John 1:1 and Jesus’ Sonship in Adoptionist thought

[Hiddenthings]

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.

Verse 33

Paul cites Psalm 2:7 to affirm that the divine Sonship of the Lord is unmistakably proven through His begettal and resurrection (Luke 1:35; Romans 1:4; Colossians 1:18).

He also refers to this psalm elsewhere, as seen in Acts 13 and in his writings to the Hebrews (Hebrews 1:5; 5:5).

The declaration, “This day have I begotten thee,” is presented in the psalm as a prophecy to be fulfilled at the Lord’s inauguration as “King upon the holy hill of Zion.” Such a royal appointment could only apply to one who was “made strong” for Yahweh (Psalm 80:17), who perfectly revealed the divine character in mortal flesh (John 1:14), and who was delivered from death to receive divine nature (Hebrews 5:7, which also cites Psalm 2:7).

Although Christ has already been appointed to this exalted office, his formal enthronement as King is yet to take place.

Verse 34

“And as concerning that” This phrase introduces Paul’s proof of the statement made in verse 30.

“He raised Him up from the dead” The term “raised” (anastēsen) repeats the wording from verse 33 but, in this instance, refers specifically to the Lord’s resurrection to immortality (see its use in John 6:39, 40, 44, 54). Paul now cites several prophecies to support his second key point: that God has provided a Saviour (v. 23).

“Now no more to return to corruption” This highlights Christ’s immortalisation, contrasting it with the natural process of decay brought into the world through Adam’s sin (Genesis 3:19; cf. 2 Peter 1:4).

“He said on this wise: I will give you the sure mercies of David” Quoted from Isaiah 55:3, this connects the promises made to David (cf. Acts 13:22–23) with the granting of eternal life to the Lord Jesus Christ.

The phrase “the sure mercies of David” refers to the ultimate fulfilment of the Davidic covenant in immortality (2 Samuel 7:12–16), a truth that David himself acknowledged in the next passage cited by Paul.

All very clear @Wick Stick

 

[Hiddenthings]

@Wick Stick can you see the issue with verse 35?

“You will not let your Holy One see corruption” It is evident that this psalm was not fulfilled in David himself. Only through Christ’s perfect obedience and willing sacrifice was the foundation for immortality established. Through this redemptive work, David could look forward in faith to his own resurrection to everlasting life (2 Samuel 7:16).

The implication is not immediately clear to those who have been taught the doctrine of Christ’s pre-existence.

If a pre-existent Jesus lost his immortality only to have it restored as a reward and inheritance, what would that suggest about the very nature of divinity and its supposed indestructibility?

And if Jesus himself did not receive immortality, how then could those who are in him hope to receive it? He would then become an unacceptable offering and in no way like those he represented in and through death.

How could God’s Son, seated at the Father’s right hand, experience corruption? One would have to assume that the passage is not referring to the person of Christ himself, but merely to his physical body.

Was this really the understanding of the Apostles... for if Christ be not dead (at all) what is the point of putting to death a carcass and raising it up?

How can Christ be set against David as an example?

“And was laid to his fathers, and saw corruption” David remained in the grave and returned to dust. While he still “slept,” his greater Son had been placed in the tomb but had already risen to the glory of divine nature. Peter had previously explained and argued this point extensively to the Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 2:29–31), and now Paul delivers the same message to the Jews in Antioch. His careful choice of words makes it clear that David could not be the one referred to in Psalm 16.

Do you appreciate the degree of violence needed to teach a pre-existent Christ in this section?

 

[Hiddenthings]

@Wick Stick

Where I see dak's harming of the record is in the many references to the person of Christ. Any one who believes in the pre-existence of Jesus MUST believe he did not die.

Verse 37

“But he” The joy of victory over death is evident in the resurrection and exaltation of the Lord Jesus (Hebrews 1:4).

“Whom God raised” The Greek word egeiren means “to awake, awaken, or arouse” (see vv. 22, 23, 30, and its use in 12:7; 13:23). There is no word for “again” in the original text.

Here presents another issue - did Jesus awake or merely his body regain life? If Jesus 'consciousness continued through death, how did he awake?

