Re: Jesus is son of God

[ExMilitary]

As Jesus was put on trial by the Jews at night time the High Priest asked him to tell him something. "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God."  Matthew 26: 63. What exactly did he mean?

To a Jew the Messiah was also to be the Son of God. They also believed that God would make the Messiah king over the everlasting kingdom that God was to bring into the world. Only a descendant of King David was able to become this king because God promised King David that through the prophet Nathan. God also promised to be a Father to him and to call him His Son.

And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build me an house, and I will establish his throne for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee: But I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be established for evermore. 1 Chronicles 17: 11 - 14.

Since this kingdom was to last forever the Jews believed that the Son of God could never die. Anyone claiming to be the Messiah and died was rejected by the Jews as the promised King of Israel. This is why the Jews demanded from Jesus to come down from the cross, so as to prove that he is the Son of God.

And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. Matthew 27:40

The kingdom of God came into being as John began his preaching ministry. Even then it was possible to enter into the kingdom of God. We are placed in this kingdom by the Holy Spirit, who enables us to believe in this kingdom.
 
The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. Luke 16:16

As citizens of this kingdom we are now free from the power that Satan had over us. The Son of God now protects us from Satan and temptation, although not completely until the day of resurrection comes. That is why the Almighty placed us inside His kingdom.

Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son. Colossians 1: 13.

This is why Jesus, the Messiah, was also thought of as being the 'Son of God'. God had chosen him to be this king shortly after his baptism by John the Baptist. That day God called Jesus his Son. John the Baptist was a witness to this fact.

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. John 1: 29 & 34

Not only John the Baptist believed this to be so but a disciple of Jesus also.

Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel. John 1: 49

Are you saying that Yeshua the man was not the Son of God before his baptism?  Please, be concise (less wordy).  A yes or no will do.  If no, then please just plainly state at what point you think it happened.

[The Celt]

Quote from ExMilitary: What exactly are you saying?  At what point in his earthly existence did the man Yeshua receive The divine nature of God? Please be concise.
Are you saying that Yeshua the man was not the Son of God before his baptism?  Please, be concise (less wordy).  A yes or no will do.  If no, then please just plainly state at what point you think it happened.

Thankyou for your questions, ExMil. Jesus, the Son of man, was the embodiment of the Wort of God from the time that the human egg cell of Mary, his mother, began to divide and grow into a son in her womb. This we call the incarnation which is Latin for "to cover oneself with flesh". God placed His Word in this human vessel through the operation of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus, as a human being, was destined to be the eternal King of the everlasting kingdom of God, which was prophesied of him to his forefather King David. Not only was this person to be a descendant of King David, but God promised to treat him as His very own Son. That is why this person would be referred to as"The Son of God". God proclaimed David as King over Israel when Samuel was sent to him as he was a young lad. However, he became King of Israel at the age of thirty. At the baptism of Jesus he was formally proclaimed king because God called him his Son. Afterwards he was known as the Son of God. It wasn't until Jesus entered into heaven that he sat upon the throne. It is really the Word of God reigning upon this throne who is the true Son of God. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Hebrews 1: 8.
It is hard for me to be concise about such an important matter as this. Perhaps because I prefer to explain Scripture.

[The Celt]

Is it right to worship the Son of God? The disciples of Jesus where in a boat as a storm began to blow. Jesus was not with them because he stayed on land to pray. By night he walked on water to the boat and calmed the storm after entering the boat. The disciples worshipped him after that.

And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased. Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God. Matthew 14: 32 & 33

They worshipped Jesus after this miracle was performed, but who was it that did this miracle? Only God the Creator can do such things, which He does through the Holy Spirit. Jesus met a widow once, whose adult son was dead and about to be buried. After the son was raised to life the crowd praised God.

And he came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother. And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people. Luke 7: 14 - 16.

Jesus was indeed this great prophet but who spoke to the son who was dead? The Word of God spoke through Jesus because He was in him from the time of his creation in the body of his mother. Was it not the Word of God who became flesh? John 1:14. This was not the only time that the Word of God spoke to the dead, through Jesus, and they were brought back to life by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus was that great prophet who was like Moses. God spoke to Moses and Moses repeated what God wanted to say to others. This time it was the Word of God, who was revealing the will of God, through the mouth of Jesus. One day Jesus had an argument with the Pharisees. John 8. The argument had also to do with Abraham, who was the father of the Jews. The Pharisees were so offended at Jesus that they wanted to stone him to death.

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself. John 8: 56 - 59.

 Obviously the Pharisees thought that a human being was speaking to them. As Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am", he was speaking about God. They took it to mean that Jesus was also speaking about himself which is why they wanted to stone him. The Word of God was saying these words and it was He who existed before Abraham, not Jesus, the Son of man.

The Messiah was to have both a human and a divine nature. This was necessary because the Word of God had to become part of the human race in order to save some of mankind. That is why He was placed inside the human egg cell of Mary so as to know what it was like to be human from the very beginning. This act of the Holy Spirit did not turn this human into a god: for if it did he would no longer belong to the human race.

People were right to worship Jesus, but they did not worship him as the Son of Man, instead they were worshipping the Word of God, who is the proper Son of God. It was prophesied of the Messiah that he would be a son born to a woman and the Almighty God.

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9: 6.

[The Celt]

Is it right to worship the Son of God? The disciples of Jesus where in a boat as a storm began to blow. Jesus was not with them because he stayed on land to pray. By night he walked on water to the boat and calmed the storm after entering the boat. The disciples worshipped him after that.

