How Important is Correct Doctrine?
June 27th, 2010 by Brian Keating
As most of us are probably aware, many of the beliefs expressed on this blog are significantly different than the beliefs of “mainstream” Christian denominations. For example, most of the posters here believe that God is one person (not three in one), that Jesus is the Son of God (not God the Son), that the soul is mortal (not immortal), that the kingdom of God will be on the earth (not in heaven), etc.
Since I hold all of the above “unorthodox” beliefs, that has prevented me from becoming a member in the various mainstream denominations. In fact, many mainstream denominations state that I will not be saved at all, because I have those beliefs. In particular, many denominations claim that a person must believe in the Trinity, in order to be saved. (Angela wrote a very good post about that very topic on June 18.)
Needless to say, I certainly do not think that belief in the Trinity is required to be saved! That begs the question, though – what belief IS required, in order to be saved? In other words, what exact doctrine(s) do we need to believe – and what doctrines do we need to reject - in order to be granted everlasting life, in the kingdom of God, when Jesus returns?
First off, Scripture tells us that in order to be granted everlasting life, we must believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. For example:
John 3:16 (ESV):
16“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
John 20:30-31 (ESV):
30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
The above verses look pretty clear – it appears that the only “doctrine” we need to believe is that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. Of course, both Unitarians and Trinitarians hold that belief, right?
However, Scripture also tells us that idolaters will NOT inherit the kingdom of God. For example:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (ESV):
9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Revelation 22:14-15 (ESV):
14Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. 15 Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
So, in my view, it is important to understand what idolatry is, in order to determine what doctrines we must believe – and what doctrines we must reject.
In the most literal sense, “idolatry” is worshipping an idol – i.e., a wooden or stone image. In the broader sense, though, idolatry can be considered worshipping ANY object – or person – as if he were Almighty God.
The reason why this definition of idolatry is important is because the doctrine of the Trinity states that Jesus, himself, is Almighty God – and therefore, most Trinitarians worship Jesus, as if he actually were Almighty God!
So, here is a summary of the overall issue. First, there are many Trinitarians who are sincere followers of Jesus. Those people believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God – and as per the first two verses listed above, that should allow them to be granted everlasting life. However, those people also believe that Jesus, himself, is Almighty God – and therefore, they worship Jesus as if he actually were Almighty God. That worship might constitute idolatry – and if so, the third and fourth verses listed above would seem to prevent those people from obtaining everlasting life!
In other words, assuming that the Unitarian doctrine is correct, the question is: “What is going to happen to sincere Trinitarians?”
Of course, there are two popular answers to that question:
1. Trinitarians will be saved, exactly as Unitarians will be – because they believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
2. Trinitarians will be destroyed, because they practiced idolatry – i.e., because they worshiped some other being (Jesus) as if he were Almighty God.
I have a hard time believing either one of the above answers. If the first answer is correct, then why is Scripture filled with severe warnings about not worshiping any other being besides Yahweh as Almighty God? If the second answer is correct, then why isn’t Scripture painstakingly clear about the exact doctrine that we must believe? (In other words, why didn’t God explicitly define the Unitarian doctrine in Scripture, if we must believe that in order to be saved at all?)
I can envision two other potential answers to this question:
3. Trinitarians will be saved; but they will not be co-rulers with Christ during the millennium.
In other words, a Trinitarian who is a sincere follower of Jesus will eventually be granted everlasting life – but he will not rule with Jesus, during the thousand years. That is, a sincere Trinitarian will be a part of the “great crowd”; but he will not be a part of the “little flock” – the figurative 144,000. (If all Trinitarians do get included in the little flock, then the “little” flock will comprise billions of people!)
4. Trinitarians will be resurrected into the kingdom – but they will be resurrected as mortals – not immortals.
In other words, sincere Trinitarians will be resurrected – but they will be resurrected with mortal bodies. Then, those people will have some finite period of time to live in the kingdom – as mortals – and they will learn the truth about God and Jesus, during that time. That period of time will then give them the opportunity to worship God and Jesus properly – and to obtain everlasting life. (This is exactly what I believe will happen to infants who have died. I have a presentation about that topic on my web site, here.)
If a Trinitarian is a sincere follower of Jesus, then I think that answer #3 describes the most probable outcome for him – but I can see #4 as a possibility as well, given how strongly Scripture condemns idolatry.
I would be interested to hear what all of you have to say on this issue!
I really agree with the ideas posted here on the topic of idolatry. Given the seriousness of my other comments on this blog, I think this time around i’ll just muse about and throw ideas out.
Perhaps they (trinitarians) will be resurrected in a time where Trinitarianism doesn’t exist. In this case, Trinitarianism would have been destroyed. The newly resurrected Trinitarain would not be a trinitarian, but would be a different creature, made new entirely.
I’ve always wondered… the passages say:
Elsewhere we are told… G-d says. “I’m going to send my son, and you better do what he says” (I’m paraphrasing)… A belief in who Messiah is requires, requires a subsequent belief in what Messiah is saying to do.
I truly feel that in today’s Christianity, the emphasis (or at least what seems to be implied) on the issue of “belief in Messiah” is much like someone “believes” in santa clause or “belives” in the easter bunny. To clarify, what I am trying to say is that it seems we are made to think the “belief” we are to have is in the “beleif” in the existance of the person, rather than the belief in his role and the subsequent belief in his teachings.
I’ve always felt that the that it was taught that “belief” was some “magic” formula that if one believed in the existence of Yeshua the Messiah, that one is saved, rather than one believing he is the Messiah and having authority, and thus we should follow what he is telling us to do. I feel this promotes more “fans” if you will than true “followers”. The idea for me is that if one truly believes in the Messiahship of Yeshua, one will give weight to his teachings, as action is dictated by belief. The way or method Messiah expressed (Love) would bring us to G-d and to the messianic times of Gan Eden (World to Come/Completion of Creation). That he came speaking truth and showing the way, and if one believes, one should apply what has been taught by Messiah.
I really feel that today, sadly the language used in the above passages has been degraded to the point where “belief in” means the same as we think of “belief in” the easter bunny. Rather than “belief in” as “I believe, you are Messiah, and what you say is the truth, the word G-d himself has put in your mouth.”
Shalom!
David
You said, “I really feel that today, sadly the language used in the above passages has been degraded to the point where ‘belief in’ means the same as we think of ‘belief in’ the Easter bunny. Rather than ‘belief in’ as ‘I believe, you are Messiah, and what you say is the truth, the word G-d himself has put in your mouth.’ Shalom!”
Again I strongly agree with what your saying. The teachings of Jesus/Yeshua come directly from God and are given to us for our own good. Jesus’/Yeshua’s teachings are the most important things in the bible and should supersede anything else. Everything else should be interpreted in light of his teachings.
I understand that some churches teach that Jesus’/Yeshua’s teachings are unimportant because they are not directed at us but were directed to the Jews/Jewish Christians. These churches claim that the only thing that is important to Christians is the epistles which they claim are the only things that apply to us today.
I couldn’t disagree with them more…
@Doubting Thomas
you mention above
Now, what church might be doing what you say you understand them to be doing? Any examples available?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Hi Brian
Let’s look at things the other way up. We will agree that in order to “Know” Jesus, and his Father, just a cursory understanding of the scriptures is really not enough. If you are to really love God, which Deut 6:4 adamantly tells us to do, and if you are to obey His command that He is ONE God (same scripture), that seems pretty straightforward to me. (Sorry, don’t agree that God did not explain it explicitly enough!). It’s not as if Jesus did a turn around, at any stage, saying that He was superior, or even equal to His
Father.
So, am I saying that Unitarians are somehow “one up” on Trinitarian’s ? No, but I am saying that good intentions, no matter how earnest, are often not enough. The Bible is full of events that seem unfair to us- we know our God as being just and fair- but he is a judge too. And on the day of Judgment, He will make decisions based on the state of our hearts individually, I believe.
Thanks for a thought provoking article.
Fiona
Hi Everyone,
Thanks for all of your comments! I have some follow-up info about them.
David – I certainly agree with you that in order to be saved, “belief” means much more that just “intellectual assent”. In other words, belief that will save us involves a “change of heart” – i.e., a change in our behavior, so that we sincerely try to obey Jesus.
After all, if “intellectual assent” was all that was needed to be saved, then even demons would be saved:
James 2:19
You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!
Wolfgang – generally speaking, churches that believe in the “dispensationalism” doctrine hold that the Gospels were NOT written to Christians. In other words, they claim that the Old Testament – and the Gospels – were only written to Israel; and therefore, that the Gospels do not really apply to Christians.
One denomination that holds the above belief is Spirit and Truth Fellowship (an offshoot of The Way). Here is an excerpt from one of their documents about dispensationalism:
In Isaiah, for example, the pronouns (“you,” etc.) refer to Israel, not to Christians, but in Ephesians, the pronouns refer to Christians, those born again of the spirit of God, something that was not available to Old Testament believers, who lived prior to the death and resurrection of Christ.