“Saw no corruption” Since David did experience corruption while Christ did not, it follows that Psalm 16:10, quoted in verse 35, refers specifically to Christ's sinlessness.

The implication is that not only did the person of Christ die but his body could see corruption if God allowed it. God upheld the promise because of his Christis sinlessness.

 

[Hiddenthings]

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.

Jesus was careful with his teaching!

Does this reveal their knowledge of his Messiahship?

I think Nicodemus tells us as much!

“This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, ‘Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.’”

AND

Mark 15:10 "For he knew that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up."

The Master's knowledge of his sufferings and the manner in which he would die was known to him from the youngest age. I can see dak you are confused about many things and the life, death and resurrection of Christ in its complete manifestation is still largely unknown to you.

 

[Hiddenthings]

@dak also did you notice the context?

“Also Last” As noted in Isaiah 5:4, “What more was there to do for my vineyard that I have not done in it?” God had provided every opportunity for Israel, yet they rejected him. Similarly, Christ came “in the fullness of time” (Galatians 4:4): “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law.”

And “in due time” (Romans 5:6): “For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.”

 

[dak]

Revelation 2:17
17 ο εχων ους ακουσατω τι το πνευμα λεγει ταις εκκλησιαις τω νικωντι δωσω αυτω του μαννα του κεκρυμμενου και δωσω αυτω ψηφον λευκην και επι την ψηφον ονομα καινον γεγραμμενον ο ουδεις οιδεν ει μη ο λαμβανων _______.

Revelation 19:12
12 οι δε οφθαλμοι αυτου φλοξ πυρος και επι την κεφαλην αυτου διαδηματα πολλα εχων ονομα γεγραμμενον ο ουδεις οιδεν ει μη ______________ αυτος.

Rev 2:17 – ονομα καινον γεγραμμενον ο ουδεις οιδεν ει μη ο λαμβανων _______.
Rev 19:12 – ονομα γεγραμμενον ο ουδεις οιδεν ει μη ______________ αυτος.

1 Corinthians 12:3
3 διο γνωριζω υμιν, οτι ουδεις εν πνευματι Θ̅Υ λαλων λεγει, αναθεμα Ι̅Η, και ουδεις δυναται ειπειν Κ̅C Ι̅Η ει μη εν πνευματι αγιω.

Note: In the earliest Uncials the two nomina sacra Ι̅Η Χ̅Ρ did not have case endings: every interpretation in every modern Greek text in every printed Bible comes directly from the RCC original interpretation and no one else. When you look at any modern Greek text online, or in your Bible software, and you see the word Ιησους written in full plene form, you are reading an interpretation of that nomen sacrum from the RCC, from near the beginning of her foundation, about 1,700 years ago, and you are reading it with the case ending which is not even part of their own interpretation of the name they chose, (which is probably also why the earliest Uncials did not have case endings on proper nouns, for example Ιακωβ became Ιακωβος with the case ending, (underlined), and Ιακωβ is rendered as Jacob while Ιακωβος is rendered as "James" when in fact they are the exact same name, (which is utter foolishness)).

Papyrus 18 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Wick Stick]

Were Canaanite kings anointed at their coronations?

My source on this is Stories from Ancient Canaan, particularly the story called Kirta. Kirta is the name of the main character, an ancient king of Ugarit. (Ugarit is a city of the Amorites, who are a tribe of Canaanites)

Stories from Ancient Canaan:
The Ugaritic evidence... suggests that the coronation ritual included the adoption of the newly crowned king as son of the national god [El]. It is best, therefore, not to understand Kirta's title [son of God] in a biological sense.

There's no mention of anointing in the story, or the rest of the book for that matter.

Google thinks that there is archaeological evidence for the practice, if that means anything.

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.

I find that both/all is often an elegant solution where there is some dispute between meanings in the Bible.

Western thinking likes to limit words to a single meaning, but Hebrew isn't like that. Hebrew is the source of double-meanings, puns, and double-entendre. If there's a possibility that a word or phrase could mean more than one thing, it's more likely that the author intended both/all than one specific meaning.

