John 1:1 and Jesus’ Sonship in Adoptionist thought

[dak]

You cannot separate the Son of God from the Son of Man - impossible!

The scripture does that already and it has been shown to you from two Psalms.

 

[Hiddenthings]

The scripture does that already and it has been shown to you from two Psalms.

Two purposes manifested in a single man/son

Nowhere is it taught that Jesus was two persons.

You are one deluded believer!

 

[Hiddenthings]

That's why I keep trying to explain to you that the Logos is the one-of-a-kind Son.

Became one of a Kind - New Creation dak! Logos creates if you didn't know that!

Of course, because the Logos is Elohim, the Word of the Father: so the Father raised up the Meshiah because the Spirit of the Father, His Logos, was upon and within the Meshiah from the time of his immersion. My understanding of these things is complete: you simply aren't listening.

Not only raised him up but bestowed on him immortality - Romans 1:1-4 By the Spirit and by the Resurrection he became the Son of God with Power

Don't run from it dak -

No, it isn't a problem, it's the same as above: the Meshiah was and is a man, and now of course a resurrected man.

Read it again dak! from your own pen you admit Christ was dead and was raised by God his Father.

We are really still at square one in this exchange: you neither understand nor believe what the author of Hebrews states about the Psa 2:7 decree, and are therefore force to come up with a fantasy doctrine concerning it, so as to brush it under the rug in favor of your preconceived dogmas.

You fail to understand that Christ was granted immortality and is the first fruits of them that sleep.

First dak!

 

[Hiddenthings]

@dak It’s strange that you keep avoiding the question of inheritance, it’s clearly a weak point in your argument that has now become a gaping flaw.

Jesus’ position of power and authority is delegated, not innate. According to Hebrews 1:4, it is by inheritance that he obtained a more excellent name, not by virtue of his being, as your “eternal bosom” doctrine claims, and certainly not as a co-equal person within the Godhead.

 

[dak]

Two purposes manifested in a single man/son

Nowhere is it taught that Jesus was two persons.

You are one deluded believer!

Became one of a Kind - New Creation dak! Logos creates if you didn't know that!

Not only raised him up but bestowed on him immortality - Romans 1:1-4 By the Spirit and by the Resurrection he became the Son of God with Power

Don't run from it dak -


Read it again dak! from your own pen you admit Christ was dead and was raised by God his Father.

You fail to understand that Christ was granted immortality and is the first fruits of them that sleep.

First dak!

@dak It’s strange that you keep avoiding the question of inheritance, it’s clearly a weak point in your argument that has now become a gaping flaw.

Jesus’ position of power and authority is delegated, not innate. According to Hebrews 1:4, it is by inheritance that he obtained a more excellent name, not by virtue of his being, as your “eternal bosom” doctrine claims, and certainly not as a co-equal person within the Godhead.

 

[Hiddenthings]

View attachment 72307

Rather childish really dak.

That last post is where it's at!

Avoiding the question of inheritance, it’s clearly a weak point in your argument that has now become a gaping flaw.

Jesus’ position of power and authority is delegated, not innate. According to Hebrews 1:4, it is by inheritance that he obtained a more excellent name, not by virtue of his being, as your “eternal bosom” doctrine claims, and certainly not as a co-equal person within the Godhead.

Out of curiosity, if your eternal Son was in the bosom of the Father, was he then a kind of slave to God, without privilege, name, or authority?

Let's take this line of questioning a step further dak.

In Revelation 4:10 we are told “And cast their crowns before the throne” AND “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” Matt 28:18

I assume you believe this act of submission by the Elohim and those who acknowledge their victory in Christ was a position Christ already held previous to his mortal existence.

So, whether it’s immortal life, the throne at God’s right hand, or authority over the angels....you believe all of these were not reward or inheritance, but things Christ always possessed, rather than privileges given / granted from Yahweh?

What you need to prove your teaching is a section in the Word which speaks to his pre-existence - clearly, we both agree he could not be the Logos of God prior and not already hold all these rewards - which you must agree cannot be rewards or an inheritance.

Maybe Christ was something a lot less than you make him to be in his previous exalted state?

 

[Hiddenthings]

@dak rather than your silly emoticons simply agree that's your position or disagree and provide clarity. How does inheritance fit into your pre-existed Son in the Bosom doctrine.

If inheritance - how?
If not inheritance - why not?

Hebrews 1:4 is a passage which refers back to the final clause of verse 3, which speaks of Christ’s ascension. Earlier, he had been made “a little lower than the angels” (Heb. 2:7–9) for the specific purpose of conquering sin and death.