Most folks readily see that, but what about the Four Gospels? Jesus was not speaking to Christians, because there were no Christians until the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. That is the first time anyone was “born again” of God’s spirit, His “incorruptible seed.” And there will be no Christians after the “Rapture.” As such, today’s “Administration of the Sacred Secret” (Pentecost til the Rapture) is the most unique time in history.
As the Messiah, Jesus came to Israel, and his message was specifically to them. Certain parts of it, e.g., Luke 6:38 (“Give, and it shall be given to you…”), are pertinent to us today, but most of what he said is directly regarding Israel, and based upon what is written in the Old Testament, which is all they could understand. Those things are superseded or changed in the Church Epistles. “Oh,” some people say, “you’re placing the words of Paul above the words of Jesus.” No, the Church Epistles are also the words of Jesus, as per Galatians 1:11. The question is: to whom was Jesus speaking?
The overall page can be found here:
http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=23
Needless to say, I do not believe in the dispensationalism doctrine.
Fiona – I am certainly convinced that God is ONE (not three in one) from Scripture. The point that I was trying to make is: If people will be immediately destroyed, if they worship Jesus as if he were God, then why didn’t Jesus state that fact? In other words, why didn’t Jesus say this:
“I am not Almighty God. Therefore, you must not worship me as if I were, because if you do, you will be destroyed.”
I do agree that God will judge our hearts. In fact, that is why I specifically talked about sincere Trintarians in my post – i.e., Trinitarians who are legitimately trying to obey the commands of Jesus. I have a hard time believing that sincere Trinitarians will immediately be destroyed, when Jesus returns. (That’s just my opinion, of course!)
Brian
Brian writes…most of the posters here believe that Jesus is the Son of God not God the Son.
Response- Trinitarians believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that God did not actually father him from His own person.
Unitarians believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that God did not actually father him from His own person.
Trinitarians and Unitarians are unified in their belief that the Father did not actually father anyone and that the Creator did not procreate leaving both groups with the term “Son of God” as a title only. Your argument with Trinitarians is on the definition of this title.
Brian writes…Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. Of course, both Unitarians and Trinitarians hold that belief, right?
Response- Yes.
Brian writes…why isn’t Scripture painstakingly clear about the exact doctrine that we must believe? In other words, why didn’t God explicitly define the Unitarian doctrine in Scripture, if we must believe that in order to be saved at all?
Response- Because like Trinitarian doctrine, Unitarian doctrine is not there yet there are scholars on both sides that would swear that it is.
Brian Keating
Thanks for answering Wolfgang’s question in Msg. #3 above. I didn’t know the name of any churches that practiced dipensationalism. I just know that I have read about such beliefs in one of Mark C.’s articles on this blog…
This statement is incorrect. Many, if not most, Biblical Unitarians believe that God fathered Jesus, as presented in Matthew and Luke.
Hi Brian,
even what is mentioned by that group’s page regarding the gospels and epistles, etc. is NOT necessarily what was mentioned in the other comment to which I replied.
Having been involved with TWI for a number of years, and reading what quite a number of former followers of that group or various off-shoot groups later write about it, I am sometimes quite surprised, because there are accusations made which only show that those followers apparently are claiming things that were not said (perhaps the result of letting the pendulum swing too high on the “other side” now?) … Just because the group (or other dispensationalist groups) made the mentioned distinction between gospels and epistles DOES NOT indicate or say that they “regard the word of Jesus as unimportant” (as was claimed in the above comment)! I am sure they would tell you if one were to ask them …
Now, to clarify and so that no one here thinks I am only writing what I wrote because I am a follower of the TWI, I have not been involved or in contact with them for 20 years … Also, I do not believe in dispensationalism (as I have been accused of here by some, who read what I wrote and then drew such a conclusion based on their own ideas …) I’d suggest to be more careful and more accurate with what one says about others, and a good step in that direction would be to read what the others write and say and understand it in light of their words rather than interpret it in light of one’s own “theological glasses”
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Hi Brian
Thanks for your comment. I never doubted that you personally believe that God is one,not three! Sometimes I just don’t put my thoughts forward very well. Yes, it would have been great if Jesus had told us straight out, but do you think there was perhaps a reason that he didn’t? I’m just thinking- here he is, giving us a new Covenant, one based on love rather than law, as in the Mosaic covenant. God’s laws as given through Moses were very cut and dried- no misinterpretations of “you shall not commit adultery”,etc. Although Jesus’s commands to love God and neighbour are encompased by the Mosaic law too, they give a much larger scope, don’t they? Do you think he perhaps wanted us, in our quest for that love, to get to know him so intimately that some things became completely apparent (ie his relationship with his Father?) Just a thought. In some ways it was easier living in the times of Moses, perhaps?!
Fiona
Hi all
Just wanted to add, here is a nice article about trinitarianism/monotheism that I just read.
http://servetustheevangelical.com/doc/Is_Trinitarianism_Monotheistic.pdf
Enjoy!
“I have a hard time believing that sincere Trinitarians will immediately be destroyed, when Jesus returns.”
Brian
I have a hard time believing that anyone who possesses morals pleasing to God will be cast into the lake and i believe these verses testify to that and should be connected with The Judgment at the Great White Throne.
Romans 2
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience [3] also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
But if you read on into this chapter you will find it speaking of a promise to participate in the Sabbath rest(1000 year) prior to The Judgment at the Great White Throne by keeping the law which shows it isnt a matter of race but obidience which i see these verse testifying to If you understand JUST HOW IT PROFITS THE OBIDIENT.
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. 26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
Mark writes…most Biblical Unitarians believe that God fathered Jesus
Response- Did God and Mary both give something of themselves to create Jesus and if they did then Jesus cannot be just a human being.
That would depend on what you mean by “just” a human being. If you mean he was human rather than God incarnate, then yes, he can be. If you mean he was an ordinary human like you or me, I don’t believe he was. As I said, Matthew and Luke define quite clearly in what sense God fathered Jesus.
Ask a Trinitarian how they define Jesus as the Son of God and most can tell you that God did not father Jesus but that Jesus always existed as God the Son one of the three persons of God, though not correct it is an answer.
Ask a Biblical Unitarian how they define Jesus as the Son of God and most can tell you that it does mean that Jesus is God the Son and though correct it is not an answer. How Jesus is the Son of God cannot be defined on how he is not the Son of God and Mark goes further stating that God did father Jesus with Mary.
I ask Mark… “Did God and Mary both give something of themselves to create Jesus and if they did then Jesus cannot be just a human being” The first part of the question “Did God and Mary both give something of themselves to create Jesus” simply requires a yes or no answer and none is given. The second part of the question “and if they did then Jesus cannot be just a human being” Mark answers “That would depend on what you mean by “just” a human being ,if you mean he was an ordinary human like you or me, I don’t believe he was”.
What other types of human beings are there? God has caused the existence of various human beings from dirt, a rib and was said to have the ability to make people from stones and you believe that these were “just” ordinary human beings. So why when God causes the existence of a human being from a virgin do you believe that we no longer have an ordinary human being?
So again “Did God and Mary both give something of themselves to create Jesus” yes or no?
How many Biblical Unitarians have you actually asked this of? Most will give you an answer, that God begot Jesus by supernatural conception, as defined in Matthew and Luke.
God didn’t cause the existence of “various human beings” from dirt or from a rib. He created ONE from dirt – Adam, and ONE from Adam’s rib – Eve. All other humans except Jesus are descendants of those two.
Because all other humans after Adam and Eve had a human mother and a human father. Jesus had a human mother but not a human father. That makes him unique, but still human.
Yes.
For a thread based on the importance of correct doctrine and as usual even considers the eternal fate of Trinitarians, it seems that no one has anything to say about Marks take on the Biblical Unitarian doctrine claiming that God and Mary, like any parents, each contributed something of themselves in the conception of Jesus.
Mark writes in his blog of the Trinity “being illogical and mathematically impossible” But what about BU belief, how does God who is not a human being impregnate a betrothed human female virgin with something of Himself and come up with a completely human child? How does that math work?
For a group that constantly voices its opinion on the dual nature belief of Trinitarians you don’t seem to give much thought to your own dual nature implications of a human child conceived with human and non human parents.
Before you contemplate the eternal fate of Trinitarians again you should take a look at your own doctrine and start asking some questions of yourselves.
Michael,
The Trinitarians claim that Jesus is “fully God” and “fully man,” and they also claim that he has two natures – both God and man – and yet is somehow one person. We both disagree with these beliefs.
The difference between that and what I’m saying is that I believe Jesus is “son of God” and “son of man.” This is quite different from the Trinitarian concept, and I believe is substantiated by the Scriptures, which call him both Son of God and Son of Man.