Here, I think it's likely that raised-up refers to ALL of (a) raised up as a prophet, (b) raised up from the dead, and (c) raised up on a tree and crucified. The author repeats the word with different nuance as a way of pointing out that raised-up is a fundamental characteristic of Jesus Christ, and those who are like Him.

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).

I see no option other than that the "heir" is Jesus.

As for the succession of kings, it can be more of a process than a single event. David, for instance, was anointed while still a boy working his father's flocks, later was crowned king over ONLY Judah, and later still was crowned king over all Israel.

I don't find it problematic for Jesus to be "born of God" at His birth AND His baptism AND His resurrection. Eastern thinking likes the idea that Jesus is so begotten in every way possible.

 

[Wick Stick]

@Wick Stick can you see the issue with verse 35?

“You will not let your Holy One see corruption” It is evident that this psalm was not fulfilled in David himself. Only through Christ’s perfect obedience and willing sacrifice was the foundation for immortality established. Through this redemptive work, David could look forward in faith to his own resurrection to everlasting life (2 Samuel 7:16).

The implication is not immediately clear to those who have been taught the doctrine of Christ’s pre-existence.

If a pre-existent Jesus lost his immortality only to have it restored as a reward and inheritance, what would that suggest about the very nature of divinity and its supposed indestructibility?

And if Jesus himself did not receive immortality, how then could those who are in him hope to receive it? He would then become an unacceptable offering and in no way like those he represented in and through death.

How could God’s Son, seated at the Father’s right hand, experience corruption? One would have to assume that the passage is not referring to the person of Christ himself, but merely to his physical body.

Was this really the understanding of the Apostles... for if Christ be not dead (at all) what is the point of putting to death a carcass and raising it up?

How can Christ be set against David as an example?

“And was laid to his fathers, and saw corruption” David remained in the grave and returned to dust. While he still “slept,” his greater Son had been placed in the tomb but had already risen to the glory of divine nature. Peter had previously explained and argued this point extensively to the Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 2:29–31), and now Paul delivers the same message to the Jews in Antioch. His careful choice of words makes it clear that David could not be the one referred to in Psalm 16.

Do you appreciate the degree of violence needed to teach a pre-existent Christ in this section?

I think the issue only exists if one holds to a Trinitarian formulation that requires the Father and Son to be separate Persons, starting from eternity past. I don't hold that view.

I would like to elaborate on that, but I think the forum rules here prohibit debates on the Trinity, so I won't.

 

[Hiddenthings]

I think the issue only exists if one holds to a Trinitarian formulation that requires the Father and Son to be separate Persons, starting from eternity past. I don't hold that view.

I would like to elaborate on that, but I think the forum rules here prohibit debates on the Trinity, so I won't.

I believe these issues arise for anyone who holds that Christ existed before his conception. As we’ve seen throughout the discussions in this forum, for such a widely held belief, it certainly proves to be one of the most difficult to establish.

When you consider the atoning principles that depend upon Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, the belief in a pre-existent Christ undermines nearly all of them.

Take the death mentioned in Hebrews 5:7...if this does not refer to the person of Christ himself, but only to his physical body this would mean there was no real or meaningful death at all.

As I've said the Christian waters down the meaning of death and also life, as they believe eternal immortal beings can die.

It’s a two-edged sword, to remove the person of Christ from every verse that speaks of his death is to undermine the entire Bible. In effect, you would be claiming that the life he gave was not truly a life, but merely a body of flesh; and that the life God gave him was not eternal life....but what, then?

I respect your desire not to discuss the Trinity, as I share that also; however, these points concerning Christ’s pre-existence present major doctrinal dilemmas when trying to reconcile the meaning of passages such as Acts 13 and many others.

 

[Hiddenthings]

I see no option other than that the "heir" is Jesus.

There is no doctrinal workaround for the word heir.

To the messianic Son of Psa 2:7 are also spoken the words, "Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession" (Psa 2:8).

The Son, even when yet unborn is thus of central significance at the beginning (purpose), in creation, and at the end, in inheritance.

Of course there is the issue of Psalm 21:4 also which the Lord and Paul both support.

