John 1:1 and Jesus’ Sonship in Adoptionist thought

[Hiddenthings]

I don't mind your apology about the manna. I am mentioning Jesus' own words. You need to accept what he said, not question it.

I'll ask again:

Do you believe Jesus was a flesh Son of Man in Heaven before his birth?

 

[ElieG12]

I'll ask again:

Do you believe Jesus was a flesh Son of Man in Heaven before his birth?

And I answer you again:

Do you think the sons of God mentioned here are flesh sons of God?

Job 38:4 Where were you when I founded the earth?
Tell me, if you think you understand.
5 Who set its measurements, in case you know,
Or who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 Into what were its pedestals sunk,
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars joyfully cried out together,
And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?

Did you know that before humans existed, there were already millions of sons of God in heaven? You just have to understand that reality, and you'll see how easy it is to see who Jesus was as the first and most important among them. It's that simple.

 

[Hiddenthings]

And I answer you again:

Did you know that before humans existed, there were already millions of sons of God in heaven? You just have to understand that reality, and you'll see how easy it is to see who Jesus was as the first and most important among them. It's that simple.

I'll take your reluctance to answer as a no then.

 

[Hiddenthings]

It is interesting that while the context and analogy of the ‘bread from heaven’ are readily accepted, applying the same understanding to the Lord’s words is often resisted.

Why does this happen?

Because many readers approach the text with preconceived theological frameworks, such as the doctrine of Christ’s preexistent divinity. They are comfortable seeing the manna as “from heaven” in a symbolic or divine-origin sense, but when it comes to Jesus’ words, those same readers may feel compelled to interpret them as coming directly from a preexistent divine nature rather than recognizing the possibility that his words, like the manna, are of divine origin but mediated through his created human nature (Son of Man).

 

[ElieG12]

I'll take your reluctance to answer as a no then.

Are the sons of God who live with him in heaven before humans were created, made of flesh? You can't seem to accept that it's so easy to understand the existence of sons of God who live in heaven, and that Jesus (although not by that name) was already among them before being born as a human.

I find it amusing how you have fun trying to evade the facts presented to you. That's not apologetics for the truth, but self-deception to keep yourself in the lie.

 

[ElieG12]

When Jesus is identified as the Son of Man (from Dan. 7:13, 14), what is being done is to identify a Son of God who became human to obtain the kingdom. Someone who has not been a human being cannot reign over humans.

Jesus, as Son of Man, was the offspring of the woman in Gen. 3:15. This does not contradict His preexistence at all.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Are the sons of God who live with him in heaven before humans were created, made of flesh? You can't seem to accept that it's so easy to understand the existence of sons of God who live in heaven, and that Jesus (although not by that name) was already among them before being born as a human.

I find it amusing how you have fun trying to evade the facts presented to you. That's not apologetics for the truth, but self-deception to keep you in the lie.

The key to understanding John 6 lies in the “bread from heaven” analogy. You miss the point by comparing Christ to angelic beings in heaven, yet angels are not flesh-and-blood creatures, nor do they share Christ’s unique origin. The Lord’s teaching, however, is rooted in the reality that true life comes from the Spirit, not the flesh (John 6:63).

Just as the Spirit produced the manna from heaven to sustain Israel temporarily, the Spirit gives life to Jesus, who is the ultimate bread from heaven. His life and teaching are Spirit-originated and life-giving, not mere human words or fleshly existence.

1 Corinthians 15:45 reinforces this: “The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” The word “became” is a hard saying, emphasizing transformation. Just as Adam received life in one way, Christ received and manifests life in a Spirit-mediated manner, bringing life to all who partake in him.

The life-giving work of Christ must be understood in the framework of divine Spirit-life, not by pre-existing flesh or angelic comparison. Misinterpreting this is a failure to grasp the core teaching of the “bread from heaven” analogy.

 

[Hiddenthings]

When Jesus is identified as the Son of Man (from Dan. 7:13, 14), what is being done is to identify a Son of God who became human to obtain the kingdom. Someone who has not been a human being cannot reign over humans.

