The Nature of Jesus

[andrew]

Waiting....

I hope you're not holding your breath; it's going to be a long time....

Meanwhile, I'm truly concerned. How am I going to function on this board now that you're on to my subtle side-stepping? Dang, I guess I'm shamed into playing your game.

Or not. Let's review.

You made the outrageous claim that our salvation or damnation depends on being "right" on unspecified points of doctrine. Then you went on to try to drag me into the argument I've been studiously avoiding and indirectly criticizing for over 100 posts.

I asked you to back up your outrageous claim with scripture and explain away the first few verses that came to mind that would argue against your claim. I'm still not interested in the main argument and will not respond to it.

Apparently you're not interested in backing up your claim, either. It stands unsupported.

You brought up philosophy as if somehow that's a criticism. I asserted that 'love of wisdom' is actually encouraged in the scriptures. You misquoted me, and I corrected you, throwing in the poem because it's a personal favorite, it says a lot about the difference between knowledge and wisdom, and it's congruent with what scripture says about the difference between knowledge and wisdom.

And I'm the one who uses rabbit trails as a tactic?! Riiiiiiiiight......

 

[andrew]

I don't know what game we were playing, but Zec is hereby declared the winner!

 

[Slumberfreeze]

I dig it.

 

[FollowingHim]

Andrew and Mojo, you're both talking at cross-purposes, and I don't think you can see it because you're in the middle of it.

Mojo, did you mean to say "In my theology, being right about those matters pertaining to salvation is the difference between salvation and damnation." but typed too fast and missed the italicised clarification?

If so, you're both basically in agreement.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

Ok your Paslm 2:7 quote is not a mistranslation but He's speaking to David / Israel here. He's not speaking to Yeshua. There are numerous references to Israel as G-d's "firstborn" etc. these are of course allegorical and it's not really proper to try to apply them in this literal manner to Yeshua.

Humm....

Acts 13:33
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

here Luke records that Paul says this verse refers to Christ/Yeshua..

Hebrews 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

It seems the writer of Hebrews thinks it applied to Christ/Yeshua..

 

[The Revolting Man]

Humm....

Acts 13:33
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

here Luke records that Paul says this verse refers to Christ/Yeshua..

Hebrews 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

It seems the writer of Hebrews thinks it applied to Christ/Yeshua..

So if this stated all the way back in the Psalms then how does His birth have anything to do with anything? He has existed for at least a thousand years at that point. Why did He come into being all the way back then? This doesn't get any clearer the more you talk about it.

 

[andrew]

Mojo, did you mean to say "In my theology, being right about those matters pertaining to salvation is the difference between salvation and damnation." but typed too fast and missed the italicised clarification?

That would be the clarification I was looking for....

One of the hazards of forum 'discussions' is having several conversations going on at once. If we were in meatspace we'd all be talking at the same time and interjecting into each others' conversations.

So I brought up the issue of 'being right' in response to something Zec said, then Mojo picked up on and responded to that, but took it in a different direction, and I responded to that, and now we're trying to figure out whether he meant what he said or meant something else. Good times!

 

[Jim an Apostle]

So if this stated all the way back in the Psalms then how does His birth have anything to do with anything? He has existed for at least a thousand years at that point. Why did He come into being all the way back then? This doesn't get any clearer the more you talk about it.

This line from Psalms is prophecy. God Hath fulfilled it says. Jesus birth was the fulfillment of this prophecy. The Prophecy was actually first uttered by God at the beginning of the creation Jn 1;1 the word was an utterance that God would have a Son, that was the reason for all of the creation from the highest Angel to the lowest worm. Sometimes God speaks by prophecy as though it was already done. He called Gideon a mighty man of valor while he was in hiding.

 

[Shibboleth]

I have decided that The Revelation wasn't a vision or a dream. John instead was transported into the future where he literally saw the actual events as they happened. He was then brought back in time to the exact moment he left so that his companions did not know that anything had happened. Problem solved.

Interesting thought... (though off topic, as you say --- maybe a mod could split off Zec's post and this one?)

