For what reason was Jesus to be called the Son of God?

[Matthias]

What is so hard about this?

Let’s try this: There was a time when the Son of God did not exist. He began to exist circa 6 BC when he was miraculously created by the God of the Jews - his God and Father - in the womb of the virgin.

That is the theology of Jewish monotheism.

 

[PS95]

No.

So you are now saying that you are like a Christadelphian like Trevor? The Word who became flesh was not Jesus?

I have.

if you say so. It's like pulling teeth!

My creed is simple. It is the Messiah’s creed; the creed of Judaism. The God of Israel is the Father alone.

I see. The Son of God is merely a man like you... who was an it.
incredible.

How many persons do you see in John’s prologue?

I see 2 but one God. and that is what John says.

I was raised believing that the Son of God is literally God. I was raised trinitarian.

Sounds like an odd church without clear understanding. People who don't think would say that without clarifying it.

I suppose your point is that sometimes say and believe they are trinitarian when in fact they aren’t. If someone self-identifies as trinitarian but says the Son of God isn’t literally God then such a person in fact isn’t a trinitarian.

What I said was they need to clarify. I don't know what you said or how you made them feel that caused them to say it that way. I wasnt there. I mean , you guys are very accusatory over this teaching. It's as if nothing else matters. how about obeying and loving and making peace. OR do you see the early church as one with perfect unity? I sure don't! yet they did not divide into 400000 churches.
remember--
all it takes is 2 or 3 to be gathered in HIS name and He is with us. JESUS said that. Does that mean that GOD isn't there?
stop the divisiveness!

 

[Matthias]

So you are now saying that you are like a Christadelphian like Trevor? The Word who became flesh was not Jesus?

I’m not a Christadelphian but that is something which I have in common with the Christadelphians. I’ve said it all along.

if you say so. It's like pulling teeth!

It isn’t for people who have been reading my posts for a while.

I see.

I don’t think you do.

The Son of God is merely a man like you... who was an it.
incredible.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again -> At no time has the Son of God ever been an it.

I see 2 but one God. and that is what John says.

Thanks. Some trinitarians tell me they see 3 but one God. That isn’t what John said.

I’m a Jewish monotheist. So is John. We see only 1 person and that person is the Father. That is what John says.

Do you still think we have the same result?

Sounds like an odd church without clear understanding. People who don't think would say that without clarifying it.

Southern Baptist.

What I said was they need to clarify.

No true trinitarian needs to clarify that he or she believes the Son of God is literally God. It is what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches.

I don't know what you said or how you made them feel that caused them to say it that way.

Let‘s set the trinitarians aside for a minute. Do you believe or do you not believe that the Son of God is literally God?

I wasnt there. I mean , you guys are very accusatory over this teaching.

Returning now to the trinitarians: Do you think they are or aren’t “very accusatory over this teaching”?

It's as if nothing else matters.

That’s not even remotely the case with me, but let me ask you this: Do you say the same thing about the trinitarians?

how about obeying and loving and making peace.

Have you asked this of the trinitarians?

OR do you see the early church as one with perfect unity?

That depends on how early we’re talking about in church history. The earliest followers of Jesus were in perfect unity with him about who his and their God is.

I sure don't! yet they did not divide into 400000 churches.
remember--

Nevertheless, apostasy set in early.

all it takes is 2 or 3 to be gathered in HIS name and He is with us. JESUS said that.

In spirit.

Does that mean that GOD isn't there?

His God is present everywhere.

stop the divisiveness!

Stop putting together things which don’t belong together.

 

[PS95]

I’m not a Christadelphian but that is something which I have in common with the Christadelphians. I’ve said it all along.

It isn’t for people who have been reading my posts for a while.
Not at all.

Thanks. Some trinitarians tell me they see 3 but one God. That isn’t what John said.

I’m a Jewish monotheist. So is John. We see only 1 person and that person is the Father. That is what John says.

Do you still think we have the same result?

