows:

1. Ps. 2:7, quoted in Heb. 1:5 (see esp. 1:2-3)

2. Ps. 45:6-7 quoted in Heb. 1:8-9

3. Ps. 110:1 quoted in Heb. 1:13

4. Isa. 9:6; Jer. 23:5-6; Micah 5:2 alluded to in Luke 1:32

5. Dan. 7:13 quoted in Matt. 26:64; Mark14:62

6. Zech. 13:7 quoted in Matt. 26:31; Mark 14:27

7. Mal. 3:1 quoted in Mark 1:1-3; Luke 2:26-27


John 1:1-3 (NASB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

The "Word" here is referring to the Lord Jesus Christ. Notice His deity - "the Word was God." The "beginning" is before all beginnings, prior to the beginning of Genesis 1:1. The phrase could be rendered "from all eternity." John, in this verse, establishes the preexistence of Christ in eternity past. He already "was" when the beginning took place.

This is the corner stone of Christianity-- Jesus Christ is God.

Colossians 1:15-17 (NASB) And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created by Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

The word "firstborn" is the Greek word prototokos, which means: "priority of position," and not origin or time. An English example of this would be the "First Lady." Someone may be first in position without reference to origin or time. The word "image" is eikon, which means: "representation or resemblance." Jesus Christ represents the invisible God.



What say you @F2F? Jesus NOT Deity and never preexist before?

Johann.

 

[Johann]

Lets see if Johann can follow his teachers example.

-as to the dual nature
THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW NATURES
The epistles of Paul have much to say about the conflict continually going on between the old and new natures in the believer. God has a gracious purpose in permitting this conflict and it has its real advantages to the believer; also, abundant provision has been made for spiritual victory in any given case, but before considering all this, let us deal first with the fact of the conflict itself.

Concerning this conflict, the Apostle Paul writes, by inspiration:

“For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would” (Gal. 5:17).

Regarding this conflict in his own personal experience, he writes:

“For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.”

“For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

“But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members” (Rom. 7:19,22,23).

It has been taught by some that we need not experience this continual strife between the old nature and the new. They say: “Get out of the 7th of Romans into the 8th.”

We would remind such that the Apostle Paul wrote Romans 7 and Romans 8 at the same sitting; that in the original the letter goes right on without interruption—without even a chapter division.

Thus the same apostle who exclaims: “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1) refers in the same letter, only a few sentences before, using the present tense, to “the law of sin which IS in my members,” and freely acknowledges the present operation of that law in his members, as we have seen above. How then shall we get out of the 7th of Romans into the 8th?

Paul experienced both at the same time, and so do we, for while we are free from the condemnation of sin, sin itself nevertheless continues to work within us.

It is true indeed that no amount of striving can improve the old Adamic nature, but it is not true that there should be no strife between the old and new natures, otherwise the exhortations not to “yield” to the dictates of the old nature, but to “put off” the deeds of the old man and “mortify,” or put to death, our earthward inclinations, would all be meaningless.

It is a simple fact that the conflict described in Romans 7 is experienced in the life of every believer. Else let those who contend that we should get out of Romans 7 deny it. If they have come to the place where they can consistently do the things that they would;3 where “the law of sin” no longer operates in their members; if in their experience they have been wholly delivered from its captivity; if they need not—up to this very day in their experience—acknowledge: “The good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do”; if they need not cry with Paul: “O wretched man that I am!” if they need not “wait” with Paul “for the hope of [perfect, personal] righteousness by faith,” they should take their stand with those who teach sinless perfection and the eradication of the old nature. If, however, they are not prepared to make these claims, they should acknowledge the naked truth of Galatians 5:17 and Romans 7:22,23.

Should it be asked how we are to be blamed if we “cannot” do the things that we would, we reply that Galatians 5:17 was not written to teach us our helplessness, but rather our utter depravity. The Spirit is always present and willing to bestow needed help, but we are so inherently bad by nature that we never consistently succeed in doing the things that we would. Indeed, the flesh wages constant, relentless war to prevent us from doing them.