And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased. Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God. Matthew 14: 32 & 33

They worshipped Jesus after this miracle was performed, but who was it that did this miracle? Only God the Creator can do such things, which He does through the Holy Spirit. Jesus met a widow once, whose adult son was dead and about to be buried. After the son was raised to life the crowd praised God.

And he came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother. And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people. Luke 7: 14 - 16.

Jesus was indeed this great prophet but who spoke to the son who was dead? The Word of God spoke through Jesus because He was in him from the time of his creation in the body of his mother. Was it not the Word of God who became flesh? John 1:14. This was not the only time that the Word of God spoke to the dead, through Jesus, and they were brought back to life by the Holy Spirit.

Many times people heard Jesus speaking to them but it was really the Word of God who spoke to them through him. Even Satan new that was the case. As Satan tempted Jesus after his baptism he had this to say to him.

Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered. And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread. Luke 4: 2 & 3

Would Satan have expected that from a simple human being? No, because no man has the power to do such a thing. Satan was testing Jesus to see if the Word of God was actually in him, making him to be the Messiah. Until then only one miracle was done by Jesus, which was turning water into wine, and there is no reason to believe that Satan was there to witness that; or even his baptism. Only the Word of God was able to change a stone into bread by only commanding it to be done, as he did with the water.

Jesus was that great prophet who was like Moses. God spoke to Moses and Moses repeated what God wanted to say to others. This time it was the Word of God, who was revealing the will of God, through the mouth of Jesus. One day Jesus had an argument with the Pharisees. John 8. The argument had also to do with Abraham, who was the father of the Jews. The Pharisees were so offended at Jesus that they wanted to stone him to death.

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself. John 8: 56 - 59.

 Obviously the Pharisees thought that a human being was speaking to them. As Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am", he was speaking about God. They took it to mean that Jesus was also speaking about himself which is why they wanted to stone him. The Word of God was saying these words and it was He who existed before Abraham, not Jesus, the Son of man.

The Messiah was to have both a human and a divine nature. This was necessary because the Word of God had to become part of the human race in order to save some of mankind. That is why He was placed inside the human egg cell of Mary so as to know what it was like to be human from the very beginning. This act of the Holy Spirit did not turn this human into a god: for if it did he would no longer belong to the human race.

People were right to worship Jesus, but they did not worship him as the Son of Man, instead they were worshipping the Word of God, who is the proper Son of God. It was prophesied of the Messiah that he would be a son born to a woman and the Almighty God.

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9: 6.

[PeteWaldo]

They worshipped Jesus after this miracle was performed, but who was it that did this miracle? Only God the Creator can do such things, which He does through the Holy Spirit.

Penned like a JW or Mormon etc., whether you are or not. Again, when you cruise forums it would make things easier for folks if you were up front about which group you have been influenced by, when you start posting.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The Word of God was saying these words and it was He who existed before Abraham, not Jesus, the Son of man.

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Our Muslim participants are confused enough by Muhammad, without heretical allusion toward polytheism. Enough time has passed since his last reply, to where I am guessing ExMil tired of your ignoring the plain language of texts as well. Please refer to why I was not responding to the content of your very first post in this forum, in the last point of my reply to it. Perhaps you'd be more at home in another forum.

http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4256.0

[The Celt]

I am influenced by two things. By the Holy Scriptures and by the Holy Spirit. It is they that reveal the will of God to us. However, God the Father is revealed to us through the Son, or His Word. We enjoy fellowship with God the Father through the Son and the Holy Spirit, because we also have fellowship with them also. It is only through the Holy Scriptures that we can understand the relationship between ourselves and God, which would require the Holy Spirit to enlighten us to God's efforts to reconcile us to Himself.

Why were all Israelites not called Jews and were everyone who lived in the Roman Empire called Christians? Calling ourselves Christians or Jews is not going to save us anymore than being baptized as an infant in the Roman Catholic Church. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 5: 7 Does that sound heretical to you, Pete?

[ps49]

Hi Celt. I am trying to understand your position.

You seem to make an interesting distinction between the Word of God and the Son of God. We know from the Gospels that the Word was in the beginning with God and was God, ie eternal and divine creator and sustainer. We also know that the Word became flesh, ie human, and that human was the promised Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God.

I think you are saying that the eternal and divine Word of God became the Son of God at the birth of Jesus. In other words, before the birth of Jesus, there was no Son of God but the Word is nonetheless eternal and God. Is that right? And if so, does that not mean that Christ Jesus, Son of God, is in fact a manifestation of God Almighty on earth?

[The Celt]

Believing in the 'gospel of the kingdom' does not automatically make one a Jehovah's Witness. If that were so then we must assume that Jesus and his apostles were the founders of this movement because they not only believed in the gospel of the kingdom but also happened to preach it.

And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people. Matthew 9: 35

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. Matthew 24: 14

[PeteWaldo]

Hi Celt. I am trying to understand your position.

Good luck with that ps. As also in your case, he has repeatedly replied with responses that have avoided the central points of our replies to him.

[The Celt]

Thank you, ps49, for endeavouring to understand what the Holy Scriptures seek to tell us about God and the Messiah. It is not so simple as one would expect. God the Father has not done just one thing with the Messiah - saving people for example -  but many things. I shall try and explain what we know about the Messiah in conjunction with what you have written.