Jesus, as Son of Man, was the offspring of the woman in Gen. 3:15. This does not contradict His preexistence at all.

Can you see your error?

 

[ElieG12]

Evading and more evading. Tired of your evading, only good night is left. I won't keep myself trying to reason to a person who doesn't mind even what Jesus said. It's practically like trying to reason with @Wick Stick when he didn't even believe that the Bible is all inspired.

Accept Jesus' teaching, for your own good. Good night.

 

[dak]

It's interesting that Luke 3 would have applied Psa 2:7 to Jesus' baptism, but in Acts it's also Luke that attributes it to His resurrection.

I explain these incongruences by accepting that the NT authors played fast-and-loose with their "fulfillments" of the OT.

I wonder how you explain it?

I see that as a clause or break in the context which then reverts right back to the discussion concerning the rising from the dead. Two important similarly employed words are at play, G1453 ἐγείρω, (egeiro), and G450 ἀνίστημι, (anistemi), and I believe they mark a slight, temporary diversion from the topic of the resurrection within the overall flow of the passage.

30 ο δε θεος ηγειρεν αυτον εκ νεκρων
30 But Elohim awakened-raised him from the dead

33 οτι ταυτην ο θεος εκπεπληρωκεν τοις τεκνοις ημων αναστησας Ι̅Η ως και εν τω ψαλμω γεγραπται τω δευτερω υιος μου ει συ εγω σημερον γεγεννηκα σε

αναστησας Ι̅Η ~ (in that) He (ο θεος) raised up / stood up Ι̅Η (to preach the Gospel, that is, from the beginning of his ministry following his immersion, (and testing in the wilderness)).

Then the passage continues concerning the resurrection:

34 οτι δε ανεστησεν αυτον εκ νεκρων μηκετι μελλοντα υποστρεφειν εις διαφθοραν ουτως ειρηκεν οτι δωσω υμιν τα οσια δαυιδ τα πιστα

οτι δε ανεστησεν αυτον εκ νεκρων
But (concerning) that He raised him from the dead.......

Extremely technical: watch out for Paul!

 

[Hiddenthings]

Evading and more evading. Tired of your evading, only good night is left. I won't keep myself trying to reason to a person who doesn't mind even what Jesus said. It's practically like trying to reason with @Wick Stick when he didn't even believe that the Bible is all inspired.

Accept Jesus' teaching, for your own good. Good night.

You are halfway there Elie in accepting the context - not far to go.

 

[Wick Stick]

I see that as a clause or break in the context which then reverts right back to the discussion concerning the rising from the dead. Two important similarly employed words are at play, G1453 ἐγείρω, (egeiro), and G450 ἀνίστημι, (anistemi), and I believe they mark a slight, temporary diversion from the topic of the resurrection within the overall flow of the passage.

30 ο δε θεος ηγειρεν αυτον εκ νεκρων
30 But Elohim awakened-raised him from the dead

33 οτι ταυτην ο θεος εκπεπληρωκεν τοις τεκνοις ημων αναστησας Ι̅Η ως και εν τω ψαλμω γεγραπται τω δευτερω υιος μου ει συ εγω σημερον γεγεννηκα σε

αναστησας Ι̅Η ~ (in that) He (ο θεος) raised up / stood up Ι̅Η (to preach the Gospel, that is, from the beginning of his ministry following his immersion, (and testing in the wilderness)).

Then the passage continues concerning the resurrection:

34 οτι δε ανεστησεν αυτον εκ νεκρων μηκετι μελλοντα υποστρεφειν εις διαφθοραν ουτως ειρηκεν οτι δωσω υμιν τα οσια δαυιδ τα πιστα

οτι δε ανεστησεν αυτον εκ νεκρων
But (concerning) that He raised him from the dead.......

Extremely technical: watch out for Paul!

A "standing up" to preach after the baptism is completely plausible. But it just doesn't seem to belong to Acts 13. Acts 13 seems to me to be fixed solely on Jesus' resurrection.