Rather than a dual nature, I believe he he has one nature, which is that of a divinely, supernaturally conceived human being – unique from other humans, but still human. He shares certain attributes with his Father, and also has many human attributes. This is what the Bible says about him, and I see no problems or contradictions. What implications or problems do you see with this concept?
Mark writes…Rather than a dual nature, I believe he has one nature, which is human being.
Response- You claim that the God of one nature and Mary of a different nature each gave something of themselves in the conception of Jesus as any parents so how can Jesus be the product of two completely different natures and only possess one?
Michael
How do you explain Jesus’ nature?? Are you a Trinitarian?? Do you plan on spending the rest of your natural life coming on to this website and poking insults at our beliefs while continuing to hide behind your own secretive beliefs?? Do you even have any beliefs??
Thamas
Good questions!
Hi Everyone,
Perhaps we should all take a “step back” here; it appears that this discussion is getting a bit heated… There’s no need for that – after all, we are all trying to follow God and Jesus, right?
In any case, the question at hand is, “How, exactly, is Jesus the Son of God?” My explanation is very simple (because I’m a simple man):
God used His Holy Spirit, in order to cause Mary to conceive – i.e., to cause one of her eggs to become fertilized. That, in turn, caused Jesus’ life to begin. As a result, Jesus is literally the Son of God (as well as the Son of Man – because his mother was a human.)
Of course, some people may object that God could not have caused Mary to conceive, because God is different than humans. Well, if that argument is correct, then I would ask, “How could God have ever created humans in the first place?” In other words, if God could not have caused one of Mary’s eggs to become fertilized, because he has a different nature than we do, then how could He have ever created Adam (not to mention the rest of the universe)?
Those are just my thoughts, of course!
Brian
I think what people find most confusing is that Jesus can be both “Son of God” and “Son of Man.” His Father is God. His mother is a human female. So, if Jesus’ father is God and His mother is human, the logic reasoning goes, then he must be part God and part man, just as we are part of our mothers and fathers. But, then the Trinitarian creed convolutes this scenario another step, and says, but Jesus isn’t half God, half man, but 100% fully God and 100% fully man. So much for logic, eh? This creed then becomes quite nonsensical, and requires one to believe God can do whatever He wants; we are only mere men and can not begin to grasp the mystery of Christ; and God’s thoughts are so far above man’s thoughts, that we don’t even need to begin to attempt to understand who Jesus was and is.
But, I think the Scriptures are quite explicit, simple and clear on this subject: Jesus was begotten by God in the womb of Mary. God created or brought into existence a human baby boy. One that is 100% human, just as the first Adam was uniquely created by God and was 100% human.
Trinitarians believe that the Son of God title is an equivalent title for the one LORD GOD Almighty, when it clearly is not. Luke 3:38 plainly calls Adam, the Son of God. Was Adam God or a God-Man? I think we would all agree he was not.
Was Adam sinless as Jesus was sinless? Well, up to the point he chose to disobey God, he was! We do not know how long Adam lived, before he committed his first sin. He could have lived a month, a year, a hundred years. But, he did live sinlessly for a point of time. Jesus, too, lived sinlessly. Where Adam disobeyed, Jesus obeyed and become a worthy Lamb of God.
When we look at Adam and Jesus, as two very unique men, but still 100% human and not YHWH, I believe it casts a light on the understanding of who Jesus really was – a man. And is he still a man today? Yes. Albeit, a highly exalted one, seated at the right hand of the one God. One who acts as our High Priest and mediator for mankind to our one God.
Sadly, the Trinitarian creed which had evolved since early Christianity and is still evolving, has played serious havoc in our true understanding of who this Lord Messiah Jesus truly was and is. Let us seek a truth revolution!
Thomas writes… Are you a Trinitarian??
Response- Have you been reading this thread, ask Mark.
Thomas writes… Do you plan on spending the rest of your natural life coming on to this website and poking insults at our beliefs
Response- No and I have not insulted your beliefs but simply questioned them. To insult someone’s beliefs you could debate their eternal destiny (idolatry) as many have done just on this thread.
Thomas writes… How do you explain Jesus’ nature??
Response- Having read your Bible don’t you know that the answer is hidden in plain sight and that the right questions are needed to begin the process of revealing the answer? You don’t need the answer you need to start asking questions of scripture as Brian did in the topic of this thread when he asked “why didn’t God explicitly define the Unitarian doctrine in Scripture”
Good question, if it’s not defined it’s because it is not there so why not ask more question about this undefined BU doctrine instead of questioning the eternal destiny of Trinitarians as Brian wrote “assuming that the Unitarian doctrine is correct, the question is: “What is going to happen to sincere Trinitarians?”
Brian has honestly questioned BU doctrine “assuming that the Unitarian doctrine is correct” and Mark has daringly attempted to define it “Did God and Mary both give something of themselves to create Jesus” yes or no…Yes” Both of these provoking statements by two BU teachers have had little reaction from this group that seems to want the truth but will not ask the questions to reveal it….Maybe I have written too soon.
Brian writes… “How, exactly, is Jesus the Son of God?” My explanation is very simple (because I’m a simple man):
Response- A good way to be.
Brian writes… God used His Holy Spirit, in order to cause Mary to conceive – i.e., to cause one of her eggs to become fertilized. That, in turn, caused Jesus’ life to begin. As a result, Jesus is literally the Son of God.
Response- There’s doctors that can cause an egg to be fertilized and the child does not become theirs literally. Literal fatherhood requires giving something of your being as Mark has stated God did with Mary. Do you believe that God fertilized the egg with something from himself?
Brian writes… some people may object that God could not have caused Mary to conceive, because God is different than humans
Response- God did cause Mary to conceive but He did not give something of himself to cause the conception.
Angela writes… Trinitarians believe that the Son of God title.
Response- And if Jesus was not literally fathered by God by giving something of Himself in the conception then your Son of God is a title also, just a different title.
Hi Michael,
I certainly understand your point about human doctors – i.e., a doctor who performs an artificial insemination is not literally (i.e., biologically) the father of the child who is conceived.
However, that scenario does not automatically apply to God – because after all, Adam is also referred to as a “Son of God”. Did God give anything of himself to beget Adam?
There is one other point to consider. One definition of the Holy Spirit is as follows (from http://focusonthekingdom.org/beliefs.html):
The Holy Spirit is the personal, operational presence and power of God extended through the risen Christ to believers (Ps. 51:11).
In other words, the Holy Spirit is the very personal “force” or “energy” of God. As a result, the Holy Spirit can be thought of as an “extension of God”.
So, with that definition, God did “give something of himself” in order to cause Mary to conceive – by virtue of the fact that he used the Holy Spirit, which is His personal presence and power.
Of course, some people may then ask, “Did God use His Holy Spirit to cause a sperm cell to form in Mary’s uterus?” We don’t know the answer to that question, because Scripture doesn’t tell us. We do know that God used his own personal power to cause one of Mary’s eggs to become fertilized, though; and that is enough for me!
Brian
Brian
You said, “It appears this discussion is getting a bit heated…There is no need of that – after all, we are all trying to follow God and Jesus, right?”
You are of course correct. I apologize to everyone for my behavior.
Michael
You said, “Have you been reading this thread? Ask Mark.”
I’m sorry if I offended you. I just got back from vacation and missed some of the conversation that was going on. Before I had left on vacation many people had asked you if you were a Trinitarian and you just completely ignored their questions. I didn’t realize that you had already answered the question. Forgive me for my ignorance and for my arrogance.
You also said, “No I have not insulted your beliefs but simply questioned them.”
It appears to me that in your past messages you were not sincerely questioning our beliefs but attempting to ridicule them. I myself answered your questions with what I believed and many others answered your questions with what they believed and you just ignored our answers and kept asking the same repetitive questions over and over again intermixed with sarcastic comments and insults.
To me that is not sincerely asking questions that is ridiculing. Your attitude and your response in your last message #24 above is refreshing and shows that we are least at the stage now of having a two sided conversation and not just a one sided conversation.
Again I am sorry if I have misread you or misunderstood you in your past responses. I will go back and see if I can find where you answered Mark’s question about whether you are a Trinitarian or not…
Michael
I just went back and read the entire thread. You DID NOT answer anyone’s question about whether you are a Trinitarian or not on this thread. Except for your last msg. #24 where you seemed to open up a bit there is no indication in any of your messages of what it is that you actually believe.
In message #17 above you said, “For a thread based on the importance of correct doctrine and as usual even considers the eternal fate of Trinitarians, it seems that no one has anything to say about Mark’s take on the Biblical Unitarian doctrine claiming that God and Mary, like any parents, each contributed something of themselves in the conception of Jesus.”