I was not making a distinction between the Word of God and the Son of God but rather between the divine nature and the human nature of the Messiah. People tend to neglect the human nature of the Messiah and in particular, the purpose that the human nature fulfils in the plan and will of God. The Lord Jesus Christ is indeed God but should we say the same of Jesus? Was this name given to God or to a human being by the angel Gabriel? Yeshua means, "God is salvation", but why did God choose this name for the son of Mary? God wanted to demonstrate that He is the One who is saving people from slavery to sin and Satan and not a mere human being.
As the Israelites returned from Babylon to Judah God sent the priest and scribe Ezra to them to teach them His Law and Covenant. Without the intervention of Ezra the Israelites would have fallen away from worshiping and obeying God again. After his death the Israelites/Jews began to revere Ezra as the saviour of the inhabitants of Judah and the Jewish religion. They simply forgot that God was behind everything. That is why God gave the saviour the name of Yeshua, or Jesus as we know him, in order to remind us of this fact.

You are right to believe that the Word is also God in the same manner as the Father and the Holy Spirit are. All three exist within the Being of God and each are fully God; not a part of God, because each of them possess the Being of God in its entirety. The Being of God, together with its attributes, is not divided amongst the Father, Word and Holy Spirit. The Being of God is the medium through which the Father, Word and Holy Spirit create and sustain all things, which happens through the guidance and determination of all Three. The Father, Word and Holy Spirit are eternal, almighty etc. because that is what the Being of God is in its essence. One should not refer to God as 'it' but I only did so to create a distinction. However, all Three participate in the fulfilment of God's Will but in distinct ways. Creation is accredited to the Father only but the Word and Holy Spirit are also involved in creation. Father, Word and Holy Spirit are distinct in their existence and not different. All Three are self conscience and conscience of each other. They also are in possession of self determination but act in harmony with each other and the Will of God.

Jesus of Nazareth was a perfect human being, who later became the Messiah and the Son of God. The Messiah and the Son of God did exist at his birth but that was the Word of God, Who came into this world by means of the birth of Jesus. The angel, who spoke to the shepherds by night, explained it with these words.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. Luke 2: 11

In this verse we are faced with a grammatical difficulty. The person born in Bethlehem is 'a Saviour' but is also referred to as someone 'which is Christ the Lord'. Now, the words 'Christ ' and 'Lord' are terms used to describe the offices of High Priest and King. This new born child was indeed a saviour but was he able to perform the duties of a High Priest and King? Yet of all these terms are spoken of in the present tense with the word 'which' preceding them. No one would call a new born babe High Priest or King but the angel did. To be a High Priest one had to be a descendant of Aaron and to be a King over Israel one must trace his roots back to King David. God, however, has the right to overrule the customs of man because He is the One who actually appoints the High Priest and King of Israel. Jesus was indeed both a son of Aaron and of David but not in a way that gave him the right to assume these offices. Instead, Jesus was to become a High Priest and King in a much better way than anyone before him. According to the book of Hebrews, that is. The Word of God is the true High Priest and King, Who can exist eternally, and was present at the birth of Jesus because He was united to him. Jesus was, however, officially ordained to these offices at his baptism by none other than God the Father Himself. The term Son of God was synonymous with the promised King of Israel because of the covenant that God made with King David.

I believe that the Father called His Word the Messiah as He elected us in Him before the foundation of the world. The Word was commissioned by God the Father to save those of the human race that were given to Him as His folk. The Word was only able to accomplish that through the agency of a human being, who was specially created for that purpose.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. Ephesians 1: 3 - 5.

What do these verses teach us? Firstly, the Father was also the God of our Lord Jesus Christ because Jesus, as the Son of man, treated Him as such. Through the Lord Jesus Christ God is able to bless those whom He has elected. When did the election take place? Before the foundation of the world. So election is one of these blessings but we were elected to salvation in 'Christ' - or Messiah - and not the Lord Jesus Christ because only the Word of God was present then. The result of this election is that we are predestined to be adopted by God the Father which takes place in a time after Jesus was born, hence by Jesus Christ. Therefore, I conclude, that the name Messiah was given to the Word at the time of our election by God the Father.

It was the Word that was referred to as Christ the Lord by the angel speaking to the shepherds that night. Before the creation of Jesus the Word of God was not able to achieve the perfect righteousness of the law, which was necessary for the reconciliation of the elect to God the Father. It was at the time of the incarnation that the Word became the Son of God with the means of obeying the Father through observance of the Law of God.

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Philippians 2: 6 - 8.

In the likeness of a man the Word became obedient to God to the point of sacrificing Himself for the elect. The Law demands that sons obey their fathers, does it not? This is why The Word of God has become the Son of God.

God's Word is as eternal as God Himself, otherwise He could not be the Word of God. Through His unification with this human being the Word did not lose anything that had to do with His Divinity. The Word did not change into a human being but was expressing Himself through humanity without having to forfeit His right to express Himself as God or to be the express image of the Father to us. We often say that God the Father has revealed himself through His creation. Similarly so the Word has been revealing Himself through His humanity. God is immanent in His creation but the creation does not become God because of this fact. Why then should we believe that a man became God because the Word of God was immanent in him?

God has undoubtedly manifested Himself through the Lord Jesus Christ but not solely through a human being. The Word of God was manifesting God through Jesus by giving us a clearer understanding of the Almighty and His Will. This was the purpose of the Word becoming flesh. However, neither divinity or humanity were diminished through this unification. If anything, humanity was raised to a new level, which God intended for humans all along. When we speak about the 'Lord Jesus Christ' we mean both natures but the word 'Christ' can also be restricted to the divine nature at times. Just as the name Jesus could be speaking of the human nature.

