Just WHO is the God of Jesus Christ?

[LookingUp]

I'm not disagreeing that Jesus is talking about himself in terms of being Yahweh. I disagree that Jesus is talking about himself in terms of being the man Jesus, the Son of God, who did not pre-exist his birth. Luke 1 makes it very clear that the title of 'the Son of God' explicitly refers to the birth of the man Jesus. Again, I'm not saying Jesus did not pre-exist at all (or even that God did not create 'through' him, which you have provided a valid reason for understanding that Greek word), but that his pre-existence is not the typical perspective of 'second person of multi-person Yahweh' or 'eternal Son' or whatever.

Hi, Mark. I'm really enjoying this discussion, by the way. I'm not sure where it will go or how much we actually have left to share at this point (on this topic), but I sure do love the grace and patience I see you display toward others in your posts.

I agree that the man, Jesus, the Son of God, did not pre-exist his birth. What I’m contemplating is the idea that Jesus did pre-exist his birth in the sense of the divine form spoken of by Paul in Philippians 2. Paul tells us that Christ “when he existed in the form of God did not consider equality with God something to grasp onto, but emptied himself by taking the form of a slave, coming in the likeness of humans…”. Christ relinquished the divine form in order to take upon himself the slave form. My interpretation of what Paul describes in Philippians 2 is influenced by my perspective that an infinite God is incomprehensible to finite creatures. Thus, I imagine that God had to define Himself, to place Himself within some sort of parameters, so that we could relate to Him.

According to my teacher, the rabbis also wrestle with this issue. He shared, “When God decided to create something which is not Himself, where does He put it? What space is there (thinking more conceptually than physically) outside of God where God can put His creation? Is God inside of something bigger than Himself? In order to have a place to put His creation, the rabbis say, God contracted Himself so as to first vacate a space in which His creation might exist. (This contraction is called tsimtsum.) It is within that space that God creates beings which are not Himself. The rabbis also speak of a primordial figure called Adam Qadmon, 'primeval human', through whom God created all things, a sort of middle reality between the infinite, formless, undefinable God (called Ain Sof, or 'undifferentiated') and the finite, formed, physical creation." This “middle reality” between the infinite and finite would be the divine form of which Paul speaks, the divine form of which Christ emptied himself.

So, how did Christ come to be preeminent in all things pertaining to the new creation (Col. 1:18)? The same way he came to be preeminent in all things pertaining to the original creation (Col. 1:15). Just as he was “firstborn of the new creation” by being firstborn from the dead (literally 1st in order of the new creation), he was “firstborn of the original creation” by being the firstborn or the beginning of his very own creation. The Word creates and takes upon itself a creation, so as the Occupant of the divine form, Christ Himself is a part – the first part – of the created order. Thus, Scripture affirms both that Christ is the uncreated Creator of all things and at the same time teaches that Christ is the beginning of his own creation.

His pre-existence consisted of the 'word of God', which was not a distinct 'person' from (or within) Yahweh, it was Yahweh ('and the word was God') and his self-revelation ('and the word was with God'). My whole point is that Yahweh was never and is not two, but that he is one.

I believe I understand and agree with you.

My thoughts, while trying to be faithful to Scripture, are that Yahweh, as One being, existed as both Father and divine form simultaneously. The Christ emptied himself of the divine form and took on the human form. Yahweh, as One being, existed as both Father and human form simultaneously.

As to the passage from Revelation, my understanding of that is that the 'beginning of the creation of God' is specifically referring to the new creation. I should say that this is not an understanding I pulled out of thin air, but rather is based on my exegesis of the whole of Revelation 1-3, especially as held in parallel to chapters 21-22.

Is there any place where “creation” is used to refer to the new creation without specifying it’s the “new” creation?

[markedward]

Hi, Mark. I'm really enjoying this discussion, by the way. I'm not sure where it will go or how much we actually have left to share at this point (on this topic), but I sure do love the grace and patience I see you display toward others in your posts.

Thank you, I echo the same right back atcha. I'm just letting you know I'm reading your post right now, but seeing as how it's the weekend, and my wife and I are looking for a house, I'm not sure how quickly I'll be able to give a full response to your post (if one is needed, that is).

Blessings to you.

[markedward]

According to my teacher, the rabbis also wrestle with this issue. He shared, “When God decided to create something which is not Himself, where does He put it? What space is there (thinking more conceptually than physically) outside of God where God can put His creation? Is God inside of something bigger than Himself? In order to have a place to put His creation, the rabbis say, God contracted Himself so as to first vacate a space in which His creation might exist. (This contraction is called tsimtsum.) It is within that space that God creates beings which are not Himself. The rabbis also speak of a primordial figure called Adam Qadmon, 'primeval human', through whom God created all things, a sort of middle reality between the infinite, formless, undefinable God (called Ain Sof, or 'undifferentiated') and the finite, formed, physical creation." This “middle reality” between the infinite and finite would be the divine form of which Paul speaks, the divine form of which Christ emptied himself.