It is true that the believer has been made “free from sin” by grace (Rom. 6:14,18); that is, he need not, yea, should not, yield to sin in any given case (Rom. 6:12,13). It is also true that the believer is “free from the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2) for Christ bore the death penalty for him. But no believer is free from the presence of what Paul calls “the law of sin which is in my members;” that is, from the old nature, with its inherent tendency to do wrong. Nor is he free from the conflict with the new nature, which this involves. If we would be truly spiritual and deal in a Scriptural way with the sin that indwells us, we must clearly recognize its presence; we must face the fact that while, praise God, we are no longer “in sin,” sin is still in us, and that though the “old man” is counted as having died with Christ, he is still alive and very active as far as our experience is concerned.

THE BLESSINGS OF THE CONFLICT
But this conflict should not discourage us, for it is one of the sure signs of true salvation. It is unknown to the unbeliever, for only the additional presence of the new nature, along with the old, causes this conflict, for “these are contrary the one to the other.”

If we did not experience this conflict at all it could only mean that we were not saved, for with two natures so utterly incompatible dwelling within, conflict would be inevitable. If we know little of this conflict it can only mean that the old nature, in any of its subtle, deceitful forms, has attained the upper hand, for when the new nature asserts itself, as it should, the old nature is sure to “war” against it all the more fiercely.

But not only is the conflict within us a sure sign of salvation; it also creates within us a deep and necessary sense of our inward corruption, and of the infinite grace of a holy God in saving us and ministering to us daily in helping us to overcome sin. And in turn this again gives us a more understanding approach as we proclaim to the lost the gospel of the grace of God.


Notes:
Even though, as we have shown, it may express itself in an attempt at self-betterment, seeking to control the baser passions, and revelling in religious rites and ceremonies, in ascetic practices or in other substitutes for true spirituality.
The idea in Romans 3:23 is not, as might appear from the Authorized rendering: “All have sinned and have come short of the glory of God,” but “All have sinned and do come short of the glory of God.”
Granting that Galatians 5:17 might be rendered: “to prevent you from doing what you would,” as in R.S.V., the fact still remains that “the law of sin” operates in our members and does hinder us from doing (consistently) what we would.

The Two Natures in the Believer

(As we continue our series on True Spirituality, Pastor Stam effectively addresses the two natures in the believer. The conflict between these two natures explains the present warfare we experience within our members. The lesson that follows is a biblical guide on how to have victory over sin in you

www.bereanbiblesociety.org

 

[Johann]

Socinian-Gotcha!

What do Socinians believe?
Socinian | Definition, History, Beliefs, Unitarianism ...
The Socinians referred to themselves as “brethren” and were known by the latter half of the 17th century as “Unitarians” or “Polish Brethren.” They accepted Jesus as God's revelation but still a mere man, divine by office rather than by nature; Socinians thus rejected the doctrine of the Trinity.

Too tired to respond now 2:42 in the morning-Utley is spot on-you are in error.

See you tomorrow.
Johann.

Rom 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Theirs are the Avot (the Patriarchs), and from them came, in so far as his humanity is concerned, Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach, al hakol hu HaElohim mam’vorach l'Olam va'ed. Omein.


Who is over all, God blessed for ever (ho on epi pantōn theos eulogētos). A clear statement of the deity of Christ following the remark about his humanity. This is the natural and the obvious way of punctuating the sentence. To make a full stop after sarka (or colon) and start a new sentence for the doxology is very abrupt and awkward. See note on Act_20:28 and note on Tit_2:13 for Paul’s use of theos applied to Jesus Christ.
RWS

You need to think on your feet F2F-you deny the Deity and Pre-existence of Christ and that, somehow, Christ was a created being.
But I have answered elsewhere in your attempt to debunk Utley brother-Since you are a Logos user-we can/may use the Greek and Hebrew texts and the grammars?
Johann.

 

[Johann]

Lets see if Johann can follow his teachers example.

I sense a note of "urgency"-again I ask you-why deny the Deity and preexistence of Yeshua?-was He a "created being?"