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. Hebrews 2: 9.

I hope this explanation has helped you somewhat. I didn't want to write so simply that it would lead to further confusion. However, if this answer raises any other questions in your mind please fell free to ask.

[ExMilitary]

Quote from ExMilitary: What exactly are you saying?  At what point in his earthly existence did the man Yeshua receive The divine nature of God? Please be concise.
Are you saying that Yeshua the man was not the Son of God before his baptism?  Please, be concise (less wordy).  A yes or no will do.  If no, then please just plainly state at what point you think it happened.

Thankyou for your questions, ExMil. Jesus, the Son of man, was the embodiment of the Wort of God from the time that the human egg cell of Mary, his mother, began to divide and grow into a son in her womb. This we call the incarnation which is Latin for "to cover oneself with flesh". God placed His Word in this human vessel through the operation of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus, as a human being, was destined to be the eternal King of the everlasting kingdom of God, which was prophesied of him to his forefather King David. Not only was this person to be a descendant of King David, but God promised to treat him as His very own Son. That is why this person would be referred to as"The Son of God". God proclaimed David as King over Israel when Samuel was sent to him as he was a young lad. However, he became King of Israel at the age of thirty. At the baptism of Jesus he was formally proclaimed king because God called him his Son. Afterwards he was known as the Son of God. It wasn't until Jesus entered into heaven that he sat upon the throne. It is really the Word of God reigning upon this throne who is the true Son of God. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Hebrews 1: 8.
It is hard for me to be concise about such an important matter as this. Perhaps because I prefer to explain Scripture.

Your answer leads me to believe you are saying that the divine nature of God existed in the man Yeshua from conception, forward.  That the Father was one with Him from conception... Is that a correct statement?

[ExMilitary]

Believing in the 'gospel of the kingdom' does not automatically make one a Jehovah's Witness. If that were so then we must assume that Jesus and his apostles were the founders of this movement because they not only believed in the gospel of the kingdom but also happened to preach it.

And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people. Matthew 9: 35

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. Matthew 24: 14

Much of what you write sounds a lot like some of what I've read from the Continuing Church of God.  Is that just coincidence?

Would you say you hold a non-Trinitarian view?  Maybe Binitarian/Semi-Arian?

[PeteWaldo]

Much of what you write sounds a lot like some of what I've read from the Continuing Church of God.  Is that just coincidence?

Whether The Celt hails to the COG (or one of its hundreds of offshoots) or not, I guess you are referring to Herbert W. Armstrong's people?
"We in the CCOG tend to consider that God sent Herbert W. Armstrong (hence the "apostle" title, as apostle means "one sent") to raise up the Philadelphia portion of the COG."
http://www.cogwriter.com/herbertwarmstrong.htm

"UPDATE: In April 2009 WCG changed their name in the United States to Grace Communion International. (Some local church areas and countries may still carry the former name or a different one.)"
http://www.cogwriter.com/herbertwarmstrong.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Communion_International

I went to a CCOG site I binged up, and a link on that page took me to some of Armstrong's eschatology. Seems big into millennial reign and revived Roman Empire with the Pope as "the" "Antichrist".

I found a video with a now-familiar title: 
"Gospel of the Kingdom. By: Herbert W. Armstrong"

Believing in the 'gospel of the kingdom' does not automatically make one a Jehovah's Witness.

Video began with Armstrong climbing out of a private jet.
Binged it and found a real interesting (and entertainingly written) paper on the subject of both of the Armstrong's jets and extracurricular activities:
http://www.hwarmstrong.com/enlyten-armstrong-traveling-in-style.htm

Here's a recovery site:
"Exit and Support Network
Aiding those spiritually abused by Worldwide Church of God, Philadelphia Church of God, and all offshoots."
http://www.exitsupportnetwork.com/mike_ep/exam/dates.htm

Here's a list of a few of the hundreds of offshoots:
http://www.exitsupportnetwork.com/artcls/offshoot.htm

Dug up an old thread:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3889.msg15780#msg15780

https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2016/04/why-did-living-church-of-god-lie-to.html

[The Celt]

Dear Pete,

call my beliefs what you will but I call them 'The Holy Scriptures'. You can also call me what you will but I am what the Holy Scriptures say I am, nothing more and nothing less. God does not accept me on the grounds of what others have accomplished here on earth, whereby I associate myself with them by calling myself after them, their doctrine or their view of the church. All that is acceptable to God as a reason for Him to save men and women is the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ, The Word of God.

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. Rev. 19: 11 & 13.

Unlike Roman Catholics we should not restrict His atoning work to the crucifixion but to everything He has done, and will do; from the time of His incarnation until His return on the Last Day. God's elect are saved by His life, His death, His resurrection, His ascension and His future return to earth. Nothing that I could ever do could contribute to my salvation because there is nothing that I could do that would be perfect enough to earn salvation. Even my good works are ordained of God so I cannot lay claim to having done them to earn salvation. Why Protestants should concentrate on the crucifixion like Roman Catholics do is beyond me! It is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and EVERYTHING HE DID AND WILL DO, that we should preach.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. Ephesians 2: 8 - 10.

Please feel free to call yourself what you will but I can only repeat myself. "I am a humble servant of the Most High God and an obedient follower of the Lord Jesus Christ"; not of Herbert W. Armstrong.