Most of the type of language used here (tziumtzum, Adam Qadmon, Ein Sof) comes from Kabbalah rather than traditional Judaism -- Kabbalah was developed long after traditional Christianity had taken shape (more than a thousand years later, I think). Some traces of the 'Adam Qadmon' concept go back farther to before Christianity... but the origins come from Platonic philosophy. (I'm greatly resistant to using Platonic-originating philosophy to explain the Bible. It was the introduction of Greek philosophy into Christianity that, I believe, changed the understanding of humanity as inherently mortal and dependent upon God for life, into an understanding of humanity that claims the soul is inherently immortal. But that's another issue.) Either way, I think the bulk of it steps outside the kind of theology Scripture lays out for us to study and discover. I mean, the stuff is interesting, but I can't bring myself to apply it in order to understand God or Jesus.

My thoughts, while trying to be faithful to Scripture, are that Yahweh, as One being, existed as both Father and divine form simultaneously.

I see what you're saying... my disagreement here is that 'the Father' is the 'divine form'. The Father is Yahweh in his divinity (as opposed to his humanity). To me, to say that Yahweh existed as the Father is the same thing as saying that Yahweh existed as the 'divine form', so saying Yahweh existed as 'Father and divine form' is redundant.

Is there any place where “creation” is used to refer to the new creation without specifying it’s the “new” creation?

The specific word 'creation', I don't think so. The concept of 'create' in general, yes. Ephesians 2.10 says we were 'created in the Christ Jesus for good works', referring to us being a new creation 'in the Christ Jesus'.

[guestman]

20 “‘However, the prophet who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded him to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die. 21 And in case you should say in your heart: “How shall we know the word that Jehovah has not spoken?” 22 when the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word does not occur or come true, that is the word that Jehovah did not speak. With presumptuousness the prophet spoke it. You must not get frightened at him.’ Deuteronomy 18:20 - 22


May I ask you. Have you been a Jehovah's witness for a long time? Are your family and friends all witnesses? If they are then it's no wonder you do not test the watchtowers integrity because if you do, you will run the risk of being shunned by those you love. I would probably not do it either to be honest if it meant I could not speak to/relate with and was isolated from family and friends. There is an emotional reason not to do it, but should I be that intellectually dishonest?

For example, there have been a number of times when blood transfusions went from not being allowed, to being allowed again to not being allowed. For those who were excommunicated for taking blood during the years it was banned, were they allowed back into fellowship when the rules changed to allow it?

Surely something worth excommunicating someone for cannot the next minute be ok and vice versa? You'd need to be pretty sure what they were doing was pretty and unequivocally bad before sanctioning all that emotional pain?

Yes, I have been one of Jehovah's Witnesses for many years. However, it was not because my parents (nor friends) were Jehovah's Witnesses that I made the decision to become one, but rather allowed the Bible to speak for itself, applying Romans 12:2 , ' proving to myself the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.'

For example, have you found convincing evidence that there is a Creator, without using the Bible ? Or have you followed the churches and just "accepted" that there is a God ? Have you looked closely at David's words: "I have meditated on all your activity; I willingly kept myself concerned with the work of your own hands" ?(Ps 143:5) Does not this "activity" include gaining insight into the laws and "works" of the physical universe, to show that indeed it took a Grand Creator to accomplish this ?(Ec 12:1)

Hence, to prove to oneself requires what ? That a person examine life and all things surrounding each and everyone of us with an objective and unbiased mind, allowing the evidence to "prove" that there a Supreme Designer, rather than already having a prejudicial view, forcing "a square peg in a round hole." This stands as well for the Bible.

The churches have for centuries "set the pace" of what to believe, even forcing it "down people's throats". For instance, during the 16th century C.E., any who did not accept the trinity were considered "heretics" (from the Greek word hairesis, meaning " a choice, i.e. a party or disunion" and rendered as "sect"[at Acts 24:5, 14], Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, G139), and were often tortured or even put to death. One woman named Symthe, because she had taught her children the Ten Commandments and Lord's Prayer in English instead of Latin, was burned at the stake, along with six men who were similarly charged, during this time period in the United Kingdom, near Coventry, about 160 kilometers northwest of London, your locality.