Southern Baptist.
No true trinitarian needs to clarify that he or she believes the Son of God is literally God. It is what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches.
Let‘s set the trinitarians aside for a minute. Do you believe or do you not believe that the Son of God is literally God?
Returning now to the trinitarians: Do you think they are or aren’t “very accusatory over this teaching”?
That’s not even remotely the case with me, but let me ask you this: Do you say the same thing about the trinitarians?
Have you asked this of the trinitarians?
That depends on how early we’re talking about in church history. The earliest followers of Jesus were in perfect unity with him about who his and their God is.
Nevertheless, apostasy set in early.
In spirit.
His God is present everywhere.
Stop putting together things which don’t belong together.

Finally, there it is. No, you have not been forthcoming with me, but I thank you for the answer this time. I spoke of the Word becoming flesh countless times. Perhaps I missed something.
Now, I see that you actually reject John 1 where he spoke that the Word of God who became flesh and dwelt among us whom he touched = Jesus. Wow.
You once held to that teaching as a Baptist and now reject it. Something so simple and so beautiful as John 1? That's really sad to me.
I could not have explained it any clearer even while not knowing that you did not believe it, although I sensed a major disconnect in your basic Christology. I never asked a Christadelphian much after learning that many yrs ago. Why would I? To me it's not a question. It says what it says. The word became flesh and dwelt among us full of grace and truth.
What the heck could that be other than JESUS? Don't tell me. I don't want to know, I have had enough toxic teachings in my early life.
Matt- if this comes down to John's prologue in pre1611 bibles, this gentlemen can help. He is an expert. His Greek far exceeds little old me. He is KJV only but don't let that bother you. --Steven Avery

https://linktr.ee/stevenavery

and you can also speak to him on this forum-
Pure Bible Forum (and see www.sinaiticus.net )

 

[Matthias]

Finally, there it is. No, you have not been forthcoming with me, but I thank you for the answer this time.

I‘ve been forthcoming with everyone from the very beginning. Even if someone ignores every thread that I’ve started or posted in except this one - if this thread alone is the only thread of mine anyone has ever read - it should be obvious from the second post on what I believe. Conception is causation.

I spoke of the Word becoming flesh countless times. Perhaps I missed something.
Now, I see that you actually reject John 1 where he spoke that the Word of God who became flesh and dwelt among us whom he touched = Jesus. Wow.

I don’t reject John 1. I read John 1 through the eyes of the writer. The writer is a Jewish monotheist.

You once held to that teaching as a Baptist and now reject it.

I was once a trinitarian and now reject trinitarianism. That isn’t at all the same thing as rejecting John 1. I understand John 1 differently now than I did when I was a trinitarian.

Something so simple and so beautiful as John 1?

It’s more simple and more beautiful than you think it is.

That's really sad to me.

You’re sad over something which you’ve constructed in your mind about me.

I could not have explained it any clearer …

You muddied the waters when you suggested that trinitarians don’t believe the Son of God is literally God.

… even while not knowing that you did not believe it, although I sensed a major disconnect in your basic Christology.

I’ve repeated ad nauseam that I’m a Jewish monotheist. No one should ever be in doubt that there is a major disconnect between the Christology of Jewish monotheists and the Christology of trinitarians (and others).

I never asked a Christadelphian much after learning that many yrs ago. Why would I? To me it's not a question. It says what it says. The word became flesh and dwelt among us full of grace and truth.
What the heck could that be other than JESUS? Don't tell me. I don't want to know, I have had enough toxic teachings in my early life.

I told you very early on in our conversation that the result is not the same.

Matt- if this comes down to John's prologue in pre1611 bibles, this gentlemen can help. He is an expert. His Greek far exceeds little old me. He is KJV only but don't let that bother you. --Steven Avery

https://linktr.ee/stevenavery

and you can also speak to him on this forum-
Pure Bible Forum (and see www.sinaiticus.net )

Thanks. I’ve never spoken with him but I have spoken with people whose credentials are greater than his. I was raised KJVO, and I now reject that too.

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings PS95 and Matthias,

So you are now saying that you are like a Christadelphian like Trevor? The Word who became flesh was not Jesus?

I have been following this thread and did not see the need to get involved, but then noticed that I came in for special mention. To tidy up: Yes, I believe that The Word in John 1:1 is a personification similar to the Wise Woman Wisdom in Proverbs 8 who was with Yahweh, God the Father in the creation. I also like to quote the following where there is to some extent a partial personification of God's spoken word:

Psalm 33:6–9 (KJV): 6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Isaiah 55:8–11 (KJV): 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

I like to consider John 1:14 in the light of Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34:35 which speak of the conception and birth of Jesus:

John 1:14 (KJV): 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.

