What does it "REALLY" mean that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?

[EternalFire]

This seems to be heeding to to a wrong direction on the pre-incarnate Christ. Christ is called the Word and in the eternity past, he was God.

Please spell out the verse so that it heads in the right direction with the language of the Trinity. It gets confusing when God is one person in one part of the sentence and God is another person in a different part of the same sentence. As an Israelite who obeyed the Shema (Deut. 6:4-5), is John confused about God?

 

[Mattathias]

See again the Tyndale Bible. As I have time I’ll post translations which support Tyndale.

”In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was wyth God; and God was the worde. The same was in the begynnyng wyth God. In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men, and the lyght shyneth in darcknes, and the darcknes comprehended it not.”

(Great Bible, 1539)

The Father’s logos - it.

It starts with knowing who the God of Jesus Christ is.

The God of Jesus Christ is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

 

[bluto]

Do you believe there are demons operating on this forum? I tell you, there are. You will find them reviling those who belong to God and to Jesus Christ.



Surely you have heard trinitarian scholars and theologians refer to Jesus as a unique person. If you ever hear them say that he is a unique human person (or a human person) you will hear them through Chalcedon out the window.



Jesus Christ is functionally God.



He isn’t. His God is.



That is Jesus’ God speaking in Isaiah, not Jesus.



See again the Tyndale Bible. As I have time I’ll post translations which support Tyndale.



It starts with knowing who the God of Jesus Christ is.



If you believe that then why did you post a comment to me about it? And why have you not disagreed with what I wrote in response? It is fundamentally opposed to what you said.

What does that mean when you say, "Jesus Christ is functionally God? Is He or is He not God in a human body? Why do you think Hebrews 10: 4 say, "But a body Thou hast prepared for Me." Or at Hebrews 5:7, "In the days of His flesh," Who talks like that if Jesus is not God in flesh?

And btw, are you aware of what the following Church father stated here:
Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) was an Christian apologist of the second century.

And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said.10​

Permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order to prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts.11​

Therefore these words testify explicitly that He [Jesus] is witnessed to by Him [the Father] who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ.12​

The Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin...13​

For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God.14​

How did he come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is the angel of the Lord?

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[fredoheaven]

No.



Who is also his God and my God.



God’s God addresses him as God. Can you make sense out of that with your theology, fred?



No one is better than the one true God.

I'll take what the Father has said, His Son is God. O what a testimony. Here's the truth:

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

 

[fredoheaven]

Please spell out the verse so that it heads in the right direction with the language of the Trinity. It gets confusing when God is one person in one part of the sentence and God is another person in a different part of the same sentence. As an Israelite who obeyed the Shema (Deut. 6:4-5), is John confused about God?

No. John is not confused, your substitution to what he said is confusing...

 

[Mattathias]

What does that mean when you say, "Jesus Christ is functionally God?

I mean that Jesus is the shaliach of his God.

Is He or is He not God in a human body?

He is not God in a human body. He is a human person.

Why do you think Hebrews 10: 4 say, "But a body Thou hast prepared for Me."

Because it’s true. Why do you think the alleged creator of the heavens and the earth (Jesus) had a body prepared for him rather than preparing it for himself? (In Sunday School we were taught that Jesus created everything. When one of my friends asked why he didn’t create a body for himself the teacher said that he did. “You” and “Me” should be a dead giveaway that two persons are involved - one preparing a body for the other.)

Or at Hebrews 5:7, "In the days of His flesh," Who talks like that if Jesus is not God in flesh?

The author of Hebrews. Cp. Paul’s discussion of flesh before and after resurrection.

And btw, are you aware of what the following Church father stated here:
Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) was an Christian apologist of the second century.

And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said.10​

Permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order to prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts.11​

Therefore these words testify explicitly that He [Jesus] is witnessed to by Him [the Father] who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ.12​

The Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin...13​

For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God.14​

​

​

Yes, I’m aware. The same Justin Martyr who said, “I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, and that there is said to be another God and Lord, subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things - - above whom there is no God - - wishes to announce them.”​

​

(Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 56)​

​

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html​

​

How did he come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is the angel of the Lord?

Justin is one of the Greek Apologists. He was steeped in Greek philosophy prior to becoming a Christian. He saw similarities between the angel of the Lord and Jesus (a second God, and not himself the maker of all things) when he read scripture and then connected the dots through the lens of Greek philosophy.

Justin believed Plato was a Christian, though Plato himself wasn’t aware of it.