He (Christ) asked life of you (Yahweh); you (Yahweh) gave it to him, length of days forever and ever.

You immediately reject claims of deity
You immediately question pre-existence
This Son is not in possession of LIFE for the promise of Length of days only holds value to one who does not have it nor has ever had it.

These passages only make sense if you understand that God in creating anything to do with this epoc did so with Christ in mind.

This understanding of Christ’s creative role also appears in John 1:3–4, which may be punctuated as follows: “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made; that which has been made was life in him.” The same idea is reflected in Paul’s writings, such as Colossians 1:16 (“all things were created by him”) and 1 Corinthians 8:6 (“through whom all things came”). The background of this perspective may be found in the Old Testament concept of Divine Wisdom, which, when personified, is portrayed as participating in God’s creative work (Proverbs 8:27–31).

This creative imagery has led many to believe in a pre-existent Christ; however, as shown, that is not the intended meaning.

If the Logos of God conceived all things with Christ as the center of creation, then the revelation of Christ as the New Creation is the point at which everything is brought into reconciliation.

This of course requires more and more faith.

 

[dak]

My source on this is Stories from Ancient Canaan, particularly the story called Kirta. Kirta is the name of the main character, an ancient king of Ugarit. (Ugarit is a city of the Amorites, who are a tribe of Canaanites)

There's no mention of anointing in the story, or the rest of the book for that matter.

Google thinks that there is archaeological evidence for the practice, if that means anything.

Thank you.

I see no option other than that the "heir" is Jesus.

Great, (no worries it was not a trick question), so that supports the point I was making: the one in the parable is pretty obviously the Meshiah himself, that is, the Christos or Anointed One. And he it is who was and is a man, the Chosen One, and he was not preexisting or existing eternally in the past, (regardless of what the liar here keeps trying to foist upon my testimony which he does not understand).

Thus my own point was that since the parable speaks of the heir, and we agree about who that is, (the same one who is telling it, "Jesus", or the Meshiah-Anointed One), then he cannot be calling himself the heir at this point in his ministry if he has not yet even been proclaimed Son of Elohim, and that could have only been by the Psalm 2:7 decree, "You are My Son, this day I have begotten you", which means that the giving of the proclamation of the decree had to have happened before the telling of the parable: for if that event had not yet happened, then he would not yet have been confirmed as the heir, and at best he would have been guessing or hoping it would happen sooner or later as he told the parable.

If we be honest with ourselves, the proclamation of the Psalms 2:7 decree occurred at the immersion of the Anointed One: but someone later did not like how that fact destroyed their newly developing dogma and cut it out from both Matthew and Luke, being no different from Marcion the heretic with their own pairs of scissors removing what they did not like from the Gospel accounts, (except they missed Codex Bezae).

According to the full blown Arianist here, (Christadelphianism is essentially Arianism rehashed), the Meshiah did not hear the Psa 2:7 decree from the Father until he was resurrected, in an eternal ethereal place where no mortal can confirm or deny that it actually happened, except by distorting the words of the author of Hebrews.

Moreover it is the eternal Son who is ever in the bosom of the Father, and that one is not a man but rather the Logos, the Word of the Father, and the Father has never been without His Logos-Word. His nomina sacra are the same letters as those of the Anointed One, but they are not the same meaning. It is hidden manna, just as in the Greek texts I quoted in reply #166 above, and obviously by that statement the manna is meant for us to find in the Word through diligent and prayerful study.

This is what the utterly carnal minded Arian cannot understand, and why he keeps twisting and lying about most everything I have stated concerning what I believe regarding this topic. The only other choice I have at this point is to consider his deeds to be intentional, and therefor fully evil, so I'll simply leave it where it is at this point and cut him off.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Moreover it is the eternal Son who is ever in the bosom of the Father, and that one is not a man but rather the Logos, the Word of the Father, and the Father has never been without His Logos-Word.

Jesus became the full expression of Yahweh's Logos.

"he (Christ) has made him (Yahweh) known" - (note the relational direction!)