In this verse, the author uses one of his characteristic words, “kreittōn” (“better” or “superior”) to emphasize the definitive and ultimate nature of the Son and his work. The term appears thirteen times throughout the epistle, applied to various aspects of Christ’s superiority: the Son (1:4), Melchizedek (7:7), salvation (6:9), covenant (7:22; 8:6), sacrifice (9:23; 12:24), promises (8:6), present possession (10:34), and future hope (7:19; 11:16, 35, 40).

In these opening verses, the Son is presented as the fulfillment and embodiment of the three major Old Testament offices — prophet (speaking on God’s behalf), priest (providing forgiveness of sins), and king (reigning at God’s right hand). Yet he surpasses even this remarkable combination of roles. He is the one through whom and for whom all things in God’s new creation are made, the one who upholds this creation, and the perfect expression of God’s glory and nature. Not even the angels can be compared to him. The person of Christ stands as the interpretive key to the entire epistle.

You can see the tension in your understanding - no doubt about this dak. If one does not assume the Son’s pre-existence, then the “inheritance” fits more naturally as the Son was begotten (brought into existence) and later exalted by God. All authority, name, and position are granted/given by Yahweh, not eternally possessed. His superiority is derived, not intrinsic a reward for faithfulness and obedience (cf. Acts 2:36, Phil. 2:9).

If the author of Hebrews found no tension in the teaching of Christ's inheritance and exalted position, why are you so resistant to provide your insight?

@Wick Stick

Wick, the reason I've included you in this thread / post is to see if you have a Biblically based response for this dilemma. Firstly, can you see the tension in Hebrews 1:4 and how does someone who believes in the pre-existence of Christ reconcile with this tension.

 

[dak]

Rather childish really dak.

That last post is where it's at!

Avoiding the question of inheritance, it’s clearly a weak point in your argument that has now become a gaping flaw.

Jesus’ position of power and authority is delegated, not innate. According to Hebrews 1:4, it is by inheritance that he obtained a more excellent name, not by virtue of his being, as your “eternal bosom” doctrine claims, and certainly not as a co-equal person within the Godhead.

Out of curiosity, if your eternal Son was in the bosom of the Father, was he then a kind of slave to God, without privilege, name, or authority?

Let's take this line of questioning a step further dak.

In Revelation 4:10 we are told “And cast their crowns before the throne” AND “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” Matt 28:18

I assume you believe this act of submission by the Elohim and those who acknowledge their victory in Christ was a position Christ already held previous to his mortal existence.

So, whether it’s immortal life, the throne at God’s right hand, or authority over the angels....you believe all of these were not reward or inheritance, but things Christ always possessed, rather than privileges given / granted from Yahweh?

What you need to prove your teaching is a section in the Word which speaks to his pre-existence - clearly, we both agree he could not be the Logos of God prior and not already hold all these rewards - which you must agree cannot be rewards or an inheritance.

Maybe Christ was something a lot less than you make him to be in his previous exalted state?

I see now that what you are doing here is probably the best tactic you have: just keep repeating the same nonsense and assuming or outright making a plethora of false insinuations-accusations until everyone who disagrees with you gives up and walks away. If you actually think I am still reading your posts I feel sorry for you: perhaps you should have read my posts for the last several months like I read yours. It appears that you care nothing about getting to know what others believe in order to at least have an intelligible discussion even if you do not agree. You appear to only be here to force-feed your dogmas and false beliefs onto others with heavy doses of verbal violence.

Nice chatting, have a nice life.......

 

[Hiddenthings]

I see now that what you are doing here is probably the best tactic you have: just keep repeating the same nonsense and assuming or outright making a plethora of false insinuations-accusations until everyone who disagrees with you gives up and walks away. If you actually think I am still reading your posts I feel sorry for you: perhaps you should have read my posts for the last several months like I read yours. It appears that you care nothing about getting to know what others believe in order to at least have an intelligible discussion even if you do not agree. You appear to only be here to force-feed your dogmas and false beliefs onto others with heavy doses of verbal violence.

Nice chatting, have a nice life....... View attachment 72328

You’ve been here before, dak, back when you couldn’t address the Abrahamic Covenant, and the resistance was already evident. It seems as though you’re operating within certain paradigms that conveniently exclude the crucial parts of Scripture. Even now, on the subject of inheritance, you haven’t offered a single word.

I’ll wait to see if Wick has anything to contribute on this theme of inheritance, as it’s clearly a difficult subject for those who hold to your doctrine or something similar.