Jesus and the Angel of YHWH
The New Testament identifies Jesus as the Angel. Remember, an angel is one who is sent without reference to the nature of the one sent.
When 1 Corinthians 10:1 is compared with Exodus 13:21, and Exodus 14:19, 24 the Angel of God, who had been going before the camp of Israel, moved and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud moved from before them and stood behind them. It goes on to say that '...at the morning watch, YHWH looked down on the army of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and cloud...'
Numbers 14:14 says that it was YHWH who was among the people. And Psalm 78:14 says that '...he led them with the cloud by day and all the night with a light of fire.'
It was the Angel who accompanied the nation and the New Testament says that it was the Messiah who accompanied them. He was their spiritual rock. (1 Corinthians 10:4) The association seems clear:
Deuteronomy 32:3-4 and Deuteronomy 32:15, 18

Jude 5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus*, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
* The reading Ἰησοῦς/Jesus [enjoys] ...the strongest support from a variety of early witnesses (e.g., A B 33 81 1241 1739 1881 2344 pc vg co Or1739mg)... The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2005).)

Exodus 12:51 says that YHWH brought the people out of Egypt and yet...

Judges 2:1 says that the Angel of YHWH brought Israel out of Egypt

And 1 Corinthians 10:4-5, 9 says 'all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Messiah. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.... We must not put *Messiah/Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents.'
* Χριστόν (Christon, “Christ”) is attested in the majority of MSS, including many important witnesses of the Alexandrian (46 1739 1881) and Western (D F G) textvtypes, and other MSS and versions (Ψ latt sy co). The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2005).


Numbers 26:65 For YHWH had said of them, “They shall die in the wilderness.” Not one of them was left, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun.

John 8:58

“εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς· Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.” (John 8:58)
הֵשִׁיב לָהֶם יֵשׁוּעַ׃ ״אָמֵן אָמֵן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לָכֶם, בְּטֶרֶם הֱיוֹת אַבְרָהָם, אֲנִי הוּא.<\p>
"So the Judeans said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple." The lead up to his statement is this:

“So they were saying to Him, “Where is Your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither Me nor My Father; if you knew Me, you would know My Father also.”” (John 8:19) “And He was saying to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.” (John 8:23) ““I speak the things which I have seen with My Father; therefore you also do the things which you heard from your father.”” (John 8:38)

Jesus took their statement to another level. Not only had he seen Abraham but he was in existence not just before Abraham (which would read ἤμην - ‘I was’) but eternally ‘ἐγὼ εἰμί’. Notice that their response was to pick up stones to throw at him just as in John 10:31 where we are explicitly told their response was to his perceived blasphemy “For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make yourself out to be God.”

What does Torah say about blasphemy? “‘Moreover, the one who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him...” (Leviticus 24:16).

So in John 8:59 their response to his claim was to try and stone him.

John 8:58 reads '...πρὶν (before) Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι (was/existed) ἐγὼ εἰμί (I myself am/exist).'

The Greek version (LXX) of the Torah (circa 250 BC) translates "אני הוא" in Deuteronomy 32:39 as "‘See now that I am (ἐγώ εἰμι), And there is no god besides Me..." Isaiah 41:4 "‘I, יהוה , am the first, and with the last. I am he (ἐγώ εἰμι)’ "

And Isaiah 43:10 reads

““You are My witnesses,” declares יהוה, “And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He (ἐγώ εἰμι)...”
Compare this with the words of Jesus to John in Revelation 1:7:

"When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am (ἐγώ εἰμι) the first and the last..."
Revelation 22:13, 16

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end... I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."
Also Isaiah 43:13, 46:4, 48:12. Isaiah 52:6 is interesting because there יהוה says:

"Therefore my people will know my name in that day. For I am (ἐγώ εἰμι/אני הוא), behold I, the one speaking."
There appears to be a subtle pointer here to Exodus 3:14.

In John 10:28-30 we read:

“...I give eternal life to them... and no one will snatch them out of my hand... and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. “I and the Father are one.”
Jesus claims to give eternal life and then puts himself on a par with the Father.