From a Lutheran scholar,

“e. Subordinationism. The Apologists, especially Justin, taught the subordination of the Son to the Father. From Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho (Cf. Seeberg, Eng. ed., 113) the Father alone is the real God; the Logos is only a Divine Being of second rank. With respect to to the Father the Logos is something else... and another... He is the Father’s organ and servant, and is dependent on Him. He is different also in this, that while the Father is eternal, infinite, incomprehensible, unchangeable and transcendent, the Son is not (Justin, Dial. 56, 62, 128f.). Loofs remarks that the Apologists outside of Justin were not so strong in their insistence on subordination. However, it was a tenet which continued to trouble the developing Christian Church. See our Chapter X on the Trinity.”

(Dr. J.L. Neve, A History of Christian Thought, Vol. I, p. 47)

 

[Mattathias]

I'll take what the Father has said, His Son is God. O what a testimony.

Your theology cannot handle the God of God calling him God. Yet it is the truth.

Here's the truth:

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Who does Jesus say here is the only true God? Jesus was/is a Jewish monotheist. He is saying that his God and Father - Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - is the only true God.

1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

John is not contradicting Jesus, nor is he saying that another person besides the God of Jesus is the only true God. (Nor does Jesus, John or anyone else say the Holy Spirit is the only true God.) The statement in 1 John 5:20 is saying exactly what Jesus said in John 17:3. “Him that is true” is the God and Father of “his Son Jesus Christ”. This - the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ - is the true God.

We find this concession made in some, but not all, trinitarian commentary. Not that it matters to JAT; I’m just stating a fact.

 

[DesertWanderer]

You must have me confused with someone else. I‘ve never had any connection with the Watchtower Society and disagree with most of their doctrinal positions.

Okay, my apologies.

However, you seem to be obsessed (as are most JWs) with the doctrine of the trinity; even more so than Catholic scholars, which is hard to believe.

That is why I jumped to the conclusion that you are reading from the New World Translation. By the way, are you?

If not, why are you fighting scripture so hard?

If it is a matter of transparency in translation, I would encourage you to go to bible.org. There you will find the NET2 bible with footnotes on every verse explaining why it was translated the way it is from the original texts.

Although it is difficult to translate Hebrew and Greek into English, it can be done, which it already has. Read for yourself.

 

[Mattathias]

We find this concession made in some, but not all, trinitarian commentary. Not that it matters to JAT; I’m just stating a fact.

The trinitarian commentary in NET contains a very good discussion of the difficulties in 1 John 5:20.

https://netbible.org/bible/1+John+5

I don’t believe any passage of scripture contradicts or in any way opposes the unitarian faith of the Lord Jesus Christ. I acknowledge the difficulty of the text and resolve it by harmonizing it with what Jesus Christ himself said.

 

[Mattathias]

Okay, my apologies.

Thank you.

However, you seem to be obsessed (as are most JWs) with the doctrine of the trinity; even more so than Catholic scholars, which is hard to believe.

That is why I jumped to the conclusion that you are reading from the New World Translation. By the way, are you?

I‘ve read it, but the only time I use it is when I’m having a conversation with a JW.

If not, why are you fighting scripture so hard?

I’m explaining scripture as viewed through the lens of Jewish monotheism, rather than as viewed through the lens of later trinitarian monotheism. (Though I sometimes have to discuss scripture as viewed through the lens of trinitarianism in conversation with people who self-identify as trinitarian but believe things which are incompatible with, even contradictory of, historical orthodox trinitarianism.)

Jewish monotheists sometimes say that trinitarians are fighting scripture. Trinitarians sometimes say that Jewish monotheists are fighting scripture. Better, I think, is simply to recognize and acknowledge that the lens we use to understand scripture produces results which are different from the results produced by using a different lens.

If it is a matter of transparency in translation, I would encourage you to go to bible.org. There you will find the NET2 bible with footnotes on every verse explaining why it was translated the way it is from the original texts.

Thank you. I often consult and recommend the footnotes in NET.

Although it is difficult to translate Hebrew and Greek into English, it can be done, which it already has. Read for yourself.

I took courses in Hebrew and Greek in college so that I could read the texts in their original languages. I don’t think a person has to know the original languages in order to read and understand the Bible, but I find that it helps.

 

[Mattathias]

We find this concession made in some, but not all, trinitarian commentary.

Henry Alford’s commentary on 1 John 5:20.

https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hac/1-john-5.html

 

[Nehemiah6]

If not, why are you fighting scripture so hard?

Because -- for all his fancy talk -- he believes just as the JWs do. They blatantly proclaim that Jesus is NOT God, just like Mattathias.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Who does Jesus say here is the only true God? Jesus was/is a Jewish monotheist. He is saying that his God and Father - Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - is the only true God.