 

[Hiddenthings]

So, if Christ's Sonship, Nature, Name, Position and Authority is not by inheritance, then what? If not, then on what basis are the saints glorified if not in Christ's inheritance?

Here is an example:

Philippians 2:9–11 “Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow...”

How can the pre-existent Son, who already held this “bosom” position, be exalted?

The reason dak cannot answer these questions is that exaltation in nature or name would be impossible if Christ truly pre-existed in that state. It would imply that the apostles misunderstood Christ’s exaltation, his movement from being “lower than the angels” to being “higher than the angels.” Do you see the issue?

Ultimately, DAK must conclude that there was no real inheritance and no discernible change in Christ’s name or nature.

The other issue is how do you prove from Scripture this progression which Romans 1:1-4 teaches

1. Son of God / Son of Man -----> Son of God with Power

What dak believes is this:

2. Son of God with Power ----->Son of God / Son of Man -------->Son of God with Power

Point 1 can be proven easily however point 2 is impossible.

If you remove the inheritance God gave Jesus at his resurrection do you still have the Son of God with Power.

That really is the pressing question.

 

[Wick Stick]

These things therefore beg the question: when did king David actually hear the decree of Psalm 2:7? We know that this is a Psalm of David because the first two verses are quoted in Acts 4:25-26 and the passage attributes the Psalm to king David.



Hmmm....... It's only the second Psalm: must be pretty old, huh? Perhaps from right around the time Samuel the Prophet anointed David as king, (1Sam 16:13)?

Academia thinks that this happened as part of David's coronation as king over Jerusalem.

Why do they hypothesize that? because they're acquainted with the customs of the Canaanites. And one of those customs, is that every king over a Canaanite city-state - as part of their coronation - is adopted as a child of El (God). They become one of the Bene Elohim (sons of God).

David obviously wasn't a Canaanite... but Jerusalem was a Canaanite city-state (Jebusites are Canaanites).

 

[Wick Stick]

Although there is no recorded moment in the Gospels when God explicitly spoke these words to Jesus, Hebrews 1:5 affirms that He did. This likely reflects a deeply personal and sacred exchange between Father and Son on the morning of the resurrection, a moment too intimate to have been recorded historically. @Wick Stick

It kind of exists. A minority manuscript of Luke puts these words at Jesus' baptism, rather than his resurrection.

There are several verses that would seem to place the Adoption event at the Resurrection, though. I don't know that this is a controversy that can be settled using only Scripture.

Note that both views place the Adoption at a baptism... the former a baptism in water, and the latter a baptism in earth (i.e. death). (note Matt 20:22)

 

[Wick Stick]

In [Heb 1:4-5], the author uses one of his characteristic words, “kreittōn” (“better” or “superior”) to emphasize the definitive and ultimate nature of the Son and his work. The term appears thirteen times throughout the epistle, applied to various aspects of Christ’s superiority: the Son (1:4), Melchizedek (7:7), salvation (6:9), covenant (7:22; 8:6), sacrifice (9:23; 12:24), promises (8:6), present possession (10:34), and future hope (7:19; 11:16, 35, 40).

In these opening verses, the Son is presented as the fulfillment and embodiment of the three major Old Testament offices — prophet (speaking on God’s behalf), priest (providing forgiveness of sins), and king (reigning at God’s right hand). Yet he surpasses even this remarkable combination of roles. He is the one through whom and for whom all things in God’s new creation are made, the one who upholds this creation, and the perfect expression of God’s glory and nature. Not even the angels can be compared to him. The person of Christ stands as the interpretive key to the entire epistle.

You can see the tension in your understanding - no doubt about this dak. If one does not assume the Son’s pre-existence, then the “inheritance” fits more naturally as the Son was begotten (brought into existence) and later exalted by God. All authority, name, and position are granted/given by Yahweh, not eternally possessed. His superiority is derived, not intrinsic a reward for faithfulness and obedience (cf. Acts 2:36, Phil. 2:9).

If the author of Hebrews found no tension in the teaching of Christ's inheritance and exalted position, why are you so resistant to provide your insight?

That's a pretty good question.

@Wick Stick

Wick, the reason I've included you in this thread / post is to see if you have a Biblically based response for this dilemma. Firstly, can you see the tension in Hebrews 1:4 and how does someone who believes in the pre-existence of Christ reconcile with this tension.

At the risk of being a disappointing answer... it might just be nomenclature. Some explanation is needed...

"Jesus" as a name clearly belongs to a human person (adoption notwithstanding)
"Logos" as a concept clearly belongs to the Godhead.