A person is disfellowshipped for unrepentantly crossing God's moral boundaries, and only if they show genuine remorse for violating God's laws and principles, are they allowed to come back within the congregation. In the first century, when a man committed fornication and was unrepentant, the apostle Paul told the Corinthian congregation: "Remove the wicked [man] from among yourselves."(1 Cor 5:1, 13) This is to take out anyone who disregarded God's clean moral laws, putting them outside of the congregation. The churches do not remove those who have committed serious sins, but have allowed them to remain and often in good standing.

For example, concerning the taking of blood transfusions, through a careful and analytical study of Hebrew and Greek Scriptures when the New World Translation was being prepared over the course of 1947-1961, a keener understanding of the sacredness of blood was grasped. At Acts 15:19, 20, James expressed to the older men and the apostles that "my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood."

This was reaffirmed by the entire body of older men and apostles in a letter to the congregations: "The apostles and the older men, brothers, to those brothers in Antioch and Syria and Ci·li´cia who are from the nations: Greetings!....For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you."(Acts 15:23,28, 29)

These realized the meaning of Leviticus 17:10-12, which says: "As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst who eats any sort of blood, I shall certainly set my face against the soul that is eating the blood, and I shall indeed cut him off from among his people. For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul [in it]. That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: “No soul of you must eat blood and no alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst should eat blood.” Blood is to be used only for "atonement for your souls."

To "abstain" is from the Greek word apechesthai, and means "to hold oneself off, i.e. refrain".(Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, G567) Thus, what is a true Christian to do with blood ? Is a life threatening situation grounds for accepting blood ? No. Jesus said: "For whoever wants to save his soul will lose it; but whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it. For what benefit will it be to a man if he gains the whole world but forfeits his soul ? or what will a man give in exchange for his soul ?"(Matt 16:25, 26) If a loyal servant of Jehovah God dies because of his refusal to take blood, then, as Jesus said, that "whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it", receiving a resurrection from the dead.

Everyone who wants to have genuine purpose in life and live forever, will follow Jesus words, when he was asked what the greatest commandment is, quoting from Deuteronomy 6:5: "You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ "(Matt 22:37) The churches have completely disregarded this and a whole host of the other Scriptures, showing a loveless attitude toward God. But Jehovah's Witnesses have strictly adhered to this divine command, to "abstain from blood".

[guestman]

Yep, Jesus said He was the Son of God, alright. But let's frame your quote in the proper context (I'll be using the same ESV translation you are using throughout this response):

30 "I and the Father are one.” 31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

You choose to ignore the fact that this passage ties together: 1. Jesus being one with the Father, 2. Jesus being the Son of God, and 3. the perception of the Jews that Jesus was "making Himself God." Barring a lack of intellectual honesty, one will admit that this passage irrefutably portrays the Jews seeking to stone Jesus for calling Himself the Son of God--which they understood as making Himself equal to God. That is why they took up the stones, is it not? And do you see any denials by Jesus, when accused of being equal to God? If so, please point it out.


Again, being the Son of God in no way detracts from Jesus being God incarnate. That is a personal doctrine you cannot substantiate with the Scriptures. (With the New World Translation, maybe, but that is the word of man, not the inspired word of God).


So then, Jesus saying He is the Son of God is the reason the Jews sought to stone Him for blasphemy? That seems strange, since the Jews called also themselves sons of God (John 8:41).


Though you have repeatedly refused to address the truths revealed in passages such as Philippians 2:5-10, Scripture makes it clear that Jesus voluntarily divested Himself of His divine prerogatives until He accomplished that for which He was sent:

5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant,b being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

As this passage clearly states, Jesus was in the form of God, and willingly laid aside His deity, and everything He possessed prior to the incarnation. Only as a man, was Jesus given anything. As the eternal Word of God, He simply reclaimed what belonged to Him. Jesus even chose the moment of His own death, for Pete's sake: He "gave up the spirit," when all things were fully accomplished (John 19:30). Jesus even stated the voluntary and temporary nature of His impending death:

The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. (John 10:18)

Jesus stated in fact, that He Himself would raise His body from the dead:
Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (John 2:19) Wouldn't you have to be God to make a statement like that?


If you would only look at Jesus through the lenses of the clear Biblical truth of His having two natures, you would have a tremendously different perspective. You are trying to twist Scripture to fit your doctrine, instead of twisting your doctrine to fit the Scriptures, which is the very reason you have such a skewed perception of Jesus.