“Exegeomai” means to declare or to interpret (compare the English word exegesis). In this final verse of the Prologue, we find the climactic revelation of the Logos, the Word of God made flesh, Jesus of Nazareth. His entire life, his words, deeds, and supremely his death, resurrection, and ascension serves as the full interpretation and revelation of his heavenly Father.

You (dak) are correct though in saying "the Father has never been without His Logos-Word" this is a true saying because the Logos - Word was used to create all things through the Power of the spoken Logos.

God’s Logos, His Word, spoke both in Genesis 1:1 and in John 1:1; bringing forth creation in both its physical and spiritual dimensions. At the center of its Divine purpose is the Word made flesh.

@Wick Stick, you can see how limiting Dak’s definition of the Logos is. He identifies the Logos solely with (in) Christ as a person, rather than recognizing the Logos as God’s (Yahweh's) divine self-expression manifested in and through Christ.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Where dak's theology falls over is assume Logos with a preexistent Christ.

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” 1 Timothy 3:16

So what does “made flesh” mean here? It means that the Logos became a real, flesh-and-blood human being. The Logos did not merely “take on” flesh or “add a human nature to himself”, as traditional Trinitarian formulations suggest and as John does not say. The text simply states: the Logos became flesh.

Think carefully: where in Scripture are we ever told that God added human nature to the divine? The idea of a “dual nature” is excluded. The statement “the Logos became flesh” is a straightforward X → Y transformation: when noun X becomes noun Y, it ceases to be X. Consider Cana: the water ginomai wine; it did not “add wine nature” to itself or exist as a dual water/wine substance. It became wine and stopped being water.

God revealed His character through the life, death, and resurrection of One who perfectly embodied the Logos (in character first then nature when raised). Yahweh’s divine will is fully displayed and empowered in the resurrected Christ.

 

[Hiddenthings]

This is what the utterly carnal minded Arian cannot understand, and why he keeps twisting and lying about most everything I have stated concerning what I believe regarding this topic. The only other choice I have at this point is to consider his deeds to be intentional, and therefor fully evil, so I'll simply leave it where it is at this point and cut him off.

Your accusations say more about your assumptions than about my actual position. I have neither twisted nor lied about your beliefs, and labeling my responses as “fully evil” only exposes the weakness of your argument. If your aim were genuine discussion, misrepresentation would be counterproductive. I will continue to speak clearly and accurately, despite your unfounded claims.

 

[dak]

Your accusations say more about your assumptions than about my actual position. I have neither twisted nor lied about your beliefs, and labeling my responses as “fully evil” only exposes the weakness of your argument. If your aim were genuine discussion, misrepresentation would be counterproductive. I will continue to speak clearly and accurately, despite your unfounded claims.

To whomever may actually be interested: just on the previous page alone the poster above told this many lies about what I believe and have told him multiple times that I believe.

Nowhere is it taught that Jesus was two persons.
You are one deluded believer!

I have never made the above accusation-statement anywhere in all of this forum.

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.

I have never said that Christ preexisted anywhere in all of this forum, in fact, I just repeated my position to @Wick Stick in a post herein above, and it clearly says nothing about Christ having preexisted.

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

The above is more slander and a lie: I have no need to conclude any of the idiotic things this poster says about what I believe, as you can see he has never even actually listened to my own personal testimony about what I believe, and because of it, he knows nothing about what I actually believe.

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.

Another misdirection, misrepresentation, misunderstanding, and a lie: I have never said that the Father did not give the inheritance to the Meshiah, "Christ", or "Jesus", and in fact I just said that He did in the previous post to Wick Stick concerning the parable about the heir being cast out and killed by the vineyard workers.

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.

Another lie: I have explained to this poster many, many times, that the one whom he calls "Jesus" is the Meshiah or "Christ" in my view, not the eternal Son, and again I just explained a little of this to Wick Stick in my post above concerning the parable.

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?

Another idiotic insinuation at my expense: the Meshiah or "Christ" is a man, the Anointed One.
The eternal Son is not a man: he is the Logos-Word of the Father.

