Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The idea that there was a 'time' when Christ was not, that there was ever a 'time' when He did not exist, is Arianism which was pronounced as a heresy long ago. But the old heresies get repackaged and remarketed. Jesus has eternally existed with the Father and with the Holy Spirit.
So, what does "begotten" mean? Why does the writer of Hebrews ask concerning Jesus, "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" 1:5
So, what does "begotten" mean? Why does the writer of Hebrews ask concerning Jesus, "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" 1:5
It just isn't that simple.
The issue is not the meaning of the English word 'begotten', but rather, what is the meaning of the Greek word from which 'begotten' has been translated.
In what way is Jesus the Son of God? The title 'Son of God' does not refer to procreation, but to a special relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity. The Father Son relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity is an anthropopathism. The First Person of the Trinity - The Father, is not literally the Father of the Second Person of the Trinity who in His humanity we call Jesus. It is language of accommodation within a plan. In the plan of salvation the Second Person of the Trinity assumed a subservient position to the First Person of the Trinity who is the author of the plan. As the father in a family is the authority in the family, so also the First Person of the Trinity is the authority in the plan of salvation and assumes the role of the Father to the Second Person of the Trinity who agreed to come into the world as a man and do the will of the Father. So in that sense there is a Father Son relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity.
The title 'Son of God' is also applied to Jesus in a Messianic sense (Psalm 2:7; Matthew 4:3,6; Matthew 16:16; Luke 22:70; John 1:49) The title 'Son of God' emphasizes the fact that Jesus Christ is that eternal Person of the Trinity who was supernaturally born as a human being. That He is God manifested in the flesh (John 1:1,14).
Hebrews 1:5 which you referenced is a quotation of Psalm 2:7 and has Messianic overtones. In no way does it have anything to do with an origin of the Second Person of the Trinity at some point in eternity past.
On Hebrews 1:5 the Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol 12. p. 18 states...
The first quotation comes from Psalm 2:7. Among the rabbis, the ''Son'' is variously identified as Aaron, David, the People of Israel in the messianic period, or the Messiah himself (SBK, pp. 673-77). But clearly our writer is taking the psalm as messianic and sees it as confering great dignity on Jesus.
F. F. Bruce writes regarding Hebrews 1:5...
The divine decree of Ps. 2:7b-9, which opens with these words, may, as has been suggested, ''have preserved the text of a coronation liturgy used by the Davidic dynasty.''57 At any rate, they are cited in the psalm by the Lord's Anointed as he ground of his confidence in the face of the plottings of his enemies. But, like much else that was said with regard to the Davidic dynasty in its early days, it was believed in later days that these words would be most fully realized in the Messiah of David's line who would rise up in the time of fulfilment. 58 [Could not use proper footnote numbers]
57. E. Voegelin, Order and History, I (Oxford, 1956), p. 306. Cf. A. Bentzen, King and Messiah, E.T. (London, 1955), pp. 16-20; S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh, E.T. (Oxford, 1956), pp. 11, 64, et passim. So far as the form is concerned, we recognize here the language which was widely used in enthronement ceremonies throughout the ancient Near East. Thus Voegelin (Order, p. 305) quotes parallels from the Pyramid texts: ''This is my son, my firstborn.... This is my beloved, with whom I have been satisfied'' (1a-b), and ''This is my beloved, my son; I have given the horizons to him, that he may be powerful over them like Harachte'' (4a-b). See also J. Dupont, ''Filius meus es tu,'' RSR 35 (1948), pp. 522-43.
58. A. R. Johnson (Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel [Cardiff, 1955], pp. 118-20) finds in the original intention of the second psalm 'the thought of the eventual fulfilment of this promise [that David would be made supreme over the kings of the earth] in the person of his descendant and ideal successor upon the throne, the true Messiah of the House of David.''
[The Epistle to the Hebrews, F. F. Bruce, p. 53]
As can be seen then, the word 'begotten' in Hebrews 1:5 does not have reference to the deity of Jesus Christ being created, but rather, has Messianic significance. The three Persons of the Godhead have eternally existed. One of the attributes of God is eternality - eternal self existence.