But "Christos..." as a title it isn't clear at all. It can equally be applied to a human, as being "anointed," OR (and?) the Godhead, as being the expression of the unsee-able "mind" of God. Certainly the gnostics used the title to designate an "emanation" of God, AND the human who embodied that emanation.

Clear as mud, I know.

 

[Hiddenthings]

It kind of exists. A minority manuscript of Luke puts these words at Jesus' baptism, rather than his resurrection.

There are several verses that would seem to place the Adoption event at the Resurrection, though. I don't know that this is a controversy that can be settled using only Scripture.

Note that both views place the Adoption at a baptism... the former a baptism in water, and the latter a baptism in earth (i.e. death). (note Matt 20:22)

Romans 6 is conclusive - without any reservation whatsoever....in death... by the resurrection did he become the Son of God (with Power).

 

[Hiddenthings]

That's a pretty good question.

At the risk of being a disappointing answer... it might just be nomenclature. Some explanation is needed...

"Jesus" as a name clearly belongs to a human person (adoption notwithstanding)
"Logos" as a concept clearly belongs to the Godhead.

But "Christos..." as a title it isn't clear at all. It can equally be applied to a human, as being "anointed," OR (and?) the Godhead, as being the expression of the unsee-able "mind" of God. Certainly the gnostics used the title to designate an "emanation" of God, AND the human who embodied that emanation.

Clear as mud, I know.

Dak attempts to separate the Son of God from the Son of Man, implying two distinct persons with a single pre-existent origin. However, Scripture provides no basis for such a teaching. The Word of God never divides Christ’s person, only his functions, which are fully expressed in one Man. Even Jesus’ own words affirm that he comes as the Son of Man, who is also (now) the Son of God with Power (eternal nature) different titles that describe his identity and purpose, not separate beings.

The only reason I can see for DAK’s resistance to the question of inheritance is that he has no real answer. He would rather appear inconsistent than acknowledge the possibility of error in his understanding.

If Jesus was like us in every way, born of a woman and into the fallen line of Adam then prior to his conception he existed only within the Logos of God (Yahweh’s divine reasoning and future expression), as part of God’s plan and purpose. Only from this perspective does the concept of inheritance truly make sense, for both him and for us.

 

[Wick Stick]

Romans 6 is conclusive - without any reservation whatsoever....in death... by the resurrection did he become the Son of God (with Power).

As I understand it, Romans 6 is about how death frees us from the body's propensity towards sinning. I don't see that it has much to do with the idea of Adoptionism. There is certainly an idea in the early church that Jesus' resurrection is a victory over death, and Hades. The captives are set free at that moment.

But in the gospels, Jesus already refers to Himself as God's Son, calling God Father (and teaching others to do the same). Is He speaking anachronistically? I don't think so.

Should we put a difference between the adoption that pertains to us all, and the one that ONLY pertained to Jesus specifically? Probably... I think that's was Daq was trying to bring in speaking of monogenes (one-of-a-kind).

 

[Wick Stick]

Dak attempts to separate the Son of God from the Son of Man, implying two distinct persons with a single pre-existent origin.

I didn't get that out of my conversation with him.

However, Scripture provides no basis for such a teaching. The Word of God never divides Christ’s person, only his functions, which are fully expressed in one Man. Even Jesus’ own words affirm that he comes as the Son of Man, who is also (now) the Son of God with Power (eternal nature) different titles that describe his identity and purpose, not separate beings.

The only reason I can see for DAK’s resistance to the question of inheritance is that he has no real answer. He would rather appear inconsistent than acknowledge the possibility of error in his understanding.

If Jesus was like us in every way, born of a woman and into the fallen line of Adam then prior to his conception he existed only within the Logos of God (Yahweh’s divine reasoning and future expression), as part of God’s plan and purpose. Only from this perspective does the concept of inheritance truly make sense, for both him and for us.

I'll let Daq speak for himself... I don't think he needs an Aaron.

 

[Hiddenthings]

As I understand it, Romans 6 is about how death frees us from the body's propensity towards sinning. I don't see that it has much to do with the idea of Adoptionism. There is certainly an idea in the early church that Jesus' resurrection is a victory over death, and Hades. The captives are set free at that moment.

But in the gospels, Jesus already refers to Himself as God's Son, calling God Father (and teaching others to do the same). Is He speaking anachronistically? I don't think so.

Should we put a difference between the adoption that pertains to us all, and the one that ONLY pertained to Jesus specifically? Probably... I think that's was Daq was trying to bring in speaking of monogenes (one-of-a-kind).

I think you will find that his Sonship is expressed in the same terms as yours.

Romans 6:8–10 “Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.
For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.
The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.”