Again, still using your version of the Bible, Peter called Jesus God:
Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Pet 1:1)


There is an abundance of passages that declare Jesus' deity in the Scriptures, many of which have been presented to you. But you simply refuse to accept them for what they say. Indeed, We are told that Jesus is the flesh and blood embodiment of the fullness of God's being:
For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body. (Col 2:9)

Jesus Himself spoke of the deity He possessed before being robed in humanity:
And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.(John 17:5)

Indeed, Jesus said that to see Him, was to see God:
Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? (John 14:8-9)


You are rejecting the dual nature of Jesus, which is the key that will unlock the proper understanding of His nature and relationship to God. Jesus is clearly seen as both God and man throughout the Scriptures. A few examples are:

At John 10:33, was the Jews saying that Jesus was ' making himself God ' ? Would Jesus have brought into the discussion Psalms 82, in which it speaks of the judges of Israel as "gods" ?(Ps 82:6) Being that the discussion centered around this, with Jesus affirming what they were thinking, then the Jews were not saying that Jesus was "God", but "a god". Otherwise, Jesus would not have used Psalms 82 as a basis for his response.

Being the Son of God means that Jesus is not God incarnate or God in the flesh. You are unwilling to reason on what the Bible says, for Jesus said, of the "great tribulation", that "concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father."(Matt 24:36)

How could Jesus be God and yet fail to know the "day and hour" of the "great tribulation", but only the Father does ? Could Jesus, supposedly as God, forget anything, or not be fully aware of this date, since God is the one who set it ? Does God forget anything ? If he has, then he has failed in being perfect, which is not possible, for the apostle Peter said of Jesus, that "he committed no sin."(1 Pet 2:22) So how could have of not known "the day and hour" ? And why only the Father ?

How could Jesus be God and yet worship God, for he told the Samaritan woman, that "you worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation originates with the Jews. Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshipers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for, indeed, the Father is looking for suchlike ones to worship him."(John 4:22, 23) Could it be said that Jesus is God and yet worships the Father, God ? Only in the realm of lies, of which the churches have continued to give out.

In addition, why did Jesus cry out to God, saying: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matt 27:46) if he is God ? Furthermore, why did Jesus offer "up supplications and also petitions to the One who was able to save him out of death, with strong outcries and tears, and he was favorably heard for his godly fear" ?(Heb 5:7) Why would Jesus need to be "saved out of death" if he is God, for Habakkuk 1:12 says that ' God does not die' ?

To assert that Jesus is God despite him pleading with God and having godly fear is an absolute unwillingness to reason on who Jesus is. This is no different than when Stephen told the truth concerning Jesus as "the righteous One" (Acts 7:52) to the members of the Sanhedrin, and instead of responding with sincerity of heart, became angry, gnashing their teeth at him, and then stoned him to death.(Acts 7:54-60) The defiant stance that so many take, despite the overwhelming evidence that Jesus is not God, shows the same unreasonable and obstinate characteristics that the Jewish religious leaders had that opposed Jesus and Stephen.(John 11:53; Acts 7:54)

Your line of reasoning is like those trinitarians who connivingly altered older manuscripts of the Bible, such as 1 Timothy 3:16 to read "God was made manifest in the flesh", instead of the accurate reading of "he who was made manifest in the flesh", or the spurious addition of the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one" at 1 John 5:7, in order to promote the trinity.

Philippians 2:5-10 shows that Jesus "existed in God's form" as a spirit "Son of God", giving no "consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God" and that he "emptied himself and took a slave's form and came to be in the likeness of men." Furthermore, it says that "when he found himself in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient as far as death, yes death on a torture stake.” Then Paul now says that “for this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on the earth and those under the ground.”

How could Jesus be God and yet be “exalted to a superior position” and by God at that ? I didn’t know that there was any position higher than God or that there is a “name” that is higher than God’s. Thus, those who stubbornly adhere to the trinity doctrine have shown a total unwillingness to reason on the Bible, trying to force “a square peg in a round hole.”

Jesus is a deity or “a god”, being called “the only-begotten god” by the apostle John at John 1:18. He, however, does not have “two natures”, having left his heavenly position and becoming a real flesh and blood man, not an incarnate, but equal to Adam, providing a “corresponding ransom”.(Greek antilytron, not just lytron which means “ransom”, 1 Tim 2:5, 6)

How could Jesus provide a “corresponding ransom” to Adam if he is God ? It must be understood that Jesus had to correspond exactly to Adam as a perfect “son of God” before his defection. Anything else would not balance God’s scales of justice, of “soul for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”(Ex 21:23, 24)

[glad4mercy]

How could Jesus be God and yet fail to know the "day and hour" of the "great tribulation", but only the Father does ? Could Jesus, supposedly as God, forget anything, or not be fully aware of this date, since God is the one who set it ? Does God forget anything ? If he has, then he has failed in being perfect, which is not possible, for the apostle Peter said of Jesus, that "he committed no sin."(1 Pet 2:22) So how could have of not known "the day and hour" ? And why only the Father ?