John 1:1 shows that the Word (the preincarnate Jesus Christ) is of the same nature or essence as God the Father and cannot therefore have ever come into existence. See what scholar and Professor of New Testament Studies Daniel Wallace says on this. >>>Explanation of John 1:1
^ OR the early controversy over the nature of the relationship within the godhead and the role of Jesus in that shows up here in reference to the "Adoption Theory," causing Trinity theorist to scramble for an explanation.
The issue is not the meaning of the English word 'begotten', but rather, what is the meaning of the Greek word from which 'begotten' has been translated.
In what way is Jesus the Son of God? The title 'Son of God' does not refer to procreation, but to a special relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity. The Father Son relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity is an anthropopathism. The First Person of the Trinity - The Father, is not literally the Father of the Second Person of the Trinity who in His humanity we call Jesus. It is language of accommodation within a plan. In the plan of salvation the Second Person of the Trinity assumed a subservient position to the First Person of the Trinity who is the author of the plan. As the father in a family is the authority in the family, so also the First Person of the Trinity is the authority in the plan of salvation and assumes the role of the Father to the Second Person of the Trinity who agreed to come into the world as a man and do the will of the Father. So in that sense there is a Father Son relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity.
The title 'Son of God' is also applied to Jesus in a Messianic sense (Psalm 2:7; Matthew 4:3,6; Matthew 16:16; Luke 22:70; John 1:49) The title 'Son of God' emphasizes the fact that Jesus Christ is that eternal Person of the Trinity who was supernaturally born as a human being. That He is God manifested in the flesh (John 1:1,14).
Hebrews 1:5 which you referenced is a quotation of Psalm 2:7 and has Messianic overtones. In no way does it have anything to do with an origin of the Second Person of the Trinity at some point in eternity past.
On Hebrews 1:5 the Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol 12. p. 18 states...
The first quotation comes from Psalm 2:7. Among the rabbis, the ''Son'' is variously identified as Aaron, David, the People of Israel in the messianic period, or the Messiah himself (SBK, pp. 673-77). But clearly our writer is taking the psalm as messianic and sees it as confering great dignity on Jesus.
F. F. Bruce writes regarding Hebrews 1:5...
The divine decree of Ps. 2:7b-9, which opens with these words, may, as has been suggested, ''have preserved the text of a coronation liturgy used by the Davidic dynasty.''57 At any rate, they are cited in the psalm by the Lord's Anointed as he ground of his confidence in the face of the plottings of his enemies. But, like much else that was said with regard to the Davidic dynasty in its early days, it was believed in later days that these words would be most fully realized in the Messiah of David's line who would rise up in the time of fulfilment. 58 [Could not use proper footnote numbers]
57. E. Voegelin, Order and History, I (Oxford, 1956), p. 306. Cf. A. Bentzen, King and Messiah, E.T. (London, 1955), pp. 16-20; S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh, E.T. (Oxford, 1956), pp. 11, 64, et passim. So far as the form is concerned, we recognize here the language which was widely used in enthronement ceremonies throughout the ancient Near East. Thus Voegelin (Order, p. 305) quotes parallels from the Pyramid texts: ''This is my son, my firstborn.... This is my beloved, with whom I have been satisfied'' (1a-b), and ''This is my beloved, my son; I have given the horizons to him, that he may be powerful over them like Harachte'' (4a-b). See also J. Dupont, ''Filius meus es tu,'' RSR 35 (1948), pp. 522-43.
58. A. R. Johnson (Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel [Cardiff, 1955], pp. 118-20) finds in the original intention of the second psalm 'the thought of the eventual fulfilment of this promise [that David would be made supreme over the kings of the earth] in the person of his descendant and ideal successor upon the throne, the true Messiah of the House of David.''
[The Epistle to the Hebrews, F. F. Bruce, p. 53]
As can be seen then, the word 'begotten' in Hebrews 1:5 does not have reference to the deity of Jesus Christ being created, but rather, has Messianic significance. The three Persons of the Godhead have eternally existed. One of the attributes of God is eternality - eternal self existence.