From Romans 6, we see how you and Christ are alike, yet also how you differ. The only point of difference lies in one aspect of his life.

Death had dominion over him as it does you
If found to be in Christ you will be raised with the same Power
He died to sin as you also will
The Life (immortal) he received means he now lives to God.

The only discernable difference between Christ and you is he never morally sinned but was still required to die the same death as a sinner in his nature (though he could experience corruption in nature God promised he would not).

If Christ's Sonship is that he lives to God who gave him Life then this clearly happened when?

Correct the moment "He lived to God" and when God triumphed over our nature in him.

 

[Hiddenthings]

I didn't get that out of my conversation with him.

I'll let Daq speak for himself... I don't think he needs an Aaron.

His belief is similar to that of a Trinitarian, yet he does not appear to regard Jesus as God, but rather as the eternal Son. He distinguishes between the Son in the bosom of the Father (the Son of God) and the Son of Man (Jesus). What remains unclear is whether he believes the Son of God remained in the Father’s bosom while the Son of Man was born of Mary, or whether the eternal Son himself entered Mary’s womb. Regardless the theme of inheritance places tension on a pre-existent Son for how can that Son be in the Bosom eternally with the Father and receive anything he already has shared for eternity?

God cannot lie. The pre-existence dogma places so many Scriptures into tension for we know that eternal beings such as Angels cannot die as they share the nature of God Himself.

The Saints and Angels either are partakers of Divine Nature, or they are not and Jesus is emphatic they cannot die.

 

[dak]

Academia thinks that this happened as part of David's coronation as king over Jerusalem.

Why do they hypothesize that? because they're acquainted with the customs of the Canaanites. And one of those customs, is that every king over a Canaanite city-state - as part of their coronation - is adopted as a child of El (God). They become one of the Bene Elohim (sons of God).

David obviously wasn't a Canaanite... but Jerusalem was a Canaanite city-state (Jebusites are Canaanites).

Were Canaanite kings anointed at their coronations?

Back to inheritance: regarding the decree quoted in Acts 13:33 and what I said about it, (which you at least said that it was a possibility).

Acts 13:32-34
32 And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers,
33 that Elohim has fulfilled the same unto our children, in that He raised up [G450 ἀνίστημι] Ι̅Η, as also it is written in the second psalm, You are My Son, this day have I begotten you.
34 But as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he hath spoken on this wise, I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.

The first raising up, (Acts 13:33), is obviously not the same as the second raising up, (Acts 13:34), because the first is a raising up as the Prophet who was to come according to the Word of the Father in the Torah, (Deut 18:17-19), while the second raising up concerns the same one, the Meshiah, being raised up from the dead. This is indeed stated in the Torah and the Prophets, most importantly in Deut 18:18 because it is the Word of the Father.

Deuteronomy 18:17-19 KJV
17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

And in the LXX version, again, G450 ἀνίστημι is found.

And taken from the above passage, (Deut 18:18), is a quote in Acts 3:22-23, which clearly refers to the Meshiah in the context, and in that passage, again, G450 ἀνίστημι is used, (Acts 3:22).

Thus the Psalm 2:7 decree found in Acts 13:33 surely speaks of the immersion, at the latest, and cannot have meant after the resurrection in some sort of ethereal afterlife experience which no man can confirm, including the author of Hebrews who would have had no way of knowing about such matters outside of time in the heavenly realm.

Who therefore is meant as the heir in the following parable?

Luke 20:9-19 ASV
9 And he began to speak unto the people this parable: A man planted a vineyard, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into another country for a long time.
10 And at the season he sent unto the husbandmen a servant, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty.
11 And he sent yet another servant: and him also they beat, and handled him shamefully, and sent him away empty.
12 And he sent yet a third: and him also they wounded, and cast him forth.
13 And the lord of the vineyard said, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son; it may be they will reverence him.
14 But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned one with another, saying, This is the heir; let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.
15 And they cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do unto them?
16 He will come and destroy these husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.
17 But he looked upon them, and said, What then is this that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner?
18 Every one that falleth on that stone shall be broken to pieces; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust.
19 And the scribes and the chief priests sought to lay hands on him in that very hour; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he spake this parable against them.

Who does the heir represent in this parable? Who was cast out of the vineyard, (which is Yerushalem in parables and songs, Isa 1:8, Isa 5:1-4, etc.), and killed outside the city or camp, (Heb 13:12-13)? How can the Meshiah be the heir at this point in his ministry if he has not yet even been proclaimed, (by decree), a Son of Elohim? (Psa 2:7).