Matthew 1:20–21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Luke 1:30–35 (KJV): 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

There was a time when the Son of God did not exist. He began to exist circa 6 BC when he was miraculously created by the God of the Jews - his God and Father - in the womb of the virgin.

I endorse this statement as being a good summary of Luke 1:34-35. So to me this is simple and clear and helps to explain the term "only begotten of the Father" in John 1:14.

Another area of the Trinitarian and JW view (@Aunty Jane) that I find difficult, is as to how a pre-existent immortal being became infused into the womb of Mary and what was the product from both the Trinitarian and JW views. Was he a God-man with two minds, was he an Angel-man with two minds. Again I resort to the simple clear language of Luke, he was a human child that had one mind and he needed to grow in wisdom and understanding:

Luke 2:40,52 (KJV): 40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

“The fact is the two ideas - preexistence and Virginal birth - cannot be reconciled. A Preexistent person who becomes man reduces himself, if you will, to the state of human embryo; but he is not conceived by action exterior to himself in the womb of a woman. But conception is the point at which an individual is formed, who did not exist before, at least as an individual.”
(Albert Reville, History of the Dogma of Jesus Christ, p. 43)

I also like the following statements from his book.
Speaking of the developments in the second century:

Page 54: … the ‘celestial being’ increasingly supplanted the human being, except among the Jewish-Christians of the primitive type … These firmly maintained the opinion that Jesus was a man, … fully inspired by God … admitted his miraculous conception.

Page 59: The Platonists began to furnish brilliant recruits to the churches of Asia and Greece, and introduced among them their love of system and their idealism. To state the facts in a few words, Hellenism insensibly supplanted Judaism as the form of Christian thought, and to this is mainly owing the orthodox dogma of the deity of Jesus Christ.

Page 60: Hence the rapidity with which a philosophical doctrine of much earlier origin than Christianity, and at first foreign to the Church, was brought into it, and adapted itself so completely to the prevailing Christology as to become identical therewith, and to pass for the belief which had been professed by the disciples from the beginning.

Page 96: There were some Jewish-Christians who admitted without difficulty the miraculous birth of Jesus, but would not hear of his pre-existence.

Do you have any documentation of the teachings of this group which he labels primitive Jewish Christians?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Matthias]

Greetings PS95 and Matthias,

I have been following this thread and did not see the need to get involved, but then noticed that I came in for special mention. To tidy up: Yes, I believe that The Word in John 1:1 is a personification similar to the Wise Woman Wisdom in Proverbs 8 who was with Yahweh, God the Father in the creation. I also like to quote the following where there is to some extent a partial personification of God's spoken word:

Psalm 33:6–9 (KJV): 6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Isaiah 55:8–11 (KJV): 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

I like to consider John 1:14 in the light of Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34:35 which speak of the conception and birth of Jesus:

John 1:14 (KJV): 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.

Matthew 1:20–21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Luke 1:30–35 (KJV): 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

I endorse this statement as being a good summary of Luke 1:34-35. So to me this is simple and clear and helps to explain the term "only begotten of the Father" in John 1:14.

It’s not my preferred way but I hold that personification is a valid way of reading John’s prologue.

Another area of the Trinitarian and JW view (@Aunty Jane) that I find difficult, is as to how a pre-existent immortal being became infused into the womb of Mary and what was the product from both the Trinitarian and JW views. Was he a God-man with two minds, was he an Angel-man with two minds. Again I resort to the simple clear language of Luke, he was a human child that had one mind and he needed to grow in wisdom and understanding:

Luke 2:40,52 (KJV): 40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

I also like the following statements from his book.
Speaking of the developments in the second century:

Page 54: … the ‘celestial being’ increasingly supplanted the human being, except among the Jewish-Christians of the primitive type … These firmly maintained the opinion that Jesus was a man, … fully inspired by God … admitted his miraculous conception.

Page 59: The Platonists began to furnish brilliant recruits to the churches of Asia and Greece, and introduced among them their love of system and their idealism. To state the facts in a few words, Hellenism insensibly supplanted Judaism as the form of Christian thought, and to this is mainly owing the orthodox dogma of the deity of Jesus Christ.