You start out with a ridiculous sarcastic comment like, “For a thread on the importance of correct doctrine and as usual even considers the eternal fate of Trintitarians”
The reality is that everybody on the site appeared to agree that sincere Trinitarians will NOT HAVE their salvation threatened by their Trintitarian beliefs. You take this positive thing and attempt to twist it around into some kind of negative sarcastic observation. Why?
You then go on to say that, “It seems that no one has anything to say about Mark’s take on the Biblical Unitarian doctrine….”
If I were playing the Devil’s advocate, I would say that it is likely you are a angry Trinitarian attempting to stir up trouble on this site. (You might as well of said, “Why aren’t you guys fighting and arguing with Mark? Didn’t you hear what he said?)
Even though you have been asked nearly a dozen times by different people about whether you are a Trinitarian or not you continually manage to find a way to not directly answer the question.
Why are you so evasive?? Why do you feel the need to continually insult and make sarcastic comments about other people’s beliefs?? Like I said if I were playing the Devil’s advocate all this behavior seems to point to an angry Trinitarian attempting to stir up trouble on this site??
If you are not an angry Trinitarian attempting to stir up trouble on this site, then why don’t you just come straight out and say so???
Brian writes…Adam is also referred to as a “Son of God”. Did God give anything of himself to beget Adam?
Response- As with Jesus according to the flesh the answer is no.
Brian writes…The Holy Spirit is the very personal “force” or “energy” of God so with that definition, God did “give something of himself” in order to cause Mary to conceive.
Response- No, Jesus is not the Son of God according to the flesh , he is the son of David according to the flesh nor was he the father of Adam or any other believer according to the flesh.
Brian writes…We do know that God used his own personal power to cause one of Mary’s eggs to become fertilized, though; and that is enough for me!
Response- There is no disagreement that without intervention from God that Mary would not have become pregnant before her marriage but the question here is that Mark has indicated that God like any parent gave something of himself as did Mary in the conception of Jesus, two beings of different natures combining something of themselves to create Jesus and this is not true.
Thomas writes…You DID NOT answer anyone’s question about whether you are a Trinitarian or not on this thread.
Response- Post 18 Mark writes “The Trinitarians claim that Jesus is “fully God” and “fully man,” and they also claim that he has two natures – both God and man – and yet is somehow one person. We both disagree with these beliefs”… I told you to ask Mark.
Thomas writes….You start out with a ridiculous sarcastic comment like, “For a thread on the importance of correct doctrine and as usual even considers the eternal fate of Trintitarians”
Response-Already answered on Post 24… “I have not insulted your beliefs but simply questioned them. To insult someone’s beliefs you could debate their eternal destiny (idolatry) as many have done just on this thread.”
And considering that Brian said “assuming that the Unitarian doctrine is correct” and that no BU here has stepped up to second Mark’s theory that God gave something of His being in the conception of Mary I think trying to figure out how Trinitarians fit into the future is slightly premature.
Thomas writes…You then go on to say that, “It seems that no one has anything to say about Mark’s take on the Biblical Unitarian doctrine….”If I were playing the Devil’s advocate, I would say that it is likely you are a angry Trinitarian attempting to stir up trouble on this site.
Response- And you continue the silence on BU doctrine (Mark’s theory) and as most BU’s create phantom arguments with Trinitarians that are not here.
Thomas writes…You might as well of said, “Why aren’t you guys fighting and arguing with Mark? Didn’t you hear what he said?
Response- I am saying that you should consider straightening out your own house before rearranging the Trinitarians furniture.
So again, there have been many posts and somehow the question on the BU doctrine on whether God gave something of His being in the conception of Jesus has not been answered but with no Trinitarians in sight they have made their way into almost every post as if they were here arguing their beliefs.
Michael
Maybe because the question was silly to start with?
Here’s another way of putting it. Every human receives his life from his father (via sperm) and his flesh from his mother (via the egg). I believe it was the same with Jesus. His body was contributed by Mary and his life came directly from God.
By the way, this is not just “my theory.” The following statements of beliefs concur:
Anthony Buzzard’s Restoration Fellowship:
There is one Lord Messiah, Jesus (1 Cor. 8:6), who was supernaturally conceived as the Son of God (Luke 1:35), and foreordained from the foundation of the world (1 Pet. 1:20).
Christian Monotheism.com:
We affirm… that Jesus was miraculously begotten by God in the womb of the virgin Mary.
Biblical Truth Seekers:
Our Understanding is that… Jesus is the human Messiah as one uniquely and miraculously begotten by God. He did not pre-exist his birth and so he is not the Almighty God.
And there are others.
Xavier writes…Maybe because the question was silly to start with?
Response- It is your group that calls Jesus the literal and biological Son of God with a betrothed virgin human female.
Mark writes…I believe it was the same with Jesus. His body was contributed by Mary and his life came directly from God.
Response- If Jesus had received his life from God as you suggest then that life would have been zoe life and not bios life.
You stated in your blog that “Another important point is that being a man he did not have immortality inherently. He was given immortality, as the firstborn from the dead.”
Jesus was not given eternal life at his resurrection he already had it inherently. John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
If you understood how he was given to have life in himself you would understand how he was the Son of God and on what day God declared He had begotten him.
Why couldn’t it be both?
Michael
Based on what Matthew and Luke call him friend.
Michael,
Please explain this verse for us. What does “having life in oneself” mean or imply, from your perspective? How does this understanding differ from ours?
Do you agree with this syllogism:
First premise: All fathers have sons
Second premise: Jesus is the son of God
Conclusion: God is the Father of Jesus
Please tell us, where in the Bible is Divinity an inheritible nature/substance?
Eagerly awaiting your response,
Jaco
Quote-If Jesus had received his life from God as you suggest then that life would have been zoe life and not bios life.
Mark writes…Why couldn’t it be both?
Response- You were the one that has daringly suggested that God gave something of Himself in the conception of Jesus then further explained that the something that God gave of Himself was that “his life came directly from God”.
God can obviously create mortal life but He cannot give life from Himself and the life is mortal life, God is not a human being and God is not mortal life. Jesus had God’s life in himself inherently and that is the answer but you must find the question.
Quote-It is your group that calls Jesus the literal and biological Son of God (from) a betrothed virgin human female.
Xavier writes-Based on what Matthew and Luke call him friend.
Response- Your perspective goes no further than Nicodemus.’
Jaco writes… Please explain this verse for us. What does “having life in oneself” mean or imply, from your perspective? How does this understanding differ from ours?
Response- I know nothing of your understanding on what “having life in oneself” could mean or imply other than Mark stating that Jesus was given eternal life at the resurrection to which I disagreed because Jesus said that he was already given to have zoe life in himself.
You already know on what day that something given from God is ultimately manifested or inherited you simply need back up and to look and see how these things are received and kept.
Jaco writes…Please tell us, where in the Bible is Divinity an inheritable nature/substance?
Response- Again, it is this group that correctly rejects Jesus as the Son of God being a title only and wants God to be the literal and biological Father of Jesus. Look to and understand the day that Jesus and his inherit life from God was manifested and ask questions of scripture from there.
You do not lack answers but are deficient in questions.
Michael
I think your are just fishing for answers without admitting you havent a clue.
Jesus inherited the life that was in him when the Holy spirit came to dwell in a HUMAN temple instead of one built with hands.
It had to be pure and free of sin and Jesus as a human for the first 30 years of his Life remained spotless according to the Law of God creating the first human temple for the Holy spirit to dwell. This indwelling happened when the light(holy spirit) came upon Jesus at his baptism and if you read Rev 5 you will find that He still has that indwelling as the Lamb with 7 horns and 7 eyes which is the Holy spirit as defined in this verse and Rev 4.
We also find it was the Holy spirit that God sent to us. This is the means of all power that Jesus and the others sons of God possess.
This would of not been necessary if Jesus was the literal son of God at his Birth and Jesus’ sinless life prior to the indwelling would of not been a true acceptable sacrafice for the redemption of mankind if Jesus didnt have freewill to sin.
God could of Made Adam sinless and skipped the redemption process all together
Michael,
What’s YOUR understanding, Michael, what does this scripture prove in your case? From what Mark wrote, you understand this verse to mean “immortality.” Is that so? Does this verse make Jesus God in your opinion?
Where is this text speaking of “inheriting?”
Apparently we’re missing something, Michael. Could you please show us where in the Bible is Divinity an inheritible substance/nature?
I still need you to answer the following question, Michael,
Eagerly awaiting your response,
Jaco
Robert writes-I think your are just fishing for answers without admitting you haven’t a clue.
Response… Why thank you very little Robert.
Robert writes-Jesus inherited the life that was in him when the Holy Spirit came to dwell in a HUMAN temple instead of one built with hands.
Response…The zoe life Jesus inherited from God was the same zoe life as God and as with anything inherited from God we must die to inherit it. Jesus did not inherit this life at his baptism and he died later.
Robert writes…if Jesus was the literal son of God at his Birth and Jesus’ sinless life prior to the indwelling would of not been a true acceptable sacrifice for the redemption of mankind if Jesus didn’t have freewill to sin.
