951753

This Site Is No Longer Active

Check out RESTITUTIO.org for new blog entries and podcasts. Feel free to browse through our content here, but we are no longer adding new posts.


  

This is from the 21st Century Reformation website:

Anthony Buzzard gives an extraordinary presentation to a conference of Bible students in Tennessee. Professor Buzzard gives a succinct evaluation of five prevailing views regarding Jesus Christ. He leads us through a consideration of the: (1) Trinitarian view; (2) the Arian view; (3) Binitarianism; (4) Oneness and (5) the “One God” view. In the end, Anthony makes a persuasive case for “View No. 5”:  that Jesus is the Christ of God, God’s literally begotten human Son. Anthony Buzzard’s “Five Options in Christology” has been one of the most popular features presented on 21stcr.org. It is too good to miss.

View this slide presentation here:

http://www.21stcr.org/multimedia/five_options_in_christology/five_options_in_christology.html

12 Responses to “Five Options in Christology”

  1. on 24 Jun 2010 at 2:57 pmMichael

    Anthony,
    You say in your teaching that Acts 13:33 “God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus,” that this raising of Jesus is his conception and birth from Mary.

    Acts 13:32-33 as well as Hebrews 1:5 are not speaking of Jesus in any sense about his conception and birth from Mary, the subject in both scriptures is clearly resurrection.

    Paul in Acts 13 gives an overview of the history of the Jewish people and culminates it with God raising Jesus from the dead. Paul tells them that the raising of Jesus from the dead is the fulfillment of the promise made to the fathers and then he quotes Psalm 2 as scriptural proof.

    The only promise fulfilled by the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem was the arrival of the Messiah the fulfillment of the promise made to the fathers was the forgiveness of sin and eternal life made possible only by the death and resurrection of Jesus.

    1Corinthians 15:17-18 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

  2. on 24 Jun 2010 at 4:15 pmMark C.

    Acts 13:33 is not referring to only his conception and birth, nor is it referring to only his resurrection. It refers to his entire “coming on the scene.”  Verse 33 is about “producing” the Messiah, while verse 34 introduces the resurrection, with a different reference verse. The following is from a study on baptism that I wrote:

    The wording in verse 33 seems to suggest that the “day” referred to in “this day have I begotten thee” is the day of his resurrection. From this (and also Colossians 1:18, which calls him the “firstborn from the dead”) it is concluded [by some] that Jesus Christ’s “new birth” was at his resurrection. Similarly [the theory says] our new birth will take place when we are resurrected at the return of Christ. New Testament references to the new birth are therefore considered to be prophetic of a future event in the same sense that many Old Testament prophecies speak of future events using past or present tense wording.

    The problem with this theory is that, first of all, the word “again” is not in the Greek texts of Acts 13:33, and does not in fact appear in many other English versions of the Bible, including the ASV, NASV, RSV, and NRSV. The phrase “raised up” is translated from one Greek word, anistemi, elsewhere translated “arise,” “rise,” “rise up,” “rise again,” “raise up,” “raise up again,” and “stand up.” It is sometimes used to refer to Christ’s resurrection (as in Matthew 17:9, Mark 8:31, etc.) but is also used in a variety of other ways, including to rise up and go somewhere, to raise up seed, to rise up in the morning, or to arise and do something. Another meaning is to rise up to prominence, in the sense of coming on the scene. This usage occurs in several places, such as Acts 5:36, 37 and Acts 7:18. It is used specifically referring to Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecy two other times in Acts (“God will raise up a prophet” -Acts 3:22 & 7:37) and twice in Hebrews (“another priest arises” -Hebrews 7:11 & 15). The context must determine which way the word is being used.

    The word anistemi in and of itself does not demand that it be understood as his resurrection, if the words “from the dead” or “again” are not included. Verse 33 just says that God “raised up” Jesus and refers to Psalm 2, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” There is nothing else in the Bible that explicitly defines the day he was begotten as his resurrection, and it makes better sense to interpret “raised up” in the sense of bringing him on the scene.

    The next verse (v. 34) begins, “And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead.” The word anistemi is used here too, but this time the words “from the dead” are included. It is in this verse that the resurrection is specifically mentioned, and that is tied with two other prophecies (Isaiah 55:3 and Psalm 16:10), and elaborated on in the following verses. This whole section of Acts 13 refers to Jesus and his fulfilling of God’s promises, regarding his birth and rise to prominence, and also his resurrection. But verse 33 is not saying that his resurrection was when he was begotten.

  3. on 24 Jun 2010 at 5:08 pmrobert

    Actually verses 22,23 are the ONLY reference to Jesus’ physical birth. Other than geneology of Joseph only JOSEPH AND JESUS are spoke of as being DAVIDS SEED which can only be through flesh and blood and the reason was because through David would come the Saviour and King of Israel.
    all other references to Jesus being begotten are the adoption by God at his baptism and His actual spiritual begotten from the dead by God at his resurrection.
    Luke or the fake Mattthew narrative no where speak of Jesus being begot by God. If Luke believed that he would of quoted Psalms 2 within the birth and Matthew would of at least said “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”
    This is the product of the great RCC and still has its affects amongst unitarians.
    the very first christians knew the truth and died for it.

    22 And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will. 23 Of this man’s seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

  4. on 24 Jun 2010 at 7:32 pmMichael

    Mark writes… Acts 13:33 is not referring to only his conception and birth, nor is it referring to only his resurrection. It refers to his entire “coming on the scene.”