In a related vein, I've wondered before about the framing of the Two Witnesses passage in Revelation 11 (which I take to refer to literal individuals) -- this vision is immediately proceeded by John eating the little scroll, and being told that he must "prophecy again over many people, nations, languages, and kings". Then he sees the future temple (which I take to be literal), with the outer court given to the nations, and two witnesses prophecying.

Chapter breaks don't exist in the original. There seems to me to be a clear and direct parallel -- maybe even a cause-and-effect -- between the statement at the end of ch. 10 that John must prophesy again to nations (did he do this after writing the book of revelation?), and the vision in ch. 11 of two witnesses prophecying at a temple where there are other nations. This is a strong enough link that it hints to me that one of these witnesses might actually be John himself (the other likely being the promised Elijah), in which case John was viewing a vision of his future self, including his own death and resurrection.

(Aside: This might imply John was translated. We don't know how he dies after being released from Patmos, but unlike the other apostles, he's thought to have not been martyred).

It might also explain why John was told to seal up and not write the things he heard from the seven thunders. He was actually hearing the things he would be prophecying about when he became one of those two witnesses, and those prophecies aren't to be revealed until that time.

 

[The Revolting Man]

This line from Psalms is prophecy. God Hath fulfilled it says. Jesus birth was the fulfillment of this prophecy. The Prophecy was actually first uttered by God at the beginning of the creation Jn 1;1 the word was an utterance that God would have a Son, that was the reason for all of the creation from the highest Angel to the lowest worm. Sometimes God speaks by prophecy as though it was already done. He called Gideon a mighty man of valor while he was in hiding.

So when God says He has done something it means He hasn't done it yet but He will get around to it?

 

[Mojo]

Andrew and Mojo, you're both talking at cross-purposes, and I don't think you can see it because you're in the middle of it.

Mojo, did you mean to say "In my theology, being right about those matters pertaining to salvation is the difference between salvation and damnation." but typed too fast and missed the italicised clarification?

If so, you're both basically in agreement.

I did type it. I think @andrew sabotaged my post to make me look stupid...or did I do that on my own???

Just FYI- I still love Andrew. Maybe I'm in male menopause. I've been too touchy and grouchy lately. Will soy milk help?

I'm done with this one.

@Jim an Apostle, I love you too. We disagree, but it's not a reason to hate or hold a grudge.
Another FYI- I distinctly remember sitting in a church service once contemplating whether or not Jesus had to be divine to fulfill his role as perfect sacrifice. I concluded he didn't. It didn't change what I believed about him, just opened my mind a little.

 

[andrew]

Feelin the love! Backatcha, bro!

 

[IshChayil]

IC, I think I get what you're saying, but I don't get how it's on point.

Mojo made a pretty bold statement, that the difference between salvation and damnation is "being right" (in this context, that means being right about some theological propositions about the nature of an infinite God Who exists by definition outside of the framework of what we are able to understand).

Mystic suggested that the teachings of Jesus point in a different direction (focusing more on love and mercy and not so much on dogma or religious observances based on tradition).

Then you come along saying "To know His ways we need to be right at least sometimes", which to me seems unusually wishy-washy for you. I'd be willing to go further with you, that we need to be right a lot of the time, but one of the things we need to get right is the relative merits of (a) thinking we're right in our head about how we understand the nature of the infinite expressing itself through the finite, and (b) practical acts of selflessness of the sort Jesus expressly taught are the foundation of a judgment between salvation and damnation.

Yeah I think I went a meandering a bit!

 

[IshChayil]

Humm....
Acts 13:33
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

exactly as I was saying, it refers to Israel, not Yeshua. Even in this verse you listed it says "..the same unto us their children"

here Luke records that Paul says this verse refers to Christ/Yeshua..

Hebrews 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

It seems the writer of Hebrews thinks it applied to Christ/Yeshua..

Yes, I agree that the writer is applying this verse from this psalm to Yeshua "now" as you see it.

Many of the writings do "double duty" in this way. Originally they will have to do with Israel and then later writers will borrow from them.
I don't think it's a strong proof text though to use it in this way to reclaim the whole begotten thing.
We agree at the time the psalm 2 was written it's referencing David/Israel right? I don't think anyone disagrees with this as it fits much of the Israel "firstborn" narrative from those days.