Jesus had to become human in every way. He hungered, He thirsted, He was tempted, He got tired, etc. Jesus never stopped being God, He just did not exercise all of His Divine prerogatives. For example, when He was tempted by the devil, He did not defeat the devil using His power as the Son of God, ( which He could have easily done), He defeated the devil the same way we do, by using the scriptures. In the same way, Jesus did not exercise His Omniscience as a man, ( though He possessed that attribute), because He chose to walk the path in every way as we do, and He fully shared in the human condition, so that He could be a merciful and faithful High Priest. To not know is to walk in faith, and Jesus had to walk the same path that we walk.

In His Pre-existence, He was above temptation, yet in His humanity He was tempted in every way, yet without sin. In His Pre-existence, He was the King Immortal, yet in His humanity He suffered death in our place. In His pre-existence the heaven of heavens could not contain Him, yet in His humanity He tabernacled in a body of flesh and blood. In his pre-existence He was far greater than any angel, for He created all things, yet in His humanity, He was made a little lower than the angels. Oh, the depth of Christ's condescension for us, who can fathom it?

Why does the writer of Hebrews say that Jesus learned obedience by the things that He suffered? Was He not obedient in His Pre-existence? Of course He was, but what the writer of Hebrews meant was that He learned obedience as a man by the things that He suffered. It also says that He was perfected, yet was He not perfect in His Prexistence? Of course He was, yet the word perfected means that He completed and finished the work that the Father gave Him to do.

Jesus fully possessed the Divine attributes but did not exercise them all, because He had to be made like His brethren in every way. Jesus not only humbled Himself in death, but the very act of becoming a man was an act of great humiliation.
He humbled Himself so that we could be exalted.

[guestman]

Jesus had to become human in every way. He hungered, He thirsted, He was tempted, He got tired, etc. Jesus never stopped being God, He just did not exercise all of His Divine prerogatives. For example, when He was tempted by the devil, He did not defeat the devil using His power as the Son of God, ( which He could have easily done), He defeated the devil the same way we do, by using the scriptures. In the same way, Jesus did not exercise His Omniscience as a man, ( though He possessed that attribute), because He chose to walk the path in every way as we do, and He fully shared in the human condition, so that He could be a merciful and faithful High Priest. To not know is to walk in faith, and Jesus had to walk the same path that we walk.

In His Pre-existence, He was above temptation, yet in His humanity He was tempted in every way, yet without sin. In His Pre-existence, He was the King Immortal, yet in His humanity He suffered death in our place. In His pre-existence the heaven of heavens could not contain Him, yet in His humanity He tabernacled in a body of flesh and blood. In his pre-existence He was far greater than any angel, for He created all things, yet in His humanity, He was made a little lower than the angels. Oh, the depth of Christ's condescension for us, who can fathom it?

Why does the writer of Hebrews say that Jesus learned obedience by the things that He suffered? Was He not obedient in His Pre-existence? Of course He was, but what the writer of Hebrews meant was that He learned obedience as a man by the things that He suffered. It also says that He was perfected, yet was He not perfect in His Prexistence? Of course He was, yet the word perfected means that He completed and finished the work that the Father gave Him to do.

Jesus fully possessed the Divine attributes but did not exercise them all, because He had to be made like His brethren in every way. Jesus not only humbled Himself in death, but the very act of becoming a man was an act of great humiliation.
He humbled Himself so that we could be exalted.

You are still trying to "force a square peg in a round hole." The man born blind at John 9, recognized that which you nor others grasp, that "if this man were not from God, he could do nothing at all."(John 9:33) However, the religious leaders said to Jesus: "we are not blind also, are we ? ", with Jesus responding: "If you were blind, you would have no sin. But now you say, "We see", Your sin remains."(John 9:40, 41) Though seeing the outward evidence that Jesus was not God, but from God and denying it, Jesus condemned them, saying that "your sin remains". They were unwilling to look objectively at the evidence of who Jesus is, "the Son of the living God."(Matt 16:16)

It is truly unreasonable to assert that because of Jesus being human, while at the same time "being God", he could not remember the date that he supposedly set for the "great tribulation" (Matt 24:36), but when asked concerning his (invisible) "presence" and of "the conclusion of the system of things", could remember extraordinary details, with his answer covering 2 chapters in the book of Matthew (chapters 24 and 25). Jesus clearly said that he did not know "the day and hour".(Matt 24:36) And yet he is supposed to be God. Some God, for my 8 year old grandson can remember better than this. Or of the Samaritan woman, Jesus being aware that she had "five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband"(John 4:18) but not knowing a simple date.