“The Judeans picked up stones again to stone him... “For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy; and because you, being a man, make yourself out to be God.”
Notice it says they picked up stones again. John is referring back to John 8:59 and so tying the charge for both occasions. What did they see as the blasphemy then as well as on this occasion? Claiming deity.

"Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?"
Many interpret Jesus’ words as directed towards human rulers but a reading of the source, Psalm 82 shows that he is referring to the divine council in heaven who were judged for injustice (to whom the word of God came). If that is the case then what Jesus is asserting is that Tanakh describes the divine council as ‘gods’ and so he too is God but not merely of the created heavenly class but as ontologically one with the uncreated, all powerful Most High Father. “If I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe me; but if I do them, though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

He is not just elohim but, as stated in John 5, the unique Son of God.

“Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp.” (John 10:28–39)
They knew what he was claiming and that’s why they continued to try and take him.

Here is Psalm 82 “Elohim takes His stand in the divine assembly (עדת-אל); He judges in the midst of the gods (אלהים). How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? ...I said, “You are gods (אלהים אתם), And all of you are sons of the Most High. “Nevertheless you will die like men (כאדם תמותון) And fall like any one of the princes.”

Key points:

Not a hint of the Law of Moses, of Sinai, the nation or Torah, in the Psalm. Jesus points to the Tanakh’s acknowledgement of the existence of other elohim (also called malakhim and ‘sons of elohim’) in the heavenly court. There are divine beings in the Tanakh but only one eternal Elohim who is יהוה and Jesus is one with this Elohim who is both יהוה and Father. The other implication is that he is Lord of this heavenly council. The Tanakh points to one who is Angel and yet God.

Some interpret certain uses of elohim as meaning human judges but Heisler asserts, "However, neither judges nor elders are found in Exodus 21, and the Old Testament never uses the term elohim for human leaders anywhere else. Many presume that Exodus 18 refers to the elders as elohim, but the text never makes that equation. Elohim there refers, as usual, to God. A comparison of Exodus 21:1–6 (אֶל־הָ֣אֱלֹהִ֔ים) with its parallel in Deuteronomy 15:12–18 further weakens this argument." (Michael S. Heiser, The Bible Unfiltered: Approaching Scripture on Its Own Terms (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2017), 63.) “The Jewish authorities got the message, too—they charged him with blasphemy. Now ask yourself, why would they do that if all Jesus was saying was “you mortal Jews get to call yourselves sons of God, and אלהים, so I can, too.” That makes no sense at all.”

Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, First Edition. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015)

 

[face2face]

I sense that you are desperate-and did a lot of "working" while I was asleep.

No it only took a minute or two.

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

Concerning his Son (peri tou huiou autou). Just as Jesus found himself in the O.T. (Luk_24:27, Luk_24:46). The deity of Christ here stated.
According to the flesh (kata sarka). His real humanity alongside of his real deity. For the descent from David see Mat_1:1, Mat_1:6, Mat_1:20; Luk_1:27; Joh_7:42; Act_13:23, etc.
RWS

Check out your contradiction - you state the man according to the Flesh is Deity as though God were flesh and not Spirit.
Your commentaries wont help you Johann.

Scriptural proofs of Christ’s Deity are so abounding as to be beyond the scope of this brief message. Suffice it to say that He is called God (Hebrews 1:8; Matthew 22:44); He claimed to be God (I AM or Jehovah—John 8:24, 56 58, 59; equal with the Father—Matthew 28:19; Mark 14:62; John 10:30, 31, 32; John 14:8, 9; John 17:5; exercised God’s prerogative—Mark 2:5 to 7; Luke 7:48 to 50; omnipresent—Matthew 18:20, omniscient—John 11:11 to 14; Mark 11:6 to 8 omnipotent

Ah right, I was waiting for you to leave Romans 1 quickly!

Some who claim to believe the Bible teach that because Jesus is called the “only begotten Son” or the “first begotten” that He was born or created of God as the first of His creation and then all else was created by Christ.

To you @F2F-was Jesus a "created being?"

Correct - the Lord is a New Creation - the firstfruits from the dead.

If Christ be but the greatest of creatures, then all of the above scriptures are in error.