    Response- “This day” referring to Jesus from birth to resurrection must be the Unitarian version of eternally begotten and both are non sense.

  5. on 24 Jun 2010 at 10:18 pmMark C.

    “This day” referring to Jesus from birth to resurrection must be the Unitarian version of eternally begotten and both are non sense.

    You misunderstand my point. I’m not saying that “this day” refers to his entire life from birth to resurrection. I’m saying that the “good news of the promise made to the fathers” in verse 32 is fulfilled, according to verse 33, by God having “raised up Jesus.” It then quotes the second Psalm, ‘YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU,’ which foretold the beginning of Jesus being “raised up on the scene,” and emphasizes the fact that He begot His Son and fulfilled His promise to the fathers. It started with his birth, and is not limited to his resurrection, as many interpret this verse. Only in verse 34 is the resurrection specifically mentioned, and then he gives OTHER quotations in reference to that.

  6. on 24 Jun 2010 at 10:43 pmAnthony Buzzard

    It is surprising to me that some of the conversation about “begetting” does not conform to standard English!
    Is it possible (this is the prof. in me speaking) that discussing Greek may be a problem. Please don’t write off F.F. Bruce with such abandon. It is he among other recognized eperts who stresses the obvious contrast between “raising up” and by contrast “raising up again” (Acts 13:34). And after all, to beget means to bring into existence. Everyone can see that Luke 1:35 and Matt. 1:18, 20 tell us when Jesus came into existence. The Son of God is such “precisely because of” (dio kai) the miracle in Mary. So Gabriel said so lucidly in Luke 1:35.

  7. on 24 Jun 2010 at 10:56 pmMichael

    Mark writes…. I’m saying that the “good news of the promise made to the fathers” in verse 32 is fulfilled, according to verse 33, by God having “raised up Jesus.” It then quotes the second Psalm, ‘YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU,’ which foretold the beginning of Jesus being “raised up on the scene,”

    Response- Acts 13:32-33 has absolutely nothing to with the birth of Jesus from Mary, every believer was still dead in their sin after Jesus was born from Mary and the promise to the fathers remained utterly void.

    The raised up Jesus of verse 33 is the same raised Jesus in verse 34 “And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead”; this has nothing to do with Jesus being raised upon the scene.

    Anthony writes… Everyone can see that Luke 1:35 and Matt. 1:18, 20 tell us when Jesus came into existence.

    Response- Again, the promise made to the fathers was not fulfilled by the birth of Jesus to Mary and Paul is speaking specifically about the promise fulfilled by Jesus being raised from the dead, the only way the promise could be fulfilled.

  8. on 24 Jun 2010 at 11:52 pmXavier

    Michael

    The writer explains what the “raising up” of v.33 is by connecting it to the OT passage of Ps 2.7, where it is describing the “begetting” [bringing into existence, birth] of God’s Son and His Messiah.

    This is different from the second “raised up” of v.34 where it is clearly speaking about his resurrection from the dead [Messiah is the “firstfruit” of the new harvest, as Paul says in 1Cor 15.45f.]. So how can these 2 be describing the same thing as you claim?

  9. on 25 Jun 2010 at 2:09 amMark C.

    Xavier is correct. Even the Greek bears this out. The words “from the dead” only appear in v. 34, and the word “again” in v. 33 (in the KJV) does not appear in the Greek.

    the promise made to the fathers was not fulfilled by the birth of Jesus to Mary and Paul is speaking specifically about the promise fulfilled by Jesus being raised from the dead, the only way the promise could be fulfilled.

    What promise was fulfilled? The context of Acts 13 speaks of the history of Israel, with mention of the wilderness, Canaan, Samuel, and then King David. Verse 23 says, “From the descendants of this man [i.e., David], according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus.” There is much more to the promise than just the resurrection. It is about Jesus being the promised Messiah that was to come, of which the resurrection was the ultimate proof.

  10. on 25 Jun 2010 at 8:04 amrobert

    “The writer explains what the “raising up” of v.33 is by connecting it to the OT passage of Ps 2.7, where it is describing the “begetting” [bringing into existence, birth] of God’s Son and His Messiah.”

    Xavier
    So you also claim David was supernaturally begat from God instead of being chosen.
    the second psalm “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee” was first spoke to David. perhaps David was born from a virgin and God.
    Can you not see just how much imagination this is.
    Nothing that you are claiming is there in reality, It there because you need it to be there and is a forced interpretation

    22 And when he had removed him, he RAISED UP unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will. 23 Of this man’s seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

  11. on 25 Jun 2010 at 10:39 amXavier

    robert

    Ps 2.7 is widely regarded and understood as a prototypical, Messianic Psalm. As a prophetic utterance as such, it spans both past, present and future realities.

    I did not cite or place that OT reference there in Acts, the writer does. As do all the other writers who point to OT verses and applying them to Jesus of Nazareth as the fullfilment of them.

  12. on 25 Jun 2010 at 2:35 pmrobert

    “I did not cite or place that OT reference there in Acts, the writer does. As do all the other writers who point to OT verses and applying them to Jesus of Nazareth as the fullfilment of them. ”

    Xavier
    I have no problem with it being there,It should be there.
    The lack of understanding on your part is was told to David because he was the Anointed one(Christ).
    This was probably spoken to all God’s Anointed as well even Satan when he was anointed

  

Leave a Reply