The apostle Peter told Cornelius and his household: "You know the subject that was talked about throughout the whole of Ju·de′a, starting from Gal′i·lee after the baptism that John preached, namely, Jesus who was from Naz′a·reth, how God anointed him with holy spirit and power, and he went through the land doing good and healing all those oppressed by the Devil; because God was with him."(Acts 10:37, 38) Jesus is "God", but "God anointed him with holy spirit and power" and was with him when he went "through the land".

This reasoning is no different than that of the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were prejudicial and biased, to the point of murdering Jesus.(John 19:6; 1 Thess 2:14, 15) Jesus identified their spirit, saying, that "out of the heart come wicked reasonings."(Matt 15:19) As a group, these never changed, with God bringing them down to death when he brought the Roman armies to Jerusalem under the command of General Titus on April 3, 70 C.E. through August 25, razing the city.

[glad4mercy]

You are still trying to "force a square peg in a round hole." The man born blind at John 9, recognized that which you nor others grasp, that "if this man were not from God, he could do nothing at all."(John 9:33) However, the religious leaders said to Jesus: "we are not blind also, are we ? ", with Jesus responding: "If you were blind, you would have no sin. But now you say, "We see", Your sin remains."(John 9:40, 41) Though seeing the outward evidence that Jesus was not God, but from God and denying it, Jesus condemned them, saying that "your sin remains". They were unwilling to look objectively at the evidence of who Jesus is, "the Son of the living God."(Matt 16:16)

It is truly unreasonable to assert that because of Jesus being human, while at the same time "being God", he could not remember the date that he supposedly set for the "great tribulation" (Matt 24:36), but when asked concerning his (invisible) "presence" and of "the conclusion of the system of things", could remember extraordinary details, with his answer covering 2 chapters in the book of Matthew (chapters 24 and 25). Jesus clearly said that he did not know "the day and hour".(Matt 24:36) And yet he is supposed to be God. Some God, for my 8 year old grandson can remember better than this. Or of the Samaritan woman, Jesus being aware that she had "five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband"(John 4:18) but not knowing a simple date.

The apostle Peter told Cornelius and his household: "You know the subject that was talked about throughout the whole of Ju·de′a, starting from Gal′i·lee after the baptism that John preached, namely, Jesus who was from Naz′a·reth, how God anointed him with holy spirit and power, and he went through the land doing good and healing all those oppressed by the Devil; because God was with him."(Acts 10:37, 38) Jesus is "God", but "God anointed him with holy spirit and power" and was with him when he went "through the land".

This reasoning is no different than that of the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were prejudicial and biased, to the point of murdering Jesus.(John 19:6; 1 Thess 2:14, 15) Jesus identified their spirit, saying, that "out of the heart come wicked reasonings."(Matt 15:19) As a group, these never changed, with God bringing them down to death when he brought the Roman armies to Jerusalem under the command of General Titus on April 3, 70 C.E. through August 25, razing the city.

The Lord Jesus will set everything straight and we will know exactly who He is when He returns. It won't be an invisible return, for the apostle John said that every eye will see Him.

[percho]

Quote Originally Posted by markedward View Post
Only when Yahweh's self-expression became flesh, per John 1. (I'm trying to be clear that I don't believe Jesus 'pre-existed' the time when the 'word of God' became flesh.)…

If the Father and Son aren’t two “beings,” they’re two…what? What word would you use? The Father and Son are one but this ONE existed as two somethings that were not the same somethings (& still not).

Do you see my confusion of your view on this point?

edit to add: That's why I word it by saying that One God existed in two ways at the same time.

I just wanted to run some thoughts by both of you to ponder on.

From scripture4all.org interlinear Hebrew Duet. 6:4 Hear you ! Israel Yahweh Elohim of us Yahweh one.
Duet. 5:26 YLT For who of all flesh [is] he who hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire like us -- and doth live?

Would he be considered living because he was speaking to them? So God is the One Speaking Yahweh God (Elohim). Yes or no?

John 1:1,2 from Greek interlinear scripture4all.org In original was the saying and the saying was toward the God and God was the saying. This was in original toward the God.
In Greek interlinear John 4:23,24 Jesus refers to the Father to be worshiped as spirit THE GOD. KJV God [is] a Spirit.

Did this living speaking spirit God conceive in the womb of the virgin Mary one to be born a man child the only begotten Son of God (by woman) thus the saying became flesh?
Is John 1:1,2 another way of saying, the living God?

Can we understand God the Father and Jesus the Son in the context of these verses? Hebrews 7:9,10 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Was the man child Jesus in his Fathers loins from the foundation of the world Or was he next to, inside of, or something else as the metamorphosis (of Morphe from Phil 2) Word.