[PeteWaldo]

You ignored ExMil's post to you, while replying to my post, which was addressed to ExMil.
I didn't call you anything (as in:  "Whether The Celt hails to the COG (or one of its hundreds of offshoots) or not.....), though I do have to wonder if you gave yourself away when you put 'gospel of the kingdom' in quotes (which is how I found Armstrong).

I am curious as to whether you ever had any exposure to the Worldwide Church of God, Grace Communion International, or any of their splinter groups.

It might help us out if you would share with us some of your eschatological views.

[The Celt]

Dear ExMilitary,

thank you for asking interesting questions.

Your answer leads me to believe you are saying that the divine nature of God existed in the man Yeshua from conception, forward.

Your first sentence is right. Whether we should call it a conception is debateable. The angel Gabriel did, however, say to her, "And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS." Luke 1: 31. All he meant to say was that she shall become pregnant.
God the Father created this child Jesus in the body of his mother Mary, because He said He would do that. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Genesis 3:15. The Saviour was to be from the woman only because it was her seed that should destroy Satan. God created the woman through using living tissue from the man and now He creates a man by using living tissue from the woman.

The divine nature and the human nature became inseparably linked together as the Holy Spirit awakened this egg cell of Mary to life. From that moment on the Word of God was able to experience what it was like to be human. Jesus was a complete human being, with a body and spirit turning him into a living soul, which also made him into a proper member of the human race, although he never had Adam as a forefather. Your next sentence is somewhat confusing.

That the Father was one with Him from conception... Is that a correct statement?

According to theology it was not the Father who took upon Himself the nature of a man but the Word of God only; if that is what you meant. Or are you referring to what Jesus said to the Jews, namely, "I and my Father are one." John 10: 30. The apostle John recorded these words for us in his gospel. Therefore, we must allow him to interpret what Jesus actually meant. In John's first letter he wrote the following, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John 5: 7. The Word and the Father are one and always were from eternity. However, Jesus was one with them in the same sense that we, as humans, become one with the Godhead. It is important to make this distinction. 

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. John 17: 20 & 21.

The Word of God did not possess this body of Jesus as would a demon possess the body of its victim. There was a very special fellowship between the human spirit of Jesus and the Word of God. We too enjoy fellowship with God but Jesus had fellowship with the Almighty in a manner that no other man, or woman, could ever achieve, and still does. I do not believe that Jesus was referring to his creation as he mentioned this to the Jews. I believe that the Word of God was saying this statement. Otherwise we must believe the Jews who thought he had seen Abraham with his own two human eyes.

Much of what you write sounds a lot like some of what I've read from the Continuing Church of God.  Is that just coincidence?

I have never heard of this church nor do I know what they believe. What the Messiah taught and what the apostles believed is more important to me. Both Old and New Testaments witness to an everlasting kingdom with God Almighty as its founder. A kingdom without subjects cannot possibly be a kingdom. It would also not be a kingdom without a king. So God appointed the Lord Jesus Christ to be its King, as He did with all rulers of the earth in their realms.

Would you say you hold a non-Trinitarian view?  Maybe Binitarian/Semi-Arian?

People have always called God by different names and one of them is the Trinity. In German they call God 'die Dreieinigkeit'. I often wonder what language God would choose if He were to call Himself by this name. In the past God has called Himself by many names and I see no need for us to add to this list. Why do you prefer to call Jesus by his Hebrew name Yeshua?

I do believe in one almighty Being we call God. Within this Being there are the Creator, His Word and His Spirit. Which of these are able to acknowledge and consciously receive our worship? The Being or the Creator, His Word and His Spirit? Who do we mean when we say that we worship God? The love of God is anchored within the being of God but who is it that loves us?
I am neither Binitarian, Semi Arian nor do I believe in Sabellianism. Trinitarians are, I believe, also Binitarian when it comes to the Person of the Lord Jesus. If Jesus had no human personality, or if it was totally suppressed by the Word of God, then I cannot see how the Messiah could be fully man and fully God.

And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. Luke 2: 52.

How could Jesus do this without having a personality of his own? Does God increase in wisdom?

[ExMilitary]

Dear ExMilitary,

The divine nature and the human nature became inseparably linked together as the Holy Spirit awakened this egg cell of Mary to life.

Would this not make Him:
1. Begotten
2. The son of God
3. The only one that meets #1 and #2

Hence, the only begotten Son of God..?

This is where I am confused.  What is the purpose of the distinction are you making between the following:
1.  Being the only begotten Son of God from conception (as you've indicated in the above quotation)
2.  Having the Father declare this, from heaven, during His baptism

Because you say,

At the baptism of Jesus he was formally proclaimed king because God called him his Son. Afterwards he was known as the Son of God.

So, I'm not sure what it is you are actually trying to communicate.  Regardless of what anyone else may or may not have known at the time, Was Jesus the only begotten Son of God at His birth or not?

[ExMilitary]

Much of what you write sounds a lot like some of what I've read from the Continuing Church of God.  Is that just coincidence?

I guess you are referring to Herbert W. Armstrong's people?

Yes, that is the crux of my comment/question.

[PeteWaldo]

Much of what you write sounds a lot like some of what I've read from the Continuing Church of God.  Is that just coincidence?

I guess you are referring to Herbert W. Armstrong's people?

Yes, that is the crux of my comment/question.

I opened a new forum section to help those that have been deluded by those con-men, overcome. Did you see the article on their jets?
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=5071.0

Though it may have been a mistake to treat it as a denomination, when it should more appropriately be in the wolves in sheep's clothing section.