Or, as your commentaries are proving they are ALL abused text by grubby mens hands!

Such passages as John 1:14, 18; John 3:16, 18; Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5 I John 4:9; Revelation 1:5; Matthew 1:25; Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15, 18 do not teach that the Son of God came into existence at some point in time, but refer to His position in the Godhead, His humanity, and His resurrection, cf. Hebrews 1:5 and Acts 13:33.

This is rubbish Johann! even Bob states clearly Jesus became the Son of God by his resurrection.

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


Joh 1:15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

Joh 1:16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

Joh 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.


The fact that “all things were created by Him” (Colossians 1:16, 17; John 1:3), excludes the thought that He Himself was created. We bow our knees at the name of Jesus, and confess that He is Lord, to the glory of God the Father; as every one must some day bow and confess Him either as Saviour or Judge (Philippians 2:10, 11).

No sorry, no pre existence taught in any of those text - let me help you Johann. Instead of copying and pasting hundreds of verses with false interpreative notes, why dont you pick one verse - lets say Romans 1:4

and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power[a] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Couple of things here Johann:

God does not appoint God.
God is not raised from the dead
God is not approved by his own Spirit.

You know your position is illogical on all levels.

Talk to me about God being declared or appointed God?

THE DEITY OF CHRIST FROM THE OT (Micah 5:2)

The two lines from Micah 5:2, "His goings forth are from long ago" and "From the days of eternity," are parallel. The verb, "going forth" (BDB 422, KB 425, Qal imperative) is very common. It was used in Micah eight times:

You know Johann I once thought you had a degree of honesty about you but forcing the Deity of Christ on Micah 5:2 is shameful.

1. of the Lord's coming in Mic. 1:3

Mic 1:3 For, hinei, Hashem cometh forth out of His dwelling place, and will come down, and tread upon the high places of ha'aretz.
Mic 1:4 And the mountains shall melt under Him, and the valleys shall be split apart, like wax before the eish, and like mayim that are poured down a steep place.
Mic 1:5 Because of the peysha (transgression) of Ya'akov is all this, and because of the chattot Bais Yisroel. What is the peysha of Ya'akov? Is it not Shomron? And what are the high places of Yehudah? Are they not Yerushalayim?

Youre not serious Johann? Mic 1:3-5 also - is no Scripture safe from you?
Where in these verses is the Deity of Christ taught?
If this is what you base your complext doctrines on you should most defininately abandon your commentaries and heed to Word of Truth.

2. of God's law going forth in 4:2

3. of repentant Israel being restored in Mic. 7:9 (i.e., a new exodus, 7:15). It can refer to the Messiah's origin (Genenius, NRSV, NJB) or actions (cf. Mic. 4:4,5a).

These two poetic lines could refer to

1. the pre-existence of the Messiah (cf. Pro. 8:22-31; John 1:1,14-15,30; 8:56-59; 16:28; 17:5,24; 2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:6-7; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3; 10:5-9)

This is just embarrasing - talk about being puffed up - I know, I'll string a bunch of quote references together to make it appear like I know what I'm talking about.

2. a way of referring to famous descendants of the past (i.e., Noah, Abraham, or more probably, David).

This whole verse alludes to a Davidic king, of David's line, from David's hometown. David was viewed as the ideal king.

The term "eternity" (BDB 761) is 'olam.

Nothing here!

1. Ps. 2:7, quoted in Heb. 1:5 (see esp. 1:2-3)

2. Ps. 45:6-7 quoted in Heb. 1:8-9

3. Ps. 110:1 quoted in Heb. 1:13

4. Isa. 9:6; Jer. 23:5-6; Micah 5:2 alluded to in Luke 1:32

5. Dan. 7:13 quoted in Matt. 26:64; Mark14:62

6. Zech. 13:7 quoted in Matt. 26:31; Mark 14:27

7. Mal. 3:1 quoted in Mark 1:1-3; Luke 2:26-27

Ah more of the same - Johann give me something that demonstrates your Deity from Romans 1?