John 1:1 shows that the Word (the preincarnate Jesus Christ) is of the same nature or essence as God the Father and cannot therefore have ever come into existence. See what scholar and Professor of New Testament Studies Daniel Wallace says on this. >>>Explanation of John 1:1
Jesus said this........ “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only. Luke 4:8
^ OR the early controversy over the nature of the relationship within the godhead and the role of Jesus in that shows up here in reference to the "Adoption Theory," causing Trinity theorist to scramble for an explanation.
Adoptionism which is also called Dynamic Monarchianism denies the pre-existence of Christ. It is a heresy which holds that Jesus Christ was the Son of God by adoption rather than by nature. It is easily refuted by the fact that the pre-incarnate Word (Jesus in His humanity) created all that has been created which means that He pre-existed all that exists (John 1:3; Col. 1:16).
It is also refuted by the fact that John 1:1-2 states that the Word was in the beginning with God and that He became flesh (John 1:14).
Excerpt:
Adoptionism is an error concerning Christ that first appeared in the second century. Those who held it denied the preexistence of Christ and, therefore, His deity. Adoptionists taught that Jesus was tested by God and after passing this test and upon His baptism, He was granted supernatural powers by God and adopted as the Son. As a reward for His great accomplishments and perfect character Jesus was raised from the dead and adopted into the Godhead. Adoptionism|The Heresy of Adoptionism is an error concerning Christ | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
Excerpt:
Dynamic Monarchianism held that Christ was a mere man, miraculously conceived, but constituted the Son of God simply by the infinitely high degree in which he had been filled with divine wisdom and power. This view was taught at Rome about the end of the 2nd century by Theodotus, who was excommunicated by Pope Victor, and taught somewhat later by Artemon, who was excommunicated by Pope Zephyrinus. About 260 it was again taught by Paul of Samosata. It is the belief of many modern Unitarians. Monarchianism (Christian heresy) -- Encyclopedia Britannica
Ya, Mike, but what you don't want to look at is that different perceptions from the first and second centuries found expression in various places in the NT and the triumphant Trinitarians failed to purge all of them.
The second thing that you don'twant to look at is that it really doesn't affect our relationship with God or our fellow man.
Ya, Mike, but what you don't want to look at is that different perceptions from the first and second centuries found expression in various places in the NT and the triumphant Trinitarians failed to purge all of them.
The second thing that you don'twant to look at is that it really doesn't affect our relationship with God or our fellow man.
The last of the New Testament books was written as of 96 A.D. and so perceptions in the 2nd century have no bearing on what the original autographs of the New Testament said. As for changes in particular manuscript copies by scribes due to theological considerations (it happened, but not nearly to the extent that Bart Erhman would have you believe; Read 'Revisiting The Corruption Of The New Testament', by Daniel B. Wallace), that was done with the intention of guarding against heretical beliefs such as adoptionism, but do not change any point of doctrine. For example, in Luke 2:33 if the original autographs said 'His father and mother' and was changed for theological considerations to ''Joseph and His mother'' in certain manuscript copies, it does not change anything since the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus did not have a human father. And even Erhman, when not directing his comments to the general public, but to professional colleagues has stated the following.
In spite of these remarkable [textual] differences, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy. [Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 481.
Your second 'thing' has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of the reality of the deity of Christ which is the topic of this thread. Stay on topic and do not attempt to make it about me and what I am willing or unwilling to look at.
Last edited by Michael Way; 07-04-2013 at 08:55 PM..
Jesus was a human being who invited God to live in his being. It's like allowing the Holy Spirit to reside in you....You are not God but have God living in you - Hence the living God.
This.
Other than that, he pretty much exclusively refers to himself not as Son of God, but Son of Man.
Jesus was a human being who invited God to live in his being. It's like allowing the Holy Spirit to reside in you....You are not God but have God living in you - Hence the living God.
And did a human being create the Universe? It was the pre-incarnate Word, the Second Person of the Godhead, whose human name is Jesus that created all that has been brought into existence as stated in John 1:3 and Col. 1:16.
Your second 'thing' has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of the reality of the deity of Christ which is the topic of this thread. Stay on topic and do not attempt to make it about me and what I am willing or unwilling to look at.
No, what it has a bearing on is the relative value of the topic. It's a reminder that this and angels on pinheads are essentially on a par.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
