John wrote:
>>The Son is such because He is always
>>the Servant of the Father.
John wrote:
>A son can become a servant on any or several occasions.
And a servant can become a son, which is the case in which we find
ourselves.
Once again, we are discussing this from a human perspective, insisting that human circumstances apply to God. But, even from a human perspective, your conclusion above is poorly thought out. A servant who is not a son already, can never become a son except through adoption.
John wrote:
>The fact that He claimed to be the Son was understood
>by those of His day as making Himself equal to God.
Actually, we should recognize that for the most part, Jesus did not directly
claim to be the Son of God. He referred to God as his Father, and this is
what was interpreted as his making himself equal to God. Furthermore, it
was not just his words, but how he acted and carried himself.
You clearly reject scripture for the sake of your own opinion. " And Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt 16:17). And what was this revelation? That He was the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
But, in all fairness, you did say, in the above, that "for the most part ....." So I guess that means you can be right no matter what. :-)
John wrote:
>I believe that "Jesus Christ" is a term that always includes
>this notion " Sonship." I doubt seriously that the biblical
>writers ever wrote those words, Jesus Christ, without
>felling the excitement of that first confession, Thou are
>the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
I agree. As Terry pointed out, he was never known as "Jesus Christ" until
he was born of Mary, so if this is the term that denotes sonship to you, why
would you object to those who see sonship as a functional role he took on by
his own personal experience of the incarnation?
Because it is an unbiblical conclusion. Was he the Messiah before His birth? Of course. But more than that -- when I said that the first writers would think
"Son of God" when they wrote "Jesus Christ," I am assuming a concept, in their minds, that found Christ equal to God. Maybe the problem, here, includes our use of the term "God." That term can be simply a title, as well. Do you believe that "God" is a title for the Great Whatever? If not, what would be your meaning when you say "God?"
John wrote:
>If being a son does no damage to the notion of equality,
>why would any other function impair that belief, when
>speaking of the Christ?
Being a son does affect the notion of equality in some ways. In a father
and son relationship, the father is considered superior and in authority
over the son, is he not? I have always viewed my earthly father this way.
How about you?
Your use of the phrase, "...in some ways ..." allows for the concept "Son = God" to be true.
Furthermore, we have Jesus saying, "my father is greater than I." Does this
denote any inequality in your mind?
Now, here, I am not as well thought out as I should. Bill has addressed this issue as convincingly as anything I have read. I would refer you to that statement. If I were to answer, at this time, I would say that one statement does not counter the other. Scripture cannot cancel scripture. Does Jesus refute the claim of equality (John 5:18) when given the opportunity? Can it be that we have eternal life because we have put our faith in the eternal Son of God? I mean, why did He not simply speak of spiritual life? Why eternal? What if "eternal life" is something that had no beginning -- a provision that has always been a part of God, and we are connected with this life as we partner with the Son? What if "eternal life" is another way of speaking of God.