Response…Jesus was the literal Son of God from his birth from Mary but not because of that birth, as Jesus told Nicodemus, birth from a woman is not how anyone is begotten by God. Any believer begotten by God can still sin and die as Jesus could have before the resurrection.
Quote- Mark stated that Jesus was given eternal life at the resurrection to which I disagreed because Jesus said that he was already given to have zoe life in himself.
Jaco write-What’s YOUR understanding.
Response…Jesus the promised seed received from God everything he would eventually be from the beginning of his existence including zoe life and if he had sinned then he would have been rendered dead in that day just like the first Adam being unable to have what he received from God to be quickened.
Jaco writes- Does this verse make Jesus God in your opinion?
Response- Ask Thomas and Mark.
Quote- You already know on what day that something given from God is ultimately manifested or inherited you simply need back up and to look and see how these things are received and kept.
Jaco writes- Where is this text speaking of “inheriting?”
Response- The New Covenant is a will with a testator and of necessity a mediator with children of inheritance.
Revelation 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
Hebrews 6:12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
Luke 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
Jaco writes…Could you please show us where in the Bible is Divinity an inheritable substance/nature?
Response…1John 1:1-2 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Jaco writes-I still need you to answer the following question, Do you agree with this syllogism: First premise: All fathers have sons, Second premise: Jesus is the son of God, Conclusion: God is the Father of Jesus.
Response- Your premise is flawed because you have different meanings for the words father and son even amongst your BU friends. I believe that Dr. Charles Stanley started something called evangelism explosion in the 80′s using the same parlor trick as you are attempting and sadly he had success.
I am probably crazy to stick my neck into this, but I’d like to add my two cents worth.
I believe that “Jesus is the son of God.” I won’t give a biblical reference, because we all agree there are lots of them.
I also believe that “God is the Father of Jesus.” We are told so in several passages, one being Ephesians 1:3.
I also believe that Jesus had a life from God that is more than the physical life we have. I understand that from John 5:26 and 6:57.
Is there something wrong with that?
Michael
Finally after over a year of this we get a little insight into what you believe and now your questions have a bearing. If you would of just stated what you believed there could of been a great discussion on your points and other people’s points. You are welcome to share your beliefs here but don’t expect to convert anyone. there are many here who wants to know how other people see things just incase they are missing something. there can be a lot of good that comes from sharing beliefs.
please share more so we can understand where your coming from.
Michael
I’m actually interested in getting to know what YOU consider to be the case – does having life within himself make Jesus God Almighty?
The New Covenant, as it pertains to Jesus during his earthly life (still under the Old Covenant), is not at issue here. Jesus’ inheritance at birth is. Can you tell us then, does having God give Jesus “life within himself” mean from this phrase that Jesus inherited immortality at his birth?
Well, these texts nicely sets out the rules or conditions/provisos for inheriting everlasting life…inheritance at birth is not it.
…nothing about inheritable divine nature…
You still have to prove that this Colossians quote refers to Jesus’ inheriting it physically at his birth, and not at his resurrection…
Sorry, but neither of my premises is flawed. I used neutral terms (father and son) as a way to relate Jesus to his Father (as the Bible does). So as to ensure that I do not equivocate, please provide a definition of ‘father’ and ‘son,’ and we’ll proceed from there.
Regards,
Jaco
Margaret
Hold that thought…
Jaco
O, yes, welcome back, Marg.
Robert
I googled Zoe and it said that it was Greek for the word life. Another site said that life that comes from God is referred to a Zoe. Since all our lives come from God than it would seem to logically follow that we all have this ‘Zoe’ from the time of our birth (at least to me anywaze). That’s why I’m having a hard time following and understanding what you guys are talking about on this thread???
Thomas
The Zoe (life) that Michael is refening to is the type of what the Creator has. this is the only true immortality that exist. All other life forms can exist only at granting by the creator and since its a created condition and maintained by the creator it also can be terminated as we see with Adam. He didnt die that very day but his condition of immortality was terminated that very day. His only way to immortality was thru reproduction through the generations that would come from him from that point on.
Thank-you Robert. That makes sense now…
Jaco writes… I’m actually interested in getting to know what YOU consider to be the case – does having life within himself make Jesus God Almighty?
Response-…The word god is a title and God Almighty having a literal Son does not make two God Almighty’s any more than a bank president having a son makes two bank presidents.
Jaco writes… does having God give Jesus “life within himself” mean from this phrase that Jesus inherited immortality at his birth?
Response… God gave Jesus “to have life in himself” and if he had sinned he would have died in that very day like the first Adam no longer being in the condition “to have life in himself”
Jaco writes-Well, these texts nicely sets out the rules or conditions/provisos for inheriting everlasting life…inheritance at birth is not it.
Response- You cannot see it because you are looking at the birth of Jesus from Mary, God does not beget any children with human female beings.
Jaco writes- You still have to prove that this Colossians quote refers to Jesus’ inheriting it physically at his birth, and not at his resurrection…
Response…At the time any one is born of God they receive from God in the form of seed which contains everything given by God, eternal life, a new body. If Jesus had sinned then his seed could not have remained in him rendering him dead.
Jaco writes…So as to ensure that I do not equivocate, please provide a definition of ‘father’ and ’son,’ and we’ll proceed from there. (syllogism)
Response- A syllogism is a parlor trick that you think proves something? Go play it with someone else.
Premise 1: God is love.
Premise 2: Love is blind.
Premise 3: Ray Charles is blind.
Conclusion: Ray Charles is God.
Michael
Thanks for clearing that up. So, do you believe that God Almighty had a literal son while remaining only One True God YHWH?
Fine, but does that phrase (having life in himself) alone indicate that he received it from his birth – as a kind of literal inheritance?
Andrew, you were the one providing me with the texts you believe prove divinity as an inheritable quality. Here were your texts:
Revelation 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
Hebrews 6:12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
Luke 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
They don’t prove that. In fact, they prove the opposite. The Bible said that Jesus was begotten by God through Mary (Lu. 1:35).
Born of God? Do you mean literal birth or spiritual birth (John 3:1-6). Are saying that Jesus was born from God as “any one” is born from Him? I thought he was the “only-begotten”, uniquely born son of God…
No, it’s not. Apparently you have very little knowledge of formal logic. A syllogism can be valid or invalid and an argument sound or unsound. The ignorant and fearsome will view formal logic to be a “parlor trick.”
Invalid argument: Equivocation
Structural fallacy: Undistributed middle
I rest my case…
Jaco
Jaco
When I was posted up in the North West Territories (close to Alaska) I got accepted as an adult student at a University in Alberta and took a correspondence course entitled “Introduction to Logic”. Unfortunately when I was about half way through the course they posted me up to the North Pole for 6 months and I wasn’t able to finish the course.
From what I understand every University in the world recognizes the science of formal logic and it is a prerequisite for many courses, but there are still many people around the world (apparently) that through lack of understanding (ignorance) think that it is not really an established science at all but is actually a “parlor trick.”
Looking back on it now, I wish that I would have retaken the course instead of just giving up on advancing my education…
Thomas,
Formal logic is very complex. When I took it as part of my Psychology studies, it was my aim to detect a fallacy in normal conversation, without even having to lay out the argument in a formal syllogism. (It took A LOT of practice!) Unfortunately most people don’t, but simply state and restate their position ad nauseam, ignoring the glaring fallacy they repeatedly commit. Hence my request for a syllogism to ARTICULATE the argument in no ambiguous terms.
As you may have seen on trinities.org, someone with a slippery argument will dodge syllogisms. Or, even worse still, will use informal logic to state a case inductively where the “imperfections” of an argument are not that easy to detect. Slippery slopes, overgeneralisations, begging the question, special pleading, false analogy etc., are the typical fallacies they commit. What is more, they usually get so rude and their behaviour so appalling, that continuing an otherwise fruitful discussion is simply not worth it. (To think that these are actually considered “learned” in their religious communities, shepherding their flock with an image of spiritual maturity while behaving like a boisterous teenager when only confronted with the slightest of resistence – how’s that for fake maturity!)
So, yes, if someone wants to argue the veracity of an issue, we use the tools for it – logic.
BTW, did you see the “error” you made on the other thread regarding Jesus’ resurrection body? Xavier responded to it, but I’m not sure whether you saw why it was an error.
In Christ,
Jaco
Jaco
No I really didn’t understand what it is I said that Xavier thought was so wrong. I had thought that I was agreeing with the article…
Tom, it is rather tricky, unless one has been made aware of it.
To say “spiritual body” is as mutually contradictory (to the Hebrews) as saying, “a bright dark light.” Something is either spiritual (no physicality) or is a body (solid, not spirit). The section in the article is here:
And here
Going through these sections carefully will help.
Cheers!