Page 60: Hence the rapidity with which a philosophical doctrine of much earlier origin than Christianity, and at first foreign to the Church, was brought into it, and adapted itself so completely to the prevailing Christology as to become identical therewith, and to pass for the belief which had been professed by the disciples from the beginning.

Page 96: There were some Jewish-Christians who admitted without difficulty the miraculous birth of Jesus, but would not hear of his pre-existence.

Do you have any documentation of the teachings of this group which he labels primitive Jewish Christians?

Kind regards
Trevor

Thomas E. Gaston discusses Jewish Christians who believed in the virgin birth and rejected literal preexistence in his book Dynamic Monarchianism: The Earliest Christology?.

The problem - which Dr. Gaston discusses - is that they are lumped in by ancient writers with Jewish Christians who didn’t believe in the virgin birth and rejected literal preexistence under the general title “Ebionites”. I think he does a good job tracing them and would recommend his book to you.

 

[Matthias]

@TrevorHL I’m providing a link for you (and anyone else who might be interested) to a lecture on Dynamic Monarchianism given by Dr. Gaston at a UCA conference last year.

I’m not a member of UCA but I personally know many who are. I’m a Dynamic Monarchian, but not an Adoptionist.

I‘ve only watched a few minutes of the lecture, and only just this morning, but I think you will find it interesting. He provides a summary of his book in the lecture.

 

[Matthias]

My mind keeps returning this morning to my conversation with PS95. I can’t with a clear conscience join UCA because of the big tent approach that it takes. I‘ve made it known in other threads that I don’t agree with the majority of unitarians and won’t be yoked with them.

Conscientious objection prevents me from joining with Arians, Sabellians, Adoptionists, etc. but many of my friends, colleagues and acquaintances have. It grieves my spirit.

“Stop the divisiveness” - a UCA tenet to rally support for unitarianism. I’ve counted the cost of uniting with other unitarian Christologies and determined that it is too high.

Jesus himself is a specific type of unitarian. He’s a Jewish monotheist. He’s not, for example, an Arian.

”Stop the divisiveness!” - PS95

Unwilling and unable to compromise with the unitarians, how can I compromise with the trinitarians and the binitarians? I don’t ask them to compromise with me.

Love and live peacefully with trinitarians, binitarians and unitarians? Yes, I’m willing and able to do that.

”Stop putting together things which don’t belong together.” - My response to my friends, colleagues and acquaintances who have joined UCA, and to PS95.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Another area of the Trinitarian and JW view (@Aunty Jane) that I find difficult, is as to how a pre-existent immortal being became infused into the womb of Mary and what was the product from both the Trinitarian and JW views. Was he a God-man with two minds, was he an Angel-man with two minds.

He was neither…..Jesus was a spirit being in heaven, and a human whilst on earth. He returned to heaven as a spirit.…”put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit”. (1 Pet 3:18)

Since Jesus had to be an exact equivalent of Adam to atone for our sins, he could not be an immortal as immortals cannot die. Atonement means “at-one-ment” or one for one….equivalency. An immortal being offered as the atonement for the sins of a mortal is not equal for justice to be served.

God’s angelic sons were not created immortal because that means that they cannot be punished with death….yet that is what awaits all enemies of God. God can take away their lives, but like us, they originally had no natural cause of death….we humans were designed to live in mortal flesh right here on earth forever. God provided the means, but as soon as the humans succumbed to Satan’s deception, that means was taken away from them. (Gen 3:22-24)

Jesus pre-existed in heaven as God’s “firstborn”…his “only begotten son”…the only direct creation of the Father alone…..all other creation came into existence by means of the son (Col 1:15-17; John 1:2-4)…..he was God’s “master workman“ of Proverbs 8:30-31.…the “us” and “our” in Gen 1:26. His life force was transferred to the womb of the woman whom the Father chose to bring his son into the world as a human.
God and his son are two separate individuals.

Why is that such a stretch of the imagination when God is the Creator of all things……?

Again I resort to the simple clear language of Luke, he was a human child that had one mind and he needed to grow in wisdom and understanding:

Luke 2:40,52 (KJV): 40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Yes he did….and he fulfilled the role of redeemer willingly because of his special bond with humankind, as the one God used to bring them into existence.