I would LIKE to believe it. My current understanding (Luke contradicts himself by applying the same passage to multiple events) is one that I find troubling.

 

[Wick Stick]

It's... like trying to reason with @Wick Stick when he didn't even believe that the Bible is all inspired.

That's fair criticism. I DON'T believe ALL the Bible is inspired. I only attribute inspiration to the prophets, gospels, and Psalms. That turns out to be most of the Bible, but still...

I'm not sure how you all manage to look at all the Biblical contradictions and still rationalize inspiration for every book. It's pretty clear to me that the Chronicles and Kings cover the same material and diverge significantly. :shrug:

 

[Hiddenthings]

That's fair criticism. I DON'T believe ALL the Bible is inspired.

On purpose I believe - what are we to have faith in? A book or the God who arranged it. Inspiration is a test of faith...no doubt about this.

 

[dak]

A "standing up" to preach after the baptism is completely plausible. But it just doesn't seem to belong to Acts 13. Acts 13 seems to me to be fixed solely on Jesus' resurrection.

I would LIKE to believe it. My current understanding (Luke contradicts himself by applying the same passage to multiple events) is one that I find troubling.

Fair enough, there is a little more evidence earlier in the sermon, but it is not conclusive, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Wick Stick]

On purpose I believe - what are we to have faith in? A book or the God who arranged it. Inspiration is a test of faith...no doubt about this.

Obviously, God above anyone else.

So, an uncomfortable thing about canonization is that most of the people who did the canonizing are the same people the Bible points out as bad actors - the Levitical priests chief among them.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Acts 13:30-33 ASV
30 But God raised him from the dead:
31 and he was seen for many days of them that came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses unto the people.
32 And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers,
33 that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Hebrews 5:4-5 ASV
4 And no man taketh the honor unto himself, but when he is called of God, even as was Aaron.
5 So Christ also glorified not himself to be made a high priest, but he that spake unto him, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee:

Where is it written anywhere in the modern N/T that the Father said these words to the Anointed One? For one, it is still found in Codex Bezae, and for two, there is also suspicious evidence that it was in the original Hebrew Matthew and was removed by Jerome who confesses to have rendered that Hebrew text, (or possibly Aramaic), into both Greek and Latin. This decree, spoken by the Father to the Meshiah at his immersion, was a thorn in the side of the RCC eternal Son doctrine because they did not understand the Nomina Sacra.

@Wick Stick as you rightly stated earlier this Psalm presented as a prophecy to be proclaimed at the Lord’s installation as “king upon the holy hill of Zion.” Such an exalted position could only belong to one who was “made strong” for Yahweh (Psa 80:17), who fully revealed the divine character in human flesh (Jn 1:14), and who was delivered from death to receive divine nature (Heb 5:7, which also cites Psa. 2:7).

Although Christ has already been appointed to this supreme role, his formal enthronement is still to come.

It must be acknowledged that Christ, during his life on earth, possessed only one nature, flesh and blood. Through his resurrection and exaltation, however, he was granted immortality, receiving the divine nature (flesh and spirit).

I use the expression “flesh and spirit” because, in his glorified state, the Lord could still be touched by those who encountered him.

Christians generally have a poor understanding of Divine Nature which the record calls "Life".

Here it is in total clarity

1 John 1:1–2 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life 2 the life (eternal) was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life (divine nature), which was with the Father and was made manifest to us.

It's impossible for a person to be begotten of the Father and not be in possession of eternal divine nature.

No flesh (and blood) can glory in His presence! 1 Corinthians 1:29

If you believe Jesus did not receive LIFE from God then you must also believe he is not begotten of the Father.

 

[Wick Stick]

@Wick Stick as you rightly stated earlier this Psalm presented as a prophecy to be proclaimed at the Lord’s installation as “king upon the holy hill of Zion.” Such an exalted position could only belong to one who was “made strong” for Yahweh (Psa 80:17), who fully revealed the divine character in human flesh (Jn 1:14), and who was delivered from death to receive divine nature (Heb 5:7, which also cites Psa. 2:7).