[LookingUp]

I just wanted to run some thoughts by both of you to ponder on.

From scripture4all.org interlinear Hebrew Duet. 6:4 Hear you ! Israel Yahweh Elohim of us Yahweh one.
Duet. 5:26 YLT For who of all flesh [is] he who hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire like us -- and doth live?

Would he be considered living because he was speaking to them? So God is the One Speaking Yahweh God (Elohim). Yes or no?

The Living God is One. And it is said that no one has seen or heard the Father, who is Spirit. It could be that the Word was brought forth from this Spirit and took on the divine form (Phil. 2) so that He could relate to His finite creatures. It could be that it’s this middle reality (or divine form) that we see interacting with saints in the OT.

John 1:1,2 from Greek interlinear scripture4all.org In original was the saying and the saying was toward the God and God was the saying. This was in original toward the God.
In Greek interlinear John 4:23,24 Jesus refers to the Father to be worshiped as spirit THE GOD. KJV God [is] a Spirit.

Did this living speaking spirit God conceive in the womb of the virgin Mary one to be born a man child the only begotten Son of God (by woman) thus the saying became flesh?
Is John 1:1,2 another way of saying, the living God?

Can we understand God the Father and Jesus the Son in the context of these verses? Hebrews 7:9,10 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Was the man child Jesus in his Fathers loins from the foundation of the world Or was he next to, inside of, or something else as the metamorphosis (of Morphe from Phil 2) Word.

It would seem the transcendent, unknowable Spirit spoke and brought forth the divine form (Phil. 2) which He took on and through whom He created all things. The Father, who is Spirit "next to" His Word, who is in a divine form.

[LookingUp]

Most of the type of language used here (tziumtzum, Adam Qadmon, Ein Sof) comes from Kabbalah rather than traditional Judaism -- Kabbalah was developed long after traditional Christianity had taken shape (more than a thousand years later, I think). Some traces of the 'Adam Qadmon' concept go back farther to before Christianity... but the origins come from Platonic philosophy. (I'm greatly resistant to using Platonic-originating philosophy to explain the Bible. It was the introduction of Greek philosophy into Christianity that, I believe, changed the understanding of humanity as inherently mortal and dependent upon God for life, into an understanding of humanity that claims the soul is inherently immortal. But that's another issue.) Either way, I think the bulk of it steps outside the kind of theology Scripture lays out for us to study and discover. I mean, the stuff is interesting, but I can't bring myself to apply it in order to understand God or Jesus.

I see what you're saying... my disagreement here is that 'the Father' is the 'divine form'. The Father is Yahweh in his divinity (as opposed to his humanity). To me, to say that Yahweh existed as the Father is the same thing as saying that Yahweh existed as the 'divine form', so saying Yahweh existed as 'Father and divine form' is redundant.

The Father, who is Spirit, can’t be seen or heard by finite creatures (John 5:37). The Word who took on the divine form can be seen and heard by finite creatures. The Word was with God and the Word was God.

[percho]

The Living God is One. And it is said that no one has seen or heard the Father, who is Spirit. It could be that the Word was brought forth from this Spirit and took on the divine form (Phil. 2) so that He could relate to His finite creatures. It could be that it’s this middle reality (or divine form) that we see interacting with saints in the OT.

It would seem the transcendent, unknowable Spirit spoke and brought forth the divine form (Phil. 2) which He took on and through whom He created all things. The Father, who is Spirit "next to" His Word, who is in a divine form.

I like you have difficulty after the birth of Jesus of Mary not understanding Father and Son as two beings/persons or whatever. However how are we to understand the concept of "begotten"? Does this word not mean to become something that wasn't before? Doesn't it mean come into existence? Understanding begotten in John 1:18 and 3:16 maybe having an expanded meaning even in those you still have to deal with the words Father and Son, a relationship between two. What about conceived (begotten) in Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:35? Did the Spirit Word (God) bring forth from the virgin a begotten being, Jesus the man child son of the Spirit Living/word God?

How are we to understand these verses Acts 17:31 YLT because He did set a day in which He is about to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom He did ordain, having given assurance to all, having raised him (a man) out of the dead.' Or 1 Tim. 2:5 YLT for one [is] God, one also [is] mediator of God and of men, the man Christ Jesus,? God the Son. The Son of God. He shall be called the son of the most high.

We are also said to be begotten of God 1 John 5:1 YLT Every one who is believing that Jesus is the Christ, of God he hath been begotten, and every one who is loving Him who did beget, doth love also him who is begotten of Him: IMHO I believe this begotten as in conceived instead of born. We are conceived (sealed) by the Holy Spirit of promise; Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession. Luke 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Only begotten, μονογενής monogenēs

Because you also have to deal with Father and Son, I have tried to understand this relative to birth from woman therefore Jesus being the only begotten by God of a woman. And that is true and even though we are also called begotten of God it is not though a woman therefore I guess I could understand only begotten in that manner, but I think I am wrong and here is why.