John 1:1-3 (NASB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

The "Word" here is referring to the Lord Jesus Christ. Notice His deity - "the Word was God." The "beginning" is before all beginnings, prior to the beginning of Genesis 1:1. The phrase could be rendered "from all eternity." John, in this verse, establishes the preexistence of Christ in eternity past. He already "was" when the beginning took place.

This is the corner stone of Christianity-- Jesus Christ is God.

Colossians 1:15-17 (NASB) And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created by Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

The word "firstborn" is the Greek word prototokos, which means: "priority of position," and not origin or time. An English example of this would be the "First Lady." Someone may be first in position without reference to origin or time. The word "image" is eikon, which means: "representation or resemblance." Jesus Christ represents the invisible God.



What say you @F2F? Jesus NOT Deity and never preexist before?

Johann.

Look Johann, I'll let you regather yourself and show an understanding from Romans 1 that the writer is speaking about the Deity of Christ and his pre existence.

So far your machine gun approach isnt working for you.

F2F

 

[face2face]

Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, First Edition. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015)

Yep...says it all Johann....do you have Michael's contact details, maybe he can defend his own thoughts?

 

[Johann]

No it only took a minute or two.


Check out your contradiction - you state the man according to the Flesh is Deity as though God were flesh and not Spirit.
Your commentaries wont help you Johann.


Ah right, I was waiting for you to leave Romans 1 quickly!


Correct - the Lord is a New Creation - the firstfruits from the dead.


Or, as your commentaries are proving they are ALL abused text by grubby mens hands!



This is rubbish Johann! even Bob states clearly Jesus became the Son of God by his resurrection.


No sorry, no pre existence taught in any of those text - let me help you Johann. Instead of copying and pasting hundreds of verses with false interpreative notes, why dont you pick one verse - lets say Romans 1:4

and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power[a] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Couple of things here Johann:

God does not appoint God.
God is not raised from the dead
God is not approved by his own Spirit.

You know your position is illogical on all levels.

Talk to me about God being declared or appointed God?



You know Johann I once thought you had a degree of honesty about you but forcing the Deity of Christ on Micah 5:2 is shameful.




Youre not serious Johann? Mic 1:3-5 also - is no Scripture safe from you?
Where in these verses is the Deity of Christ taught?
If this is what you base your complext doctrines on you should most defininately abandon your commentaries and heed to Word of Truth.


This is just embarrasing - talk about being puffed up - I know, I'll string a bunch of quote references together to make it appear like I know what I'm talking about.



Nothing here!

Ah more of the same - Johann give me something that demonstrates your Deity from Romans 1?


Look Johann, I'll let you regather yourself and show an understanding from Romans 1 that the writer is speaking about the Deity of Christ and his pre existence.

So far your machine gun approach isnt working for you.

F2F

Machine gun approach? Why are you denying the Deity of Christ and His preexistence and that Christ was a mere created being?

Answer me on this-I want to make short work with you.
Johann.

 

[face2face]

While Johann is working out which theologian he'll paste next, lets look at Romans 1:4

and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

The word here is "horizo" from the Greek to appoint which most of the newer translations use. The idea is "to be bound, to fix limits as to a field, to determine proper boundaries." We get the English word "horizon" .

I stress this point as being absolutely pivitol in understanding the New Creation in Christ Jesus. The sonship of Christ was absolutely established by his resurrection to immortality.

It's in blue because all the Apostles believed this to be true - the man Jesus became the Son of God through suffering and resurrection to Glory.

Many denied his sonship as in John 8:41 in spite of his obvious holiness in manifesting his Fathers Spirit Power. But the empty tomb, and the risen Lord set aside all doubts (Read John 20:28; Acts 2:32).

It was God will and determinent council that He would overshadow his Son and grant him Eternal Life having not pre-existed in any form before.

Romans 1:4 is not Deity or Pre Existent language but rather teaches the New Creation which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[face2face]

Machine gun approach?
Johann.

Go back and take a look at your posts and tell me you are not shooting hundreds of verses out of total desperation to prove the unproveable.

