David Miller wrote: >> And a servant can become a son, which is >> the case in which we find ourselves.
John wrote: > ... your conclusion above is poorly thought out. Unnecessary ad hominem comment. John wrote: > A servant who is not a son already, can never > become a son except through adoption. You apparently misunderstood my post, because we are in agreement. We find ourselves to be sons of God through adoption, but Yeshua was and is the only begotten son of God. He is unique. David Miller wrote: >> 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. John wrote: > You clearly reject scripture for the sake of your own opinion. Unnecessary ad hominem comment. John wrote: > " 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 ....." My point was that generally speaking, for the most part, Jesus did not DIRECTLY profess to be the son of God. This is an important aspect of humility, and also an important legal aspect of allowing witnesses to speak. In this example you offer, it is Peter, not Jesus, who makes the claim that he was the Son of God. Do a search on "son of God" in your favorite Bible program and a search on "son of Man." Look at who is speaking in such situations. You will find a few passages where we can understand that Jesus did profess to be the Son of God, but they will be about as often as I have professed to be a prophet on this list. For the most part, others raised the issue, not Jesus himself. Jesus did not deny it, and he sometimes affirmed it, but the claim was made primarily by others based upon how Jesus carried himself, and how he related publicly to God as his father. David Miller wrote: >> 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? John wrote: > Because it is an unbiblical conclusion. It is? If so, then why has nobody on the list been able to produce one Bible verse that would disprove the idea? John wrote: > Was he the Messiah before His birth? > Of course. Au contraire. I think, of course NOT. Messiah means "anointed." The term Messiah refers to his being anointed as a human being. How can God anoint himself in eternity past? He first had to become human before such a word would apply to him. Are you prepared now to argue for an eternal Messiah doctrine? It is consideration of this word Messiah and the fact that Messiah = Son of God in the mind of the New Testament characters that leads me to lean toward Judy's perspective on this eternal sonship doctrine. If you can produce a verse that applies this "Messiah" concept to eternity past, that may help put this question to rest for me. John wrote: > 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. I agree that "Yeshua Ha Mashciach" (Jesus the Anointed or Jesus the Messiah or Jesus Christ) carried the idea of Yeshua ben YHVH (Jesus son of God). This is a primary reason that I view Judy's position as a valid consideration. On the other hand, I do not see much on the equality with God issue until much later in Christian History. A son is equal to his father in some ways, but not equal to him in other ways. The same consideration holds true with the husband and wife relationship. John wrote: > 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?" Usually I am thinking the Hebrew "Elohim" when I use the word God, but if only the father is meant, then I tend to think YHVH. John wrote: > Your use of the phrase, "...in some ways ..." > allows for the concept "Son = God" to be true. Yes it does, "in some ways." I think discussing the ways in which it does or does not lies at the heart of the discussion of this topic. I read Bill's later post and will be answering it in the way he has asked when I find some time. It might be a day or two... or maybe more. I have guests in town staying at my home, and I am setting aside some time to preach on campus, etc. This tsunami incident has given me some great preaching material. It is really getting the attention of the students. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