Rev 21
6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the
beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
Rev 22
2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
Thomas
Jaco might be right about not letting an action like eating and drinking define physical and spiritual bodies.
As we see in the verses above there is water for the thirsty and food to eat when we all reach our final destination of the New Heaven and Earth. I would dare not to describe those living then as physical even though they can do physical things. I do know the body Jesus had while living on earth till his death was completely physical.
We can guess all day about what type of body Jesus has now but my question is why does he need the indwelling of the Holy spirit while He is in heaven as we see in Rev 5. I would think a completely spiritual body could exist there without help. But this really doesnt effect our purpose whether we know or not. We will find out when we get there!!
Jaco/Robert
I think I understand a bit better now. I want to thank both of you for being kind enough to explain it to me. The English language is not perfect and can easily be misunderstood. The language of kindness on the other hand is very seldom misunderstood. One of my favorite expressions is -
“Kindness is the language that even the blind can see and the deaf can hear!”
Thank you both again for your kindness in trying to explain this to me…
Jaco writes-So, do you believe that God Almighty had a literal son while remaining only One True God YHWH?
Response-…Yes and Mark claims that most BU’s believe the same with the exception being they believe God had a literal Son with a human female and I do not.
Jaco writes-does that phrase (having life in himself) alone indicate that he received it from his birth – as a kind of literal inheritance?
Response… Any one born of God receives seed which is everything you will be once resurrecte.
Jaco writes-The Bible said that Jesus was begotten by God through Mary (Lu. 1:35).
Response…That is not what Luke 1:35 states, Jesus was not called the Son of God because God caused Mary to conceive and become pregnant, he is not the Son of God according to the flesh which is the only thing Mary provided. He was the Son of God by receiving seed. Mary had something conceived in her and born in her and they are not the same event.
Jaco writes- Born of God? Do you mean literal birth or spiritual birth (John 3:1-6). Are saying that Jesus was born from God as “any one” is born from Him?
Response…Jesus received a seed as any believer born of God.
Jaco writes-I thought he was the “only-begotten”, uniquely born son of God…
Response- Jesus was not the only begotten Son of God until after the resurrection.
Michael,
Thank you for your responses. Those were very interesting indeed! Thank you also for your peaceful demeanor.
I’ll respond to your interesting observations soon!
Jaco
Hi, Michael
Ok, that’s clear. That does make you a unitarian which, as I find in the Bible, is an accurate reflection of Biblical Monotheism.
Michael, the reason I understand it differently, is because all offspring of Adam inherited everlasting death. We do not have access to the tree of life, so we die naturally. Death can only be interrupted, not by inherent immortality (otherwise obedience would have sufficed, and Jesus’ sacrifice not needed) but by the free gift of Jesus’ perfect sacrifice.
Ro. 3:22, 23 “Yes, God’s righteousness [is] through the faith in Jesus Christ, for all those having faith. For there is no distinction. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
Another reason for this is that to have life within oneself does not literally mean “immortality.” It might mean that proleptically (in anticipation of an inevitable future reality), but in the context Jesus said it, it meant the ability to also impart life.
John 5:21 “For just as the Father raises the dead up and makes hem alive, so the Son also makes those alive whom he wants to.”
John 5:25, 26 “The hour is coming, and it is now, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who have given heed will live. For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself.”
Now, did Jesus receive this “life within himself” as something anyone else also inherits at birth? Not according to John 6:53: “ ‘Most truly I say to you, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves.’ ” As with the texts you sited as preconditions for everlasting life, to have life within oneself (probably as a deposit or guarantee for future immortality) comes from sharing in Jesus’ death by putting faith in it. To have life within oneself – the way the Bible uses the expression – is not something we attain at birth.
The text says: “ ‘Holy spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
Dio kai [For that reason/precisely thus/that is why] what is born will be called holy, God’s Son.’” This shows that Jesus was God’s son by virtue of his birth. We are God’s sons by virtue of adoption.
While Jesus was on earth and before his death, he called himself the only-begotten son of God (Joh. 3:16). John 1:14 says that “the word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father.” This was before his resurrection.
As with Satan and the disobedient angels, obedience would be the prerequisites for continual approval by God. They failed by falling away. In this respect, as with Jesus, who had to withstand tests of his faith so as to become the Second Adam, or the prototype of God’s New human Creation, Jesus had to prove his eligibility for that great honor (Heb. 12:2). The status of his approval came firstly at his baptism, secondly at his transfiguration and finally at his resurrection. All these were necessary to prove that what was born in Mary remained undefiled until he undertook his mission. His baptism confirmed that, as did his transfiguration. Finally, after his death, God had to prove that what Jesus did on earth was truly “accomplished” (Joh. 19:30). His resurrection did exactly that! Ro. 1:4 “but who with power was declared God’s Son according to the spirit of holiness by means of resurrection from the dead…” And Jesus was still eligible for the blessings he would receive as prophesied.
That’s just my conviction of the matters. And even if we disagree, we can still agree on the central truths of Scripture.
Cheers,
Jaco
Jaco writes- That does make you a Unitarian which, as I find in the Bible, is an accurate reflection of Biblical Monotheism.
Response…Then you believe as Mark that God and Mary each contributed something of their beings in the conception of Jesus?
Jaco writes- Another reason for this is that to have life within oneself does not literally mean “immortality.” It might mean that proleptically (in anticipation of an inevitable future reality), but in the context Jesus said it, it meant the ability to also impart life.
Response…Just as a seed has been given to have life in itself so too was the promised seed which was Jesus. The life was not in his flesh but in the seed that he received from his Father when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary.
Jaco writes- To have life within oneself – the way the Bible uses the expression – is not something we attain at birth.
Response…If you are speaking of physical birth you are correct but with birth from God you receive seed which has in itself a body and life.
1John 3:9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.
Jaco writes- The text says: “ ‘Holy spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
Dio kai [For that reason/precisely thus/that is why] what is born will be called holy, God’s Son.’” This shows that Jesus was God’s son by virtue of his birth. We are God’s sons by virtue of adoption.
Response…Again, Mary had something conceived and born in her and they are not the same event. God has said that He is not the Father of Jesus according to the flesh so why do you insist that He was? You are correct that we are God’s children by virtue of adoption which has nothing to do with our physical birth so why do you believe that Jesus who is not an adopted Son of God is the literal Son of God because of physical birth?
Quote… Jesus was not the only begotten Son of God until after the resurrection.
Jaco writes- While Jesus was on earth and before his death, he called himself the only-begotten Son of God (John. 3:16)
Response…Again, Jesus was not the only begotten Son of God until his resurrection, no one could receive to have eternal life before the resurrection of Jesus. He calls himself the only begotten Son of God after the context of his future death John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
Jaco writes- John 1:14 says that “the word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father.” This was before his resurrection.
Response… The word for resided or dwelt in John 1:14 is skēnoō, to fix one’s tabernacle, have one’s tabernacle, abide in a tabernacle.
The word made flesh is the manifestation of the word of life, the eternal life that was with the Father was made manifest the Jesus’ followers after the resurrection.
God who now dwells in His people will in the future dwell with His people by also taking on a tabernacle, skēnoō.
1:14 is Jesus after the resurrection.
Hi there, Michael
Sorry for not responding sooner to your reply down here.
I’d like to recap on our discussion. I do not think that the mechanics of Jesus’ conception is as much a distinguishing factor among BUs as the identity of God is among BUs and Trinis. But, nevertheless, we can consider this.
From the previous posts, you said,
This is a complex question (logically speaking) as well as a hidden “false dilemma.” Let me explain: The assumption is made here, that being a father is only restricted to “give something of himself” in order to qualify or be eligible for fatherhood. I identify this as the false dilemma. This is also what makes the question a complex question. Complex question means that, regardless of how the question is answered, the implication will create a dilemma. If I were to answer “yes” to the above question, then you’d say, well, then the Father gave “divinity” as an inheritable quality to Jesus. Jesus would then be God (again, assuming that divinity is inheritable). If I said “no,” then you would say that God is not really Jesus’ Father, since the premise for fatherhood (according to your argument) is sharing something of His “being.” To clear this all up, we need to examine other cases where God is shown to be a “father” and see if genetic, or better, physical inheritance is a valid premise for eligibility for fatherhood.
Just a word about anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism is a kind of metaphor by which spiritual matters are described in terms we as humans (anthropoi) can relate to. The fact of the matter is that EVERYTHING about God is described by means of anthropomorphism. This does not mean that God, described in anthropomorphic terms, possesses ALL properties of the metaphor. E.g., in Deut. 32:4, Yahweh is described as being The Rock. Now, we don’t assume that God will have, among other properties, also the literal mind-independent properties of a Rock, do we? Ps. 84:11 also describes Yahweh as a Sun and a Shield. Will we insist that Yahweh also possesses the matter-of-fact properties of a blazing (temporary) sun or a metal shield? Obviously not. Which properties are included and which aren’t should be evident from the literary and cultural context those metaphors were used in.