By the way, it would seem they folded Worldwide Church of God (though that might still be their name in some foreign countries) and changed their name to Grace Communion International, perhaps in part to preempt lawsuits brought by former members of WCG.
http://www.exitsupportnetwork.com/recovery/testimony/stay.htm

The shift of WCG to Grace Communion International seems to have been, in part, a move into the New Age movement.
http://www.exitsupportnetwork.com/resrch/wcg/changes.htm

Interesting letter:
http://www.exitsupportnetwork.com/resrch/ltrsoths/ltrsjan3.htm#Janis,%20if%20you%20cannot%20see

Followups:
http://www.exitsupportnetwork.com/resrch/ltrsoths/ltrsjan.htm

[The Celt]

I doubt very much that the names we give ourselves to describe our beliefs are ever mentioned in heaven. That would only distract us from glorifying God. Why then should we call ourselves so here on earth? Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Matthew 6: 10.

Contrary to what Protestants and Catholics have in common, I do not believe that the central theme of the gospel is mankind. Rather, I believe it to be the kingdom of God. God's intention is indeed to save a remnant of mankind but to what end? So that they may become the citizens of God's everlasting kingdom.

The kingdom of God existed since the time of John the Baptist but not in the same fashion as it will exist after the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. As the lawfully enthroned King of this kingdom His return shall usher in a new era for God's kingdom. This time it shall fill the whole earth wherein only righteousness will be present. In order to accomplish this, however, the Lord Jesus will have to conquer the wickedness that is abundant on the earth today.

This task should be considered as the primary reason why the Father sent the Son into the world. He came not only to seek and to save that which was lost but also to destroy the works of the Devil, to stamp out wickedness on the face of the earth and to expel and punish those evil and ungodly people who oppose the Law of God. In this way He shall prepare the earth to receive His kingdom which shall bring all nations under its sway. After this has been accomplished the Lord Jesus Christ shall present this kingdom, together with a renewed world, to the One to whom it rightfully belongs; God the Father. Once again God shall be able to dwell amongst His people, together with his Christ.

I have studied eschatology and the conclusion that I came to is this. The return of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, together with the general resurrection of the dead, will be the most important event in human history. This fact is the reason for the Lord Jesus mentioning the kingdom of God so often and expecting His followers to preach the gospel of the kingdom - which is only one kingdom also known as the kingdom of heaven - to all nations before His return. Sad to say that many believers prefer to preoccupy their time with events that may, or may not happen before that great and glorious Day of the Lord. In so doing they neglect to pay due attention to this fundamental scriptural doctrine that I have mentioned above, as I assume you do, Pete. If we assume that some doctrines are intrinsically false because some dubious person or organization happen to believe in them then how many doctrines in the Holy Scriptures could, with any amount of certainty, be considered true?

There are many scriptures that I could quote but I shall leave it up to the Holy Spirit to bring those to mind with the readers of this forum.

[PeteWaldo]

Unless you correct me I'll take the continuing absence of a direct answer to my inquiries, as a tacit admission that you have been associated with the above group/groups, but for some reason didn't want to be up front about it. The reason I like to ask is so a lot of time beating around the bush can be saved, by our already having an idea as to where to expect you will be coming from.

If we assume that some doctrines are intrinsically false because some dubious person or organization happen to believe in them then how many doctrines in the Holy Scriptures could, with any amount of certainty, be considered true?

Regarding your suggestion I agree, however if a doctrine is held by a cult like WCG, it suggests to me that a little more scrutiny would be in order. Satan is the author of all false doctrine from which so many cults spring. Though it would seem in the case of the WCG, it sprang more from the Armstrong's desire to get rich, by pressing their flock's shoulders to the task of enriching the cult's hierarchy.

The kingdom of God existed since the time of John the Baptist but not in the same fashion as it will exist after the return of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Something like the other kingdom of God? Or the next kingdom of God?

As the lawfully enthroned King of this kingdom His return shall usher in a new era for God's kingdom. This time it shall fill the whole earth wherein only righteousness will be present. In order to accomplish this, however, the Lord Jesus will have to conquer the wickedness that is abundant on the earth today.

Conquer the wickedness that is inherent in fallen man, who all inherit our sinful nature from Adam?
Other than, of course, "conquering" wickedness as scripture suggests:

2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

There is certainly no shortage of futurists that believe in a physical, millennial reign of Christ on earth. Or is it your view that believers will spend eternity with Christ on earth? I believe that Jesus Christ ushered in His kingdom, just as He promised those who He told wouldn't die before He came in it.

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
http://www.christianeschatology.com/futurism_dispensationalism.htm#premillennialism

I believe He ushered in His kingdom when He returned from the Father in His glorified body after His resurrection from the dead. In any event, if He didn't usher His kingdom in while some of them were still alive, it would have made Him a false prophet. Let alone that His kingdom is not of this world:

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

The same kingdom (and tribulation) I am my brother John's brother and companion in:

Revelation 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Because the kingdom is within us:

Luk 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

He built His/our temple in 3 days, just as He promised He could:

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.  20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/temple_of_god.htm

1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are.

He rules His kingdom today. Are you suggesting that He will be replacing His/our current temple, with some carnal temple of the flesh, built on this earth, from which He will rule? If so, why?

Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Are you expecting some other household of God? Was Christ's finished work so unfinished, incomplete or insufficient that He would need to come back to build a better temple? That the temple He built in 3 days is so inadequate, that He would need a physical temple on earth, like the one that was torn down?
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/the_millennial_reign.htm

Is it your view that believers will spend eternity with Christ on earth?