I seek clarification***
So is this now the thrust of your argument? A psalm originally intended for Israel at large, or at least Yeshurun, is now to be applied as a proof text that Yeshua's spirit has a beginning to it?

peace

 

[IshChayil]

You want loopy?
You want preexistent?

Yahushua was Adam reincarnated.
1 Corinthians 15:45 (KJV) 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.

*running for the hills*
(Oh wait, I am already in Broadus MT, you cannot get me)

Who is "Yahushua" again?
Just wondering cuz nobody in the Hebrew bible had that name...

 

[Jim an Apostle]

So when God says He has done something it means He hasn't done it yet but He will get around to it?

Sometimes, if He is speaking prophetically.
Romans 4:17
(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

I did type it. I think @andrew sabotaged my post to make me look stupid...or did I do that on my own???

Just FYI- I still love Andrew. Maybe I'm in male menopause. I've been too touchy and grouchy lately. Will soy milk help?

I'm done with this one.

@Jim an Apostle, I love you too. We disagree, but it's not a reason to hate or hold a grudge.
Another FYI- I distinctly remember sitting in a church service once contemplating whether or not Jesus had to be divine to fulfill his role as perfect sacrifice. I concluded he didn't. It didn't change what I believed about him, just opened my mind a little.

no hate here

 

[IshChayil]

This line from Psalms is prophecy. God Hath fulfilled it says. Jesus birth was the fulfillment of this prophecy. The Prophecy was actually first uttered by God at the beginning of the creation Jn 1;1 the word was an utterance that God would have a Son, that was the reason for all of the creation from the highest Angel to the lowest worm. Sometimes God speaks by prophecy as though it was already done. He called Gideon a mighty man of valor while he was in hiding.

This is called the "prophetical perfect" in Hebrew grammar. Biblical Hebrew (not modern) doesn't really have past and future in the same way that many languages do. Instead actions are considered perfect / imperfect (these terms mean totally different things in Hebrew grammar than the do in Greek Grammar so any Greek students don't get confused by the terminology).

An action is either finished or it is not. If it is finished (perfect) we often translate that as past tense in English.
If it's imperfect (unfinished) that gets future tense or present tense in translation (usually future).
There are some other sticky caveats I won't delve into.

the fun part is when an unchangeable prophecy is stated; from the prophet's perspective it's sealed and done and unchangeable so we put it in the perfect (usually looks like past). King James and other translations in an attempt to be faithful to the Hebrew bring those into English in the "past tense" so it looks like it's past to English readers though users of those translations usually have an intuition for when "past" means "future".

The problem with leaning heavily on psalm 2 as you now are doing (further searching for "begotten" language to move forth with), is the context of the psalm has to do with rebellious powers revolting against David. the Almighty "laughs" and "mocks" them and all this other language. Yes we can pull from an epistle a creative use of that line to reapply it to the Messiah and I'll grant you that point but this comes back to my comment earlier that there are several verses on both sides of this argument and reapplying psalms via an epistle (letter encouraging people) after having lost the gospel claim isn't enough. What the writer of Hebrews is doing is not foreign to Rabbinical thought.
There are literally thousands of applications you wouldn't dream of from psalms in the talmud supporting unrelated items. Let's not confuse creative exuberance in an encouraging letter with solid support for denying Yeshua's pre-existence.
[I'm banging this out fast without review so go gentle fellas ]

 

[IshChayil]

Romans 12:2
And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

The renewing of the mind is not a visible process.

Sure it is for anyone who knows you.
This is in fact the best witness of the gospel is for those who know a person and see how He/she is transformed.
the initial stages can be quite a radical, visible change.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

I seek clarification***
So is this now the thrust of your argument? A psalm originally intended for Israel at large, or at least Yeshurun, is now to be applied as a proof text that Yeshua's spirit has a beginning to it?

Psalm 2:1-12
Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? [2] The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, [3] Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. [4] He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. [5] Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. [6] Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. [7] I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. [8] Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. [9] Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. [10] Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. [11] Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. [12] Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Seems to me this whole Psalm is directed at Messiah. any overlap to David and Israel is the secondary part.

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, [3] Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

This will be fulfilled at he end of the 1000 year reign of Messiah

Proverbs 30:4
Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?