 

[face2face]

The other issue Johann has with Romans 1:4 is the exalted position Jesus is given due to his obedience.

and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power[a] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

This significant title relates to Jesus' exalted position as the Second Adam ( 1 Corinthians 15:45),

Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being";the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 1 Corinthians 15:45

Two problems here for you Johann - God is NOT the last Adam! AND.... God does not become a life giving spirit!

HE (Yahweh) IS SPIRIT!!!

Jesus is spoken of as the "beginning of the new creation of God" (Rev. 3:14).

How can Christ be exalted if he is already Deity?
How can Christ be given a name and inheritence if he was always Deity?
How can Christ be given a name when he was always Deity?

Romans 1:4 cmp 1 Corinthians 215:45 = Jesus Christ becoming the Son of God by his ressurection from the dead. He became the Word of Life; he became the life giving spirit; he became the Word made flesh....none of these things can speak to One who was always these things.

Became = New Creation - Jesus has a beginning and and end and NOW lives for evermore.

F2F

 

[Johann]

Go back and take a look at your posts and tell me you are not shooting hundreds of verses out of total desperation to prove the unproveable.

I have proven-from Scripture-the Deity AND preexistence of Christ Jesus-and that Jesus was NOT a created being-you are not trying to discredit me-but the very Scriptures.

This is not a dialogue-this is a personal attack.

How much you try to "jika" left and right-why are you trying to debunk the Deity and pre-existence of Christ?
Do you believe Christ was a "created being?"

I am not the one getting desperate-you are-and keep your personal attacks and emotions in check.
Johann.

 

[face2face]

I have proven-from Scripture-the Deity AND preexistence of Christ Jesus-and that Jesus was NOT a created being-you are not trying to discredit me-but the very Scriptures.

What you have done is assigned imported doctrines on verses.

This is not a dialogue-this is a personal attack.

Why dont you speak to Romans as per your OP?

How much you try to "jika" left and right-why are you trying to debunk the Deity and pre-existence of Christ?
Do you believe Christ was a "created being?"

Johann, read Romans 1:4 - the writer is teaching you plainly!

I am not the one getting desperate-you are-and keep your personal attacks and emotions in check.
Johann.

No, I'm responding to your copy and pasting hundreds of verse references full well knowing you have not looked at them - where is your sincerity?

I'm calling it as I see it.

F2F

 

[face2face]

The other issue Johann has with Romans 1:4 is the exalted position Jesus is given due to his obedience.

and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power[a] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

This significant title relates to Jesus' exalted position as the Second Adam ( 1 Corinthians 15:45),

Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being";the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 1 Corinthians 15:45

Two problems here for you Johann - God is NOT the last Adam! AND.... God does not become a life giving spirit!

HE (Yahweh) IS SPIRIT!!!

Jesus is spoken of as the "beginning of the new creation of God" (Rev. 3:14).

How can Christ be exalted if he is already Deity?
How can Christ be given a name and inheritence if he was always Deity?
How can Christ be given a name when he was always Deity?

Romans 1:4 cmp 1 Corinthians 215:45 = Jesus Christ becoming the Son of God by his ressurection from the dead. He became the Word of Life; he became the life giving spirit; he became the Word made flesh....none of these things can speak to One who was always these things.

Became = New Creation - Jesus has a beginning and and end and NOW lives for evermore.

F2F

You and I both know you have major problems with your man-made doctrines, because I know the Apostle Paul never thought the God of Israel, was the last Adam who became a life giving spirit. The Apostle fully understood Jesus as the New Creation in which all others have the promise of the same resurrection to eternal life.

@Johann I implore you to use Scripture to define the exalted Christ and I promise you you will never arive at Deity or Pre Existence.

F2F

 

[face2face]

Notice how the writer of Romans 1:4 states Jesus as the Son of God "with power"

Who gave him the possession of the Holy Spirit "without measure" John 3:34 & Matthew 28:18

Yes, his Heavenly Father.

By it, the Master manifested miracles, authenticated his claim of being the Son of God (John 5:36).

But again, nothing in that teaches Deity or Pre-existence - it only reveals the One exalting the son is the Father - the possessor of all Power and Authority in Heaven and Earth.

F2F