I cannot count how many times I have already stated these, my beliefs, to this poster: and yet he refuses to believe that when I say those things I really do mean exactly what I say: he simply refuses to believe my own testimony about what I believe. Such a poisoned mind is not worth the time anymore, for he is at this point quite obviously playing mind games because it is really him who has no answer for the doctrine which utterly destroys his full blown carnal minded Arianism.

This is where the Arianist reveals his reason for all the antagonism, false accusations, and lies: he apparently knows that the form of Adoptionism to which I hold, (which is absolutely not Arianism), would destroy his own doctrine. So then, is what he is doing intentional? If so then he is indeed full of hatred and evil.

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.

More buffoonery: for he himself twists the Logos of the Father into lies and uses those words to attack people whom he considers to be "satans" simply because they disagree with him, (most all Christdelphians do this because they reject the scriptures regarding spiritual forces and entities called Satan or devils or demons: apparently they feel better calling believers who disagree with them "the satans").

If you want peace of mind and a good and fair discussion around here: stay away from this hater.

 

[Wick Stick]

When you consider the atoning principles that depend upon Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, the belief in a pre-existent Christ undermines nearly all of them.

Are you talking about the Substitutionary Theory of Atonement? I'd be okay with that idea being undermined. I find that it did not exist til the 10th century. Innovation is not a good thing in the field of Theology. Also, it takes the idea of redemption and tries to call it atonement. They aren't the same thing. Atonement is a covering, not a payment of debt.

Take the death mentioned in Hebrews 5:7...if this does not refer to the person of Christ himself, but only to his physical body this would mean there was no real or meaningful death at all.

Death is overrrated. Everyone dies. It's just a transition from this world to the next.

The thing that Christ did that is special, is resurrection. Defeating death and returning from Hades to this world? We don't all do that.

As I've said the Christian waters down the meaning of death and also life, as they believe eternal immortal beings can die.

It’s a two-edged sword, to remove the person of Christ from every verse that speaks of his death is to undermine the entire Bible. In effect, you would be claiming that the life he gave was not truly a life, but merely a body of flesh; and that the life God gave him was not eternal life....but what, then?

We're left with the idea that Jesus descended into hell and busted up the joint, broke the power of Hades, set the captives free, defeated death, and covered up our sins.

That seems sufficient to me.

 

[Wick Stick]

Great, (no worries it was not a trick question), so that supports the point I was making: the one in the parable is pretty obviously the Meshiah himself, that is, the Christos or Anointed One. And he it is who was and is a man, the Chosen One, and he was not preexisting or existing eternally in the past, (regardless of what the liar here keeps trying to foist upon my testimony which he does not understand).

Thus my own point was that since the parable speaks of the heir, and we agree about who that is, (the same one who is telling it, "Jesus", or the Meshiah-Anointed One), then he cannot be calling himself the heir at this point in his ministry if he has not yet even been proclaimed Son of Elohim, and that could have only been by the Psalm 2:7 decree, "You are My Son, this day I have begotten you", which means that the giving of the proclamation of the decree had to have happened before the telling of the parable: for if that event had not yet happened, then he would not yet have been confirmed as the heir, and at best he would have been guessing or hoping it would happen sooner or later as he told the parable.

If we be honest with ourselves, the proclamation of the Psalms 2:7 decree occurred at the immersion of the Anointed One: but someone later did not like how that fact destroyed their newly developing dogma and cut it out from both Matthew and Luke, being no different from Marcion the heretic with their own pairs of scissors removing what they did not like from the Gospel accounts, (except they missed Codex Bezae).

I think we're basically on the same page here.

If this is so, what do we do with the accounts of the virgin birth in Matthew and Luke? Neither appears to be a late addition to those books. If they were "corrected" after the fact, it isn't obvious.

Is there a way that we can retain both the virgin birth, and the adoption at Jesus' baptism? The scissor-men apparently didn't think so... shall I get my own scissors and cut out the opposing passage instead?

According to the full blown Arianist here, (Christadelphianism is essentially Arianism rehashed), the Meshiah did not hear the Psa 2:7 decree from the Father until he was resurrected, in an eternal ethereal place where no mortal can confirm or deny that it actually happened, except by distorting the words of the author of Hebrews.