[The Celt]

Dear ExMilitary.

So, I'm not sure what it is you are actually trying to communicate.  Regardless of what anyone else may or may not have known at the time, Was Jesus the only begotten Son of God at His birth or not?

The answer to your question above is, in my humble opinion, no. I now realize what it is that is confusing you. Part of the blame rests with me. I never denied that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God, I just do not think that this term is speaking of either the conception or birth of Jesus, the Son of man. You, however, do. I think that Jesus was thought of as being this because of his resurrection, not his birth: although it would be quite natural to assume that the term 'the only begotten Son of God' had something to do with his birth. There are scriptures that support this. You and I view the Lord Jesus Christ in two different ways. While you assume that Jesus and the Word of God are identical, I treat them both as two separate beings. Trinitarians, like I said in another post, view the Messiah as being one person with two natures, the person being the Word of God. I do not. You give me the impression that you are confusing the two natures by making no distinction between them whatsoever. Jesus is for you both human and divine. To Trinitarians it is the Word of God that has a human nature and also one that is divine. I agree with this statement but I reject their assumption that only one person was present in the human body of Jesus, being the Word of God. From my understanding of Holy Scripture Jesus had his own human personality, which was quite evident on occasions. If he did not then he would not be for me fully man, as the Trinitarians like to call him.

This is where I am confused.  What is the purpose of the distinction are you making between the following:
1.  Being the only begotten Son of God from conception (as you've indicated in the above quotation)
2.  Having the Father declare this, from heaven, during His baptism.

You are very observant concerning this matter. There is a difference to me concerning these two incidences. The difference is that they are not relating to one and the same person, as you might think, but to the Word of God and Jesus. The Word of God became the Son of God the moment He was a part of humanity. No human being could ever obtain to the perfect righteousness of the Law of God by his own obedience. However, that is what was required of him before he could have fellowship with God. The Word of God could not obtain this righteousness, on our behalf, by His obedience to the Law of God because He was never subject to the Law of God as humans are. Therefore, the Word of God needed a human body to accomplish this.

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Heb 10: 5 & 7

Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book [it is] written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law [is] within my heart. Psalm 40: 7 & 8

According to Psalm 40 the Word of God was performing the will of God by keeping the Law of God with the body that had His law in his heart, namely Jesus. This was also necessary so that the Body of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was without blemish and therefore acceptable to God as a sacrifice, in accordance with His Law.

The second reference was to Jesus, the Son of man, who was appointed by God to be that descendant of King David who would be the rightful heir to the throne of his father David, which God promised King David to give to him. The angel Gabriel confirmed this in his conversation with Mary. To the Jews this King would be called the Son of God because of what God said to David about him in the covenant that God made with David.

And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build me an house, and I will establish his throne for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee: But I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be established for evermore. According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David. 1 Chronicles 17: 11 - 15.

Since God said to David, "I will be his father, and he shall be my son.", then his descendant would be called the Son of God. After Jesus was baptized God the Father called him 'my beloved Son' in the presence of John the Baptist. This was God's way of confirming that Jesus was the descendant of David that would be the eternal King over the house of Jacob. This is why Jesus, as a man, was called the Son of God.

The Word of God was called the Son of God for a different reason than Jesus was called that. However, they both had the one goal before them, which was to save the elect and make them citizens of the Kingdom of God.

Would this not make Him:
1. Begotten
2. The son of God
3. The only one that meets #1 and #2

Hence, the only begotten Son of God..?

Jesus was called 'only begotten' not because of his unique conception or birth but because he was the only one acceptable to God as King of His Kingdom. God called Isaac 'your only son' when speaking to Abraham, but he was not the only son of Abraham. God knew this, of course, but He meant that Isaac, and his descendants, was the only one who had the right to inherit the land that God wanted to give to Abraham. Both these terms had nothing to do with birth in the sight of God.

Thank you for your perseverance and I do hope that I have managed to clear up any misunderstanding that has arisen about this matter. It is very hard to understand.

[ExMilitary]

Dear ExMilitary...

Thank you for your response.  It was easy for me to understand what you wrote.

In John 17:5, who is the "I" referring to when He says - "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."?

[PeteWaldo]

Dear ExMilitary.

So, I'm not sure what it is you are actually trying to communicate.  Regardless of what anyone else may or may not have known at the time, Was Jesus the only begotten Son of God at His birth or not?

The answer to your question above is, in my humble opinion, no. I now realize what it is that is confusing you. Part of the blame rests with me. I never denied that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God, I just do not think that this term is speaking of either the conception or birth of Jesus, the Son of man. You, however, do. I think that Jesus was thought of as being this because of his resurrection, not his birth: although it would be quite natural to assume that the term 'the only begotten Son of God' had something to do with his birth. There are scriptures that support this.

I agree that there are, but fail to see the importance of this point, particularly for this forum.

You and I view the Lord Jesus Christ in two different ways. While you assume that Jesus and the Word of God are identical, .....

It isn't about being "identical" as that would suggest two separate things. And it isn't so much an "assumption".

Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The Word was made flesh. That's Jesus. The Word IS Jesus. Jesus IS the Word.
Manifest as a man - body, soul and spirit.

..... I treat them both as two separate beings.

Which again, suggests polytheism, which is particularly not constructive for this forum, let alone Christianity in general.