Although Christ has already been appointed to this supreme role, his formal enthronement is still to come.

The Bible seems pretty clear to me that He is already ruling. Eph 4, 1Cor 15, etc

It must be acknowledged that Christ, during his life on earth, possessed only one nature, flesh and blood.

Nature is a strange word choice, because of how Paul (his translators) use it. I think you're talking about οὐσία... is that right?

Through his resurrection and exaltation, however, he was granted immortality, receiving the divine nature (flesh and spirit).

I use the expression “flesh and spirit” because, in his glorified state, the Lord could still be touched by those who encountered him.

I'm with you here. A spiritual body still involves a body. It's not dis-embodied.

Christians generally have a poor understanding of Divine Nature which the record calls "Life".

Put me in that category, too. "Life" is/was a strange word choice. The history of usage for ζάω or ζῷον is all over the place, and adding αἰώνιος does not make it clearer.

In the NT, I often take life to be used in opposition to "death" - not the literal one but the figurative usage, indicating those outside the church/Israel.

Here it is in total clarity

1 John 1:1–2 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life 2 the life (eternal) was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life (divine nature), which was with the Father and was made manifest to us.

It's impossible for a person to be begotten of the Father and not be in possession of eternal divine nature.

No flesh (and blood) can glory in His presence! 1 Corinthians 1:29

If you believe Jesus did not receive LIFE from God then you must also believe he is not begotten of the Father.

This would seem to put the "begetting" at Jesus' resurrection. Am I reading you correctly?

 

[Hiddenthings]

The Bible seems pretty clear to me that He is already ruling. Eph 4, 1Cor 15, etc

He is not yet sitting on Davids's throne - you would know it if he was!

Nature is a strange word choice, because of how Paul (his translators) use it. I think you're talking about οὐσία... is that right?

A single flesh and blood nature - Paul refers to this in Romans 8:1-3 styled "sins flesh" and later we read of Christ being crucified in weakness and we being weak in him. 2 Corinthians 13:4

I'm with you here. A spiritual body still involves a body. It's not dis-embodied.

Absolutely!

Put me in that category, too. "Life" is/was a strange word choice. The history of usage for ζάω or ζῷον is all over the place, and adding αἰώνιος does not make it clearer.

Read 1 John - perfectly clear how John uses the word, Life.

In the NT, I often take life to be used in opposition to "death" - not the literal one but the figurative usage, indicating those outside the church/Israel.

This would seem to put the "begetting" at Jesus' resurrection. Am I reading you correctly?

Death = total cessation of life
Life = eternal living / life

Both extremes are correct.

 

[Hiddenthings]

This would seem to put the "begetting" at Jesus' resurrection. Am I reading you correctly?

The natural birth of Jesus was a momentous event, fulfilling numerous prophecies. Yet the child was born into a fallen, condemned race and experienced firsthand the full effects of sin in his aging and suffering human body. As Paul teaches, it was not until the Holy Spirit declared Jesus to be the Son of God with power (Romans 1:4) that he fully manifested the divine image and likeness of God.

Here is the problem Wick.

Through his resurrection, Christ has become a life-giving Spirit (1 Corinthians 15:45).

Some would claim that there is no distinction between Christ in the flesh and Christ as the life-giving Spirit. But if there is truly no distinction, then what was the victory?

If we affirm a victory, we must ask: victory over what?
If we deny a victory, then what hope remains for us, who are condemned to die?

Romans 8:1 is either true, or it is not. There is no middle ground.

Christ’s resurrection was indeed “from the dead,” yet Paul goes further: he calls it rising “of the dead,” showing that Christ is the forerunner who opens the way for others to share in this same transformative resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:20–21).

The only conclusion is that "today I have begotten you" was the moment Christ shared in God's very nature.

2 Peter 1:4 “…so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

"Life giving Spirit" = "Partakers in Divine Nature"