We know that angels had the ability to materialize human bodies when bringing messages or instructions from God to his earthly servants….but Jesus needed to be 100% human, so this required him to have a human conception and birth…..he didn’t just materialize and offer his teachings to the Jews….and allow his manufactured body to be sacrificed…..he was one of them, as it was prophesied that he would be born of a virgin in the little town of Bethlehem and his lineage was sound as both his parents were of the tribe of Judah, as descendants of King David….that was never challenged.

He grew up in a typical Jewish family with at least 6 siblings…..familiarity was the reason why they did not put faith in him at first. People in his home town reacted the same way. He was just the carpenter’s son.
Only after his death and resurrection did his siblings finally come to see who he really was. He was not that different from his siblings, but I’m sure he never got sick or misbehaved, having not been born with a sinful nature. Mary knew all along, but was obviously a widow by the time Jesus took up his ministry.….but he was just their older brother…..imagine how they must have felt to finally realize who Jesus was and they had known him all their lives!

 

[Matthias]

“… the begetting is not quasi-sexual as if God takes the place of a male principle in mating with Mary. There is more of a connotation of creativity. … Mary is a virgin who has not known man, and therefore the child is totally God’s work - a new creation.”

(Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, p. 314)

”I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth.”

(The Apostles’ Creed)

Just as the Father is the cause of the old creation, he is the cause of the new creation. The child is the beginning of the new creation.

 

[Matthias]

Matthew and Luke are grounded on conception Christology.

The question that should be asked: Did John intend to overturn the conception Christology of Matthew and Luke?

 

[marks]

that Jesus of Nazareth (himself a Jewish monotheist) is the Messiah, the Son of the living God;

John 13:1-4 KJV
1) Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.
2) And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;
3) Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;
4) He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.

John 17:5 KJV
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.'

John 1:1-2 KJV
1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2) The same was in the beginning with God.
=

I don't wish to use the words that would express how I feel about someone malappropriating "Jesus' belief" to support their anti-christ assertions.

You claim Jesus didn't know He is God in flesh.

You will stand before Jesus, and you will know the truth. In that day the games will be over.

Much love!

 

[marks]

My “Other Faith” is the initial faith of Christianity.

False. The original faith was expressed by Thomas, My Lord and my God. Will you tell me he didn't mean it? That he was the same sort of profane speaker as so many are today? Like Thomas was saying, OMG! That is foolishness, to reject the testimony of the men who were there.

Much love!

 

[Matthias]

False. The original faith was expressed by Thomas, My Lord and my God.

Mary and Joseph are Jewish monotheists. Jesus is a Jewish monotheist. Thomas is a Jewish monotheist, as are all of the apostles and the earliest disciples. Christianity began as a sect of Judaism. What Thomas said is wholly consistent with the constraints of history and Jewish monotheism.

Will you tell me he didn't mean it?

No.

That he was the same sort of profane speaker as so many are today?

No.

Like Thomas was saying, OMG!

No.

That is foolishness, to reject the testimony of the men who were there.

Much love!

I don’t reject the testimony of the men who were there. I insist upon the testimony.

 

[Matthias]

John 13:1-4 KJV
1) Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.
2) And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;
3) Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;
4) He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.

John 17:5 KJV
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.'

John 1:1-2 KJV
1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2) The same was in the beginning with God.
=

I don't wish to use the words that would express how I feel about someone malappropriating "Jesus' belief" to support their anti-christ assertions.

You claim Jesus didn't know He is God in flesh.

I don’t recall ever having claimed “Jesus didn’t know he is God in the flesh.” Where did I make that claim?

Jesus is God in the flesh. When we seen and hear Jesus we see and hear God in him.

You will stand before Jesus, and you will know the truth. In that day the games will be over.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Jesus is God in the flesh. When we seen and hear Jesus we see and hear God in him.

Have you now become Trinitarian?

 

[Aunty Jane]

“… the begetting is not quasi-sexual as if God takes the place of a male principle in mating with Mary. There is more of a connotation of creativity. …

Indeed….the conception took place because God created what grew in Mary’s womb. He was not part of any human’s now defective DNA. He came from outside the flawed human race to redeem Adam’s children, which requires an atonement….equivalency…”one for one”.