I already showed you from Scripture that Jesus told Moses that He was also the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Which means that you do not believe either the Father or the Son. And John 1:1 says that they are BOTH God.

 

[Mattathias]

Because -- for all his fancy talk -- he believes just as the JWs do.

You’re making a false accusation against me.

They blatantly proclaim that Jesus is NOT God, just like Mattathias.

See my posts where I say Jesus is God, and explain how he is God.

 

[Mattathias]

I already showed you from Scripture that Jesus told Moses that He was also the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

The only time Jesus spoke to Moses was in the transfiguration vision.

The God and Father of Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob... and Moses... and every believer, whether OT, NT or post-biblical.

Which means that you do not believe either the Father or the Son.

Again, you bear false witness against me. I believe the Father and the Son.

And John 1:1 says that they are BOTH God.

See the Tyndale Bible, and the other Bible translations which support it.

 

[Mattathias]

We find this concession made in some, but not all, trinitarian commentary.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges, on 1 John 5:20.

https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/cgt/1-john-5.html

 

[Nehemiah6]

The only time Jesus spoke to Moses was in the transfiguration vision.

I already posted Exodus chapter 3, and once again you ignored Scripture in favor of your heretical beliefs.

God -- Jesus -- the Second person of the Godhead -- the Angel of the LORD -- Yahweh -- the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- appeared to Moses in the burning bush and spoke with him extensively.

 

[Mattathias]

I already posted Exodus chapter 3, and once again you ignored Scripture in favor of your heretical beliefs.

You continue to bear false witness against me. I didn’t ignore the scripture you posted. I believe the scripture as it us understood in Jewish monotheism.

 

[Mattathias]

Because -- for all his fancy talk -- he believes just as the JWs do.

One example, in keeping with the discussion about the angel of the Lord, proving that you are a false witness. (I could produce many, many more examples proving it.)

JW’s - Jesus is the angel of the Lord. (Do I need to produce the evidence for you from their writings?)

Mattathias - Jesus is not the angel of the Lord. (See my writing in this thread. If a second witness is needed I will call on bluto to testify on my behalf. He might also be able to confirm for you that the JW’s believe Jesus is the angel of the Lord.)

 

[bluto]

One example, in keeping with the discussion about the angel of the Lord, proving that you are a false witness. (I could produce many, many more examples proving it.)

JW’s - Jesus is the angel of the Lord. (Do I need to produce the evidence for you from their writings?)

Mattathias - Jesus is not the angel of the Lord. (See my writing in this thread. If a second witness is needed I will call on bluto to testify on my behalf. He might also be able to confirm for you that the JW’s believe Jesus is the angel of the Lord.)

Your "rang?" The JW's do indeed believe that Jesus, who is also Michael the arc angel is the angel of the Lord. The Jw's sayh so in the following article. Just read the second to last paragraph here. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200004625#h=31

And for you Mattathias, the preincarnate Jesus Christ is "THE" angel of the Lord. I gave complet and total proof that angels cannot swear oaths on behalf of God, period. You never refuted the Biblical evidence, you ignored it and kept changing the subject. And btw, as a side note, angels can swear oaths on their own. Just read Revelation 10:6. Guess who the angel swore by Mattathias? Read it for yourself.

In summary, give me one good Biblical reason why Jesus can't be the angel of the Lord? I know, it's your turn to bring up Hebrews 1 where you think it means that the Son did not appear in the OT. The Bible teaches the Father appointed the Son as the heir of all things, and the Son whom He created all things and that means that the Son was existing with His Father even before creation because He's God.

Genesis 1:1 states, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Both verses start out with the same three words, "In the beginning." Yet the main thought in Genesis 1:1 is on WHAT HAPPENED IN THE BEGINNING, AND IN jOHN 1:1 the emphasis is on WHO EXISTED in the beginning.

At Exodus 3:2 you have the angel of the Lord appearing to Moses in the midst of the burning bush. At vs4, "When the Lord saw that he turned aside to look, GOD called to him from the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses!" Here I am." This is what is called a relational context. God and the Messenger were one and the same. It's like how I might say, "Bluto went to hear Martin Luther King speak and turned around to look at the Doctor." You would't say Martin Luther King and the Doctor were two differenct people. Only two different identifications of the same person.

And notice Exodus 3:6 (Which is all the rage because you bring it up enough times.) "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." And then Moses hid his face, (why?) because he was afraid TO LOOK AT GOD." Btw, I don't seem to recall Exodus 3:2 being on your list of 195 references that refer to the Lord, why?

IN THE ANGEL OF THE LORD,
bluto