Trinitarians, like I said in another post, view the Messiah as being one person with two natures, the person being the Word of God. I do not. You give me the impression that you are confusing the two natures by making no distinction between them whatsoever. Jesus is for you both human and divine. To Trinitarians it is the Word of God that has a human nature and also one that is divine. I agree with this statement but .......

But then you wander back off into Nestorianism.

....... I reject their assumption that only one person was present in the human body of Jesus, being the Word of God. From my understanding of Holy Scripture Jesus had his own human personality, which was quite evident on occasions. If he did not then he would not be for me fully man, as the Trinitarians like to call him.

This is where I am confused.  What is the purpose of the distinction are you making between the following:
1.  Being the only begotten Son of God from conception (as you've indicated in the above quotation)
2.  Having the Father declare this, from heaven, during His baptism.

You are very observant concerning this matter. There is a difference to me concerning these two incidences. The difference is that they are not relating to one and the same person, as you might think, but to the Word of God and Jesus. The Word of God became the Son of God the moment He was a part of humanity.

At conception, when the Word was made flesh.

No human being could ever obtain to the perfect righteousness of the Law of God by his own obedience. However, that is what was required of him before he could have fellowship with God. The Word of God could not obtain this righteousness, on our behalf, by His obedience to the Law of God because He was never subject to the Law of God as humans are. Therefore, the Word of God needed a human body to accomplish this.

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Heb 10: 5 & 7

Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book [it is] written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law [is] within my heart. Psalm 40: 7 & 8

According to Psalm 40 the Word of God was performing the will of God by keeping the Law of God with the body that had His law in his heart, namely Jesus. This was also necessary so that the Body of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was without blemish and therefore acceptable to God as a sacrifice, in accordance with His Law.

The second reference was to Jesus, the Son of man, who was appointed by God to be that descendant of King David who would be the rightful heir to the throne of his father David, which God promised King David to give to him. The angel Gabriel confirmed this in his conversation with Mary. To the Jews this King would be called the Son of God because of what God said to David about him in the covenant that God made with David.

And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build me an house, and I will establish his throne for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee: But I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be established for evermore. According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David. 1 Chronicles 17: 11 - 15.

Since God said to David, "I will be his father, and he shall be my son.", then his descendant would be called the Son of God. After Jesus was baptized God the Father called him 'my beloved Son' in the presence of John the Baptist. This was God's way of confirming that Jesus was the descendant of David that would be the eternal King over the house of Jacob. This is why Jesus, as a man, was called the Son of God.

The Word of God was called the Son of God for a different reason than Jesus was called that. However, they both had the one goal before them, which was to save the elect and make them citizens of the Kingdom of God.

Would this not make Him:
1. Begotten
2. The son of God
3. The only one that meets #1 and #2

Hence, the only begotten Son of God..?

Jesus was called 'only begotten' not because of his unique conception or birth but because he was the only one acceptable to God as King of His Kingdom. God called Isaac 'your only son' when speaking to Abraham, but he was not the only son of Abraham. God knew this, of course, but He meant that Isaac, and his descendants, was the only one who had the right to inherit the land that God wanted to give to Abraham. Both these terms had nothing to do with birth in the sight of God.

Thank you for your perseverance and I do hope that I have managed to clear up any misunderstanding that has arisen about this matter. It is very hard to understand.

Hope you're mulling over my prior post:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=5038.msg19406#msg19406

[The Celt]

Dear ExMilitary,

We could better understand the Godhead when we bear in mind that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the Creator, the Word and the Spirit that is mentioned in Genesis chapter 1. All three were participating in the work of creation but the Father is the only one called the Creator. Perhaps because it all begins with Him. As the Creator, the Word and the Spirit are self conscience, and also conscience of each other and the role that each one plays in the fulfilment of God's plan, purpose and will, therefore, we can safely conclude, that they have relationships with each other. For example, they love each other.

But in the New Testament it is their relationships that are emphasized which is why they are known as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is how the Messiah has revealed them to us. There is a father/son relationship implied but we must be careful not to compare this relationship with human relationships concerning this particular form of bonding. We should not compare the relationships between the Creator, the Word and the Spirit with that of three human persons either. Theirs is unique and we can never fully understand it.

The 'I' that Jesus mentions in this verse is the Word that we read about in Genesis chapter 1. The Word was with God the Creator at the beginning and was also glorified, together with the other two, because of the creation. But this time, the glory has to do with our redemption, which was also planed before the world was created. As the Word became united with human nature, without destroying the integrity of this nature, the human and divine natures did not miraculously change into one nature. Each nature retained its distinctive characterizations.

This only makes sense if you accept that the Word of God was speaking through Jesus, the Son of man and referring to Himself. Otherwise we must assume that the 'Word became flesh' before the foundation of the world. If the Trinitarians are right when they say that two natures were united under one Person, which is the personality of the second Person of the Trinity - whether He be called the Word or the Son - then we must conclude that only the Word or Son ever spoke through the mouth of Jesus for this man had no  human personality. It is our personalities that want to make us communicate with others through our words. For the life of me I cannot believe that the Word was speaking like a little babe or child as Jesus was growing up. During the ministry of the Lord Jesus we would definitely have heard the Word speak more often than before, but was it necessary for the Word to be always speaking through Jesus; his whole life long.

I don't think that allowing the spirit of the man Jesus to enjoy life as a human being would in anyway destroy the union between these two natures. Why shouldn't the Word treat this human body as a human being and have fellowship with him, after all, Adam and Eve were created in order to have fellowship with God. Did God the Father create something inferior to Adam?

That is the only explanation that I can give for your query.