A sinless life was lost for us by Adam, and Christ came to buy it back for is. That is what redemption is.

Mary is a virgin who has not known man, and therefore the child is totally God’s work - a new creation.”

A totally new creation because Adam was created as a fully grown adult, Jesus was created as an embryo who was birthed by a human mother. His death and resurrection were also unique. As a spirit son of God who willingly offered to disown himself and offer his own life for ours, he was also the first human to die and to be resurrected as a spirit…..something that was also held out to his elect. But no one went to heaven before he did. (John 3:13)

”I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth.”

(The Apostles’ Creed)

Yes, this is what the apostles believed.

1 Cor 8:5-6…
”For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.” (NASB)

They never said anything to the contrary.

Just as the Father is the cause of the old creation, he is the cause of the new creation. The child is the beginning of the new creation.

Yes, he was “the beginning of a new creation” but he still pre-existed his human birth as “the only begotten son of God”……he was “begotten“ as the first and only direct creation of his Father, making him unique. He was then use as the agent of creation as it says in Col 1:15-17…John 1:2-4….but he was “the beginning of God’s creation”. (Rev 3:14)

 

[Matthias]

”Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.”

(Matthew 1:18, DRA)

A historical note. It was Origen in the 3rd century, not the angel in the 1st century, who came up with the concept of “eternal generation”.

The Greek word translated ”generation” is genesis.

***

“birth. The same word, genesis, as in 1:1 another tie in with the genealogy. A respectable number of less important textual witnesses read gennesis, which also means ’birth’ but does not have the same wide range as genesis (‘birth, creation, genealogy;’ see NOTE on 1:1). Davies, Setting, 69, wonders if gennesis was not original, with genesis being introduced as a scribal assimilation to 1:1. It seems more likely that gennesis, which be ame the common word in patristic literature for the Nativity, was introduced by scribes to replace the less familiar genesis (Metzger, MTC, 8).”

(Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, p. 123)

Matthew, like Luke, is writing about the origin of the Son of God in his Gospel.

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again Aunty Jane,

Jesus was a spirit being in heaven, and a human whilst on earth.

I do not accept his pre-existence. His conception was the start of his life.

he was God’s “master workman“ of Proverbs 8:30-31.…the “us” and “our” in Gen 1:26.

I consider that the Wise Woman "Wisdom" in Proverbs 8 and note it is "she", is a personification of God's wisdom and character. I consider the "us" and "our" of Genesis 1:26 is the One God, Yahweh, God the Father inviting the Angels to participate in the creation of man. This is confirmed in David's summary of these events in Psalm 8:5 "a little lower than the Angels (Heb: Elohim)":

Psalm 8:4–6 (KJV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

We know that angels had the ability to materialize human bodies when bringing messages or instructions from God to his earthly servants

That is a fairly unique JW concept. I consider that the Angels have substantial visible Spirit Bodies and that is why they were at first mistaken as "men". How did Peter and John leave the prison in Acts 5:17-25?

I’m sure he never got sick or misbehaved, having not been born with a sinful nature.

I consider that he inherited Adam's fallen nature through Mary his mother, but he never sinned.

Indeed….the conception took place because God created what grew in Mary’s womb. He was not part of any human’s now defective DNA. He came from outside the flawed human race to redeem Adam’s children, which requires an atonement….equivalency…”one for one”.

As above, Mary was his physical hereditary mother and as such Jesus is a descendant of David:

Luke 1:30–33 (KJV): 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Acts 2:29–32 (KJV): 29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

Romans 1:1–4 (KJV): 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Jesus was created as an embryo who was birthed by a human mother.

Mary supplied the female portion of the embryo. She was not a surrogate mother.

he was also the first human to die and to be resurrected as a spirit…..something that was also held out to his elect. But no one went to heaven before he did. (John 3:13)

You are alluding to the unique JW doctrine that Jesus' body was not resurrected, but somehow preserved. You are also hinting at the unique JW view of the 144,000 who go to heaven and the majority staying on the earth after Armageddon.

he still pre-existed his human birth as “the only begotten son of God”……he was “begotten“ as the first and only direct creation of his Father, making him unique.

I consider that "only begotten" refers to the conception mentioned in Mathew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35.

Kind regards
Trevor