Many scriptures speak of the resurrection of Jesus as being the day of being begotten as in born from the dead. Those saved will believe what about Jesus of Nazareth? Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God. What does Paul say about the Christ? Acts 17:3 opening and alleging, `That the Christ it behoved to suffer, and to rise again out of the dead, and that this is the Christ -- Jesus whom I proclaim to you.'

Therefore should we understand John 3:16 only begotten as a resurrection statement? Gave, delivered his only begotten from the dead that whosoever....
John 1:18 YLT God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare.------Is this not also a post resurrection thought. He is on the bosom of the Father having been raised from the dead.
Isn't this the same thought in Hebrews 11 with Abraham and Issac? Issac was his only begotten because in like figure he was receiving him from the dead.
Hebrews 11:17-19 YLT By faith Abraham hath offered up Isaac, being tried, and the only begotten he did offer up who did receive the promises, of whom it was said -- `In Isaac shall a seed be called to thee;' reckoning that even out of the dead God is able to raise up, whence also in a figure he did receive [him].

Have no idea why this concept of only begotten came to me as I was posting.

[LookingUp]

I would say that the Spirit exists as transcendent (i.e. unlimited, infinite). The Word was brought forth from the infinite Spirit and it took on the finite, created divine form (Phil. 2) becoming its Occupant. The infinite Spirit existed as infinite and the infinite Spirit existed as the finite, created divine form simultaneously. It was through this finite, created divine form that the infinite Spirit created all things.

As far as when the Son was considered begotten. Jesus called God his Father before he was resurrected and before he was even baptized (age 12 in the temple). Christ is said to be begotten at the resurrection, at baptism, at birth, and I think, it can be said he was begotten before the foundation of the world when God brought him forth into the divine form. I think that’s why Jesus says he was born before John the Baptist and Abraham. I think that's why Jesus says he had glory with the Father before the world was. I think that’s why he said he was going back to where he was before.

[percho]

I would say that the Spirit exists as transcendent (i.e. unlimited, infinite). The Word was brought forth from the infinite Spirit and it took on the finite, created divine form (Phil. 2) becoming its Occupant. The infinite Spirit existed as infinite and the infinite Spirit existed as the finite, created divine form simultaneously. It was through this finite, created divine form that the infinite Spirit created all things.

As far as when the Son was considered begotten. Jesus called God his Father before he was resurrected and before he was even baptized (age 12 in the temple). Christ is said to be begotten at the resurrection, at baptism, at birth, and I think, it can be said he was begotten before the foundation of the world when God brought him forth into the divine form. I think that’s why Jesus says he was born before John the Baptist and Abraham. I think that's why Jesus says he had glory with the Father before the world was. I think that’s why he said he was going back to where he was before.

Would you agree that his birth through Mary is spoken of as begotten and that his resurrection from the dead is spoken of as begotten and that the two are not the same?

And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. And the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: Would you say this man child is Jesus being brought forth by Mary? And yes he was the son of God begotten in Mary and Jesus at twelve years old I believe was calling God his Father.

Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? Who was this man child that was brought forth without pain? When was he brought forth and from whence? Was he also begotten of God?
because He did set a day in which He is about to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom He did ordain, having given assurance to all, having raised him (that man) out of the dead.'
Is this that man child?

[LookingUp]

Would you agree that his birth through Mary is spoken of as begotten and that his resurrection from the dead is spoken of as begotten and that the two are not the same?

I think they're the same with different emphasis or from a different perspective.

And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. And the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: Would you say this man child is Jesus being brought forth by Mary? And yes he was the son of God begotten in Mary and Jesus at twelve years old I believe was calling God his Father.

I think it could be metaphor for the birth of Jesus.

Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? Who was this man child that was brought forth without pain? When was he brought forth and from whence? Was he also begotten of God?

I'm not certain who Isaiah is talking about.

because He did set a day in which He is about to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom He did ordain, having given assurance to all, having raised him (that man) out of the dead.'
Is this that man child?

Well, Paul is certainly talking about Jesus here. But the resurrection doesn’t make Jesus the begotten Son of God; it declares it in a powerful way. “…who was powerfully designated God’s Son according to the spirit of holiness from the resurrection of the dead” (Romans 1:4). The application of Psalm 2:7 to the resurrection is in the sense of declaring him the only begotten Son of God. At the conception of Christ, God begets him; at the resurrection, God powerfully declares him begotten.