Here are roughly what we can look at. It is clear that there are different kinds of Father/son relationships in the following texts:
Firstly, we see Israel and Christians being “sons of God,” hence God being our Father by virtue of adoption. He adopted Israel as can be seen here:
Deut. 4:34 “And yet you continue to live, because he loved your forefathers so that he chose their seed after them and brought you out of Egypt in his sight with his great power.” (also Jer. 32:21)
Deut. 32:18 “The Rock who fathered you, you proceeded to forget, and you began to leave God out of memory, the One bringing you forth with childbirth pains.”
Ex. 4:22 “Israel is my son, my firstborn.”
Ro. 8:15 “For all who are led by God’s spirit, these are God’s sons. ”
Gal. 4:4, 5 “God sent forth his son, who came to be out of a woman and who came to be under law, that he might release by purchase those under law, that we, in turn might receive the adoption as sons. ”
We are adopted sons of God as evidenced by His spirit working in us (Ro. 8:15). This is adoption as sons in a New Covenant. 1 Peter 1:23 says, “For you have been given a new birth, not by corruptible, but by incorruptible seed, through the word of the living and enduring God.” Those under a covenant relationship fall within this category. By accepting the Gospel message, we indicate our submission to God, and He adopts us as His children.
Secondly, we see God to be the Father of everything by virtue of His Creatorship:
Mt. 6:9 “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified.”
Act. 17:28 “For by him we have life and move and exist, even as certain ones of the poets among you have sad, “ ‘we are also his progeny.’ “”
Jas. 1:17 “Every good gift…comes down from the Father of the heavenly lights, and with him there is not a variation of the turning of the shadow.”
Then there is a category, related to the one above, where the Creator acts as father, in that He is the life-giver to intelligent beings, without them needing a biological father to do so:
Job. 38:7 “…when the morning stars joyfully cried out together, and all the sons of God began shouting in applause?”
Ps. 89:6b “Who can resemble Jehovah among the sons of God? ” (paralleled with those “in the skies,” vs. 6a)
Lu. 3:48c, d “…Adam [son] of God.”
This is significant for several reasons. In biblical anthropology, the father is seen as the one giving seed, and the mother is the human “incubator” (non-derogatory) or bivouac, within whom the seed develops into a child. In the case of angels having no mother, but God as the life-giver, acts as the father of the angels. God is also the father in the quickening of Adam from lifeless dust. That which God gives to achieve exactly that is “breath of life” (Gen. 2:7) or spirit (Job 27:3). This is indeed miraculous. The mechanics of these events we don’t know. It was within a cognitive universe (that of the Hebrews in the Ancient Near East) that these events took place and were related. Where God became a Father of intelligent life, as in the case of angels and Adam, He was the sole provider of quickening spirit as a prerequisite for life and the Father/son(s) relationship.
If we compare this to the genesis of Jesus, we see exactly that prerequisite for Jesus’ life and the Father/son relationship between them, namely God’s spirit:
Mt 1:20 “…for that which has been begotten in her is by holy spirit.”
Lu 1:35 “Holy spirit will come upon you and power of the Most High will overshadow you. Dio kai [For that reason/precisely thus/that is why] what is born will be called holy, God’s Son.’””
Here the angel gives the reason for Jesus being God’s son, namely, the ‘coming upon’ and ‘overshadowing of’ holy spirit in Mary’s case. The Bible gives us that reason explicitly. It simply could not have been through Joseph’s involvement, since, according to the Mosaic Law, a man’s seed may only go into the woman he is married to. Joseph’s involvement with Mary, either physically or miraculously, would violate a central tenet of the Law deserving death – for the parents and the foetus. Hence also the explicit statement that Joseph and Mary were not married (Mt. 1:18, Lu. 1:34)
The Gospel account also tells us that Jesus did not lose his approved and holy stance before his Father. Although we know very little about his childhood, we know this:
Lu. 2:40 “And the young child continued growing and getting strong, being filled with wisdom and God’s favour continued upon him.”
Lu. 2:49, 50 “And he said to them: ‘Why did you have to go looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in the house of my Father?’” However, they did not grasp the saying that he spoke to them.
From Luke’s own account of Jesus genesis in 1:35, from Jesus’ extraordinary childhood in 2:40 as well as the emphasis of the unique relationship between God and Jesus in 2:49 and 50, it is clear that Jesus was a direct product of God’s creative act in the womb of Mary. Contrary to what Christadelphians believe, Jesus had to be the exact equal of Adam. The parallels are given in Romans 5. Someone begotten through natural means would share in the fallen condition of man. That would hardly be a parallel with Adam, who, since his genesis involved direct creation by God, did not find himself in a fallen condition before his sin.
BUT, and this is crucial, for Jesus to achieve the ultimate purpose of his life, namely to proclaim and mediate an Age to come, he had to maintain that approval he had with God as his holy son. (Remember Lu. 1:35, and 2:40). Without it, he would be no less than the failed Adam of God’s first creation. I said,
So, as the Philippian hymn shows, Jesus maintained perfect obedience and integrity, even though tested to the same extent as Adam was. He deserves, therefore, to be the ancestor of a New Human Creation.
Does Jesus’ divinely-induced genesis disqualify him from his royal inheritance? In no way. His inheritance, namely a kingdom, had to comply with the condition of ancestry, namely, to have David as the royal ancestor. That is the case in both Mary’s (literally) and Joseph’s (through adoption) genealogies. There are difficulties between the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke, and these most probably came through translation errors into Greek. As the presence of variants in the NT mss in no way justify the wholesale rejection of the NT, likewise these difficulties in the two genealogies do not refute the statements as a whole attesting to Jesus’ direct origin from God, his father.
So, from the above, it is clear that we as human descendants of Adam cannot produce someone of the stature of the perfect pre-fall Adam. We simply cannot. Ps. 49:7, 8 says, “Not one of them can by any means redeem even a brother, nor give to God a ransom for him; And the redemption price of their soul is so precious that it has ceased to time indefinite.” Truly, God had to be the one providing the ransom and he did so by miraculously generating Jesus in the virgin’s womb. Jesus proved to BE the seed of Abraham. He did not receive seed, but WAS the seed. He maintained perfect integrity since his childhood (Lu. 2:40), confirmed at his baptism (Mt. 3:17), reconfirmed at his transfiguration (Mt. 17:5), uttered before witnesses while on the cross (Joh. 19:30) and ultimately vindicated at his resurrection (Ro. 1:4). Even while he was on earth, especially since his “discovery” by his would-be apostles, was Jesus identified as the son, only-begotten from God:
John 1:29, 33, 34, 49 “The next day he beheld Jesus coming toward him, and he said: ‘See, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world! Even I did not know him, but the very One who sent me to baptize in water said to me, “Whoever it is upon whom you see the spirit coming down and remaining, this is the one that baptizes in holy spirit.” An I have seen it, and I have borne witness that this one is the Son of God.’…Nathanael answered him: ‘Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.’”
This is my and others’ understanding of the matter. As members of the human race, we received no immortal seed at our birth. We were born into a fallen condition. We need the redemption of the one truly born without sin, the perfect Lamb of God, provided by God Himself. I believe that only by miraculous anthropogenesis in the womb of Mary was this achieved.
In Christ,
Jaco
“Here the angel gives the reason for Jesus being God’s son, namely, the ‘coming upon’ and ‘overshadowing of’ holy spirit in Mary’s case. The Bible gives us that reason explicitly. It simply could not have been through Joseph’s involvement, since, according to the Mosaic Law, a man’s seed may only go into the woman he is married to. ”
Jaco
The birth narrative is only the record of Jesus being Anointed King of Israel.
If he wouldnt of been anointed King of Israel he couldnt of been called the Son of God Yet. The next anointing came at his baptism which was the Anointing of Priest and Prophet.
the same type of birth narrative as in Lukes could of been said of Any coming birth of a future King of Israel. All Kings of Israel and Judah were holy till they sinned, All God Anointed Prophets and Priest were Holy.
It was by this Anointing at Jesus’ Conception that was the cause He would Be Given the throne of Israel and could be CALLED the Son of God.
Lukes narrative in no way removes Joseph’s seed from being used or in no way says Mary and Joseph didnt have sex to Conceive Jesus.
Only in Matthew’s narrative(which we know wasnt in original hebrew matthew) can we find the ONE reference to a virgin conceiving without sex. BTW a woman can conceive without losing her virginity as described by jewish law. the matter of fact is my older sister at 15 conceived a child with her virginity intact from just messing around on the outside. the doctor confirmed no sexual intercourse. It is very possible since my sister didnt know it could happen, Mary and Joseph didnt know either and If Matthews account was legit it could explain why Joseph was concerned that Mary was unfaithful. Then God sent a dream to Joseph to explain how it happened.
But I dont see Matthews as legit and with the lack of a single mention of this Miraculous event thu out the whole NT I am forced to read Lukes within the meaning of King of Israel which is so clear its scary
Question-Did God and Mary both give something of themselves to create Jesus
Jaco writes- If I were to answer “yes” to the above question, then you’d say, well, then the Father gave “divinity” as an inheritable quality to Jesus. Jesus would then be God
Response…The word god is a title even held by humans, if a human with the title god had a child then there would not be two gods and by implying that there would be two gods you deny the Creator procreation.
Jaco writes-If I said “no,” then you would say that God is not really Jesus’ Father, since the premise for fatherhood (according to your argument) is sharing something of His “being.”
Response…A teacher from this blog has stated that God did give something of his being in the conception of Jesus and claimed Sean and Anthony so it is a BU premise and definition.
Jaco writes- we need to examine other cases where God is shown to be a “father” and see if genetic, or better, physical inheritance is a valid premise for eligibility for fatherhood.
Responses…The BU’s on the 4_OneGod blog believe that Jesus as the Son of God is a title just as all the other examples of sons of God are. I made the observation that with all the religions and denominations of the world there is a thread of total agreement that the Creator cannot procreate. The BU’s on this site disagreed and said that God did in fact give something of Himself in the conception of Jesus.
Jaco writes-We are adopted sons of God as evidenced by His spirit working in us (Ro. 8:15). This is adoption as sons in a New Covenant. 1 Peter 1:23 says, “For you have been given a new birth, not by corruptible, but by incorruptible seed, through the word of the living and enduring God.”
Response…Then why don’t you believe that Jesus was called the Son of God by receiving incorruptible seed and what happens to this seed when we die ?
Jaco writes-Here the angel gives the reason for Jesus being God’s son, namely, the ‘coming upon’ and ‘overshadowing of’ holy spirit in Mary’s case. The Bible gives us that reason explicitly.
Response… there was something conceived and something born in Mary and they are not the same event.
Jaco writes-BUT, and this is crucial, for Jesus to achieve the ultimate purpose of his life, namely to proclaim and mediate an Age to come, he had to maintain that approval he had with God as his holy son
Response…What was crucial for Jesus to do was not sin or like the first Adam he would have died in the day of his sin and his seed could not have remained in him rendering him dead.
Jaco writes-He did not receive seed, but WAS the seed.
Response- Jesus received his seed and this is what made him the second Adam.
“It simply could not have been through Joseph’s involvement, since, according to the Mosaic Law, a man’s seed may only go into the woman he is married to. Joseph’s involvement with Mary, either physically or miraculously, would violate a central tenet of the Law deserving death – for the parents and the foetus. ”
Jaco
provide scriptures to back up this claim.
From what i have read i see that when an unmarried man(either a virgin or has a bill of divorce or by death of spouse) has sex with a unmarried women(same as man) they become one FLESH riight then and at that point could not EVER have sex with another person without a bill of divorce or death of spouse.
there is no sin committed whatsoever as long as they are unmarried and both fully consent at the time of sex and they are married in the eyes of God.
It can even be considered a marriage if a man sleeps with a harlot. 1 Corinthians 6:16
There was no such thing as premarital sex if both qualify to marry and it is a marrage the very second he enters her.
since Mary and Joseph both qualified it would not be against Mosaic law in anyway
Robert,
Sorry, I had Lev. 18:20 in mind. It refers to adultery (to take someone else’s wife). It would not be applicable in Joseph’s and Mary’s case.
But, regarding engagement or betrothal, here is what the Jewish Encyclopedia has to say:
This agrees with what the Evangels, Matthew and Luke’s reports, namely, that Mary was only engaged into marriage with Joseph.
We also have explicit statements in the Nativity accounts regarding Mary’s virginity:
Matthew 1:22 “Look, the virgin (parthenos) will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and they will call his name Immanuel…” Although the Hebrew says almah, meaning “young woman” and not necessarily “virgin,” the understanding, as used here in the Greek, limits it to an actual virgin.
Matthew 1:25 “But he had no intercourse with her until she gave birth to a son; and he called his name Jesus.”
Luke 1:27 “…to a virgin (parthenos) promised in marriage to a man named Joseph of David’s house; and the name of the virgin (parthenos) was Mary.”
Luke 1:34 “‘How is this to be, since I am having no intercourse with a man?’”
From these accounts it is clear that Joseph had no biological role to play in the Begettal of Jesus.
Michael,
to be pregnant and to give birth according to the accounts were not one and the same thing. To be pregnant, for instance was euphemistically called, “to have in one’s belly.” And he was “brought forth” when he was born. (Mt. 1:23, 25)
I find it difficult to see how the “eternal seed”-idea fits with the birth narrative and the NT.
We can still differ on these issues respectfully.
Jaco
“From these accounts it is clear that Joseph had no biological role to play in the Begettal of Jesus.”
Jaco
according to Lukes the conception was a future thing so saying its clear is not quite true, the best it can be is presumed and since the greatest miracle isnt ever refered to once after this you have to deduct that it is speaking about the anointing of a King of Israel which is spoken of all through the NT.
Joseph is also shown to be the bloodline from David and Jesus is Davids seed according to the flesh which can not be adoptive.
And Mary is not even hinted as to being a connection to David. the matter of fact it strongly suggested she was a levite.
to believe God didnt use the genes of Joseph is to ignore many clear statements and add language not found in the bible.
Jaco writes- I find it difficult to see how the “seed”-idea fits with the birth narrative and the NT.
Response…I know
“thank you for clarifying what you meant in terms of the first resurrection. I would sum up the difference between your and my view like this:
First resurrection for those under the mosaic law or for those in Christ?
Since you did not provide any scripture verses in support of your view, I will stick to my understand – and guess will have to agree to disagree for now.
1 Thess 4, 16
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first
Rev 20, 4
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”
———————————————————–
Silke
Just how does this Matthew 25:31-46 even resemble Rev 20 :4?
Are there any unrighteous people being judged in Rev 20 :4? NO
Are there righteous and unrighteous people being judged Revelation 20 :11-15? absolutely Yes
Since Matthew 25:31-46 speaks of both righteous and unrighteous being judge when Jesus returns and its doesnt match Rev 20 :4 but matches perfectly Revelation 20 :11-15 why do people not see the resurrection of those in Christ as the sheep in Matthew 25:31-46 which doesnt occur till after the 1000 years.
You want to know just whats required to receive salvation then look very hard at Matthew 25:31-46 because whats in here is all the requirements. this is the behavior that get you written in the Lamb’s book of life . it is impossible to possess this behavior and be a murderer,liar,theif,adulterer or any crime against humanity
Matthew 25
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Hi there, Robert
Even though Luke’s account does not explicitly state that Jesus was born of a virgin, textual and discourse analysis have us arrive at exactly that conclusion.
At the time of the angelic announcement, Mary had been engaged to get married to Joseph. Marriage, intercourse and childbearing would have been a natural consequence of this – hardly something to object to. And yet, with the announcement of Jesus’ conception, she said,
From the above words, the announcement appears to have referred to a conception while being in a state of virginity.
The answer to Mary’s objection further confirms this conclusion. Instead of referring to the natural, or eventual, course of events that would have Jesus being born (namely, marriage, intercourse and conception), the angel gave the means of conception:
The means of conception (not intercourse, but an act of holy spirit) as well as the conjunction, dio dai, subjunctively (referring back) confirm the virginal conception as the means of Jesus’ genesis.
What is more, in this discourse the angel refers to another event as further confirmation of what was about to happen. The reference, not the natural course of events, but something miraculous, namely, Elizabeth’s pregnancy with John the Baptiser:
The reference to this miracle only confirms the reality and trustworthiness of the miraculous promise just given to the virgin, Mary.
Not only the angel’s assurance, but also Elizabeth’s confirm the miraculous nature of Mary’s virginal conception:
To which Mary replied:
This is hardly the expression one expects from someone if the event she refers to is but a natural course of events, especially in light of another miracle referred to in this context.
Furthermore, textual analysis has us identify some other pieces of information supporting the virginal birth. What we can expect with something as unnatural as this, is the mentioning of details that would otherwise have been assumed or taken for granted. If natural course of events involved marriage, intercourse and conception, it would be odd to say that a woman is pregnant after she got married, or that Elizabeth got pregnant. Such a tautology would be redundant unless there was something unusual about a married woman’s pregnancy or Elizabeth getting pregnant. In the account of Luke, we know why this was so unusual about Elizabeth getting pregnant: she was barren and thus by miracle revived. The same can be said about Lu. 2:5
The redundancy of the mentioning of marriage is evident, had marriage been a necessary element in Jesus’ conception.
Furthermore, in Lu. 2:49, 50, the Evangel parenthesize a statement pointing to the extraordinariness of something Jesus said as a