I wish the two of you could get along. I find you both engaging.

I think he's misunderstood your position. You aren't the easiest person to understand. I had to read your post on nomina sacra 4 times and look up several words to get there.

Moreover it is the eternal Son who is ever in the bosom of the Father, and that one is not a man but rather the Logos, the Word of the Father, and the Father has never been without His Logos-Word. His nomina sacra are the same letters as those of the Anointed One, but they are not the same meaning. It is hidden manna, just as in the Greek texts I quoted in reply #166 above, and obviously by that statement the manna is meant for us to find in the Word through diligent and prayerful study.

This bit is hard to understand. Didn't the Logos-Word come to rest on Jesus Christ and indwell him? If so, what is the value in differentiating between the two?

...

Are you familiar with the idea of Emanationism? I think it's officially a heresy, but also it seems to provide a better framework for understanding this than the church traditionally has.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Are you talking about the Substitutionary Theory of Atonement? I'd be okay with that idea being undermined.

It's a relief to read this Wick.

The Substitutionary theory of Atonement makes God a debtor which is why it falls over upon examination.

Wick, if Christ truly died in our place, then we should not have to die, yet we do. And if he fully paid the penalty owed by us that is, death then he should not have risen, yet he did. Moreover, if his death alone accomplished redemption, its saving power would lie solely in that event, not in what came afterward. But Paul tells the Corinthians that, even with Christ’s death, “if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins” (1 Cor. 15:17).

If Christ has fully paid our debt, then our debts are not truly forgiven, for it would be meaningless for a creditor to claim to have “forgiven” a debt that another has already paid on the debtor’s behalf. In that case, the central feature of the gospel, the grace of God expressed in the forgiveness of our sins “through the forbearance of God” (Rom 3:25) would be lost.

The true model of Atonement cannot involve a pre-existent Christ, for the victory God required had to be achieved within the very nature shared by all humanity. This is why the Apostles emphasize so strongly that Christ possessed the same nature as those he came to represent.

In Christ, God’s character was revealed through a body subject to death, a nature under the same condemnation as our own. Only those who strive to put that same nature to death within themselves can truly enter into the atoning principles that Christ demonstrated in His life.

“And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”

Not a single event! A lifelong struggle like the Master who experienced the agony of putting that flesh to death daily.

I find that it did not exist til the 10th century. Innovation is not a good thing in the field of Theology. Also, it takes the idea of redemption and tries to call it atonement. They aren't the same thing. Atonement is a covering, not a payment of debt.

Agree

Death is overrrated. Everyone dies. It's just a transition from this world to the next.

Death is the enemy of God (wages of sin is death...) God is a God of the Living. Failure to understand the true nature of death will result in a failure to understand the Life of Christ and the Victory God gave in him.

The thing that Christ did that is special, is resurrection. Defeating death and returning from Hades to this world? We don't all do that.

Returning from the Grave - Hades as Christianity has come to know it is not taught in the Word of God. But plenty of mythological stories abound on the subject.

We're left with the idea that Jesus descended into hell and busted up the joint, broke the power of Hades, set the captives free, defeated death, and covered up our sins.

You are so quick to ignore the teaching of corruption? Jesus descended the grave (full stop)

 

[Hiddenthings]

To whomever may actually be interested: just on the previous page alone the poster above told this many lies about what I believe and have told him multiple times that I believe.

It was unwise of you to say all that and then try to justify your “fully evil” comment with “hater”, not a good look, Dak.

 

[Hiddenthings]

I have explained to this poster many, many times, that the one whom he calls "Jesus" is the Meshiah or "Christ" in my view, not the eternal Son, and again I just explained a little of this to Wick Stick in my post above concerning the parable.

@Wick Stick can you make any sense of this?

He seems completely unable to clearly define what he believes, and when he tries, he ends up making contradictory statements, for example, saying “the Lord Jesus Christ is not the Eternal Son” without offering any qualifiers or explanation.

I’ve informed him several times how difficult he is to understand, but instead of speaking plainly, he insists on pontificating in overly elaborate, lexicon-style language.

Maybe you can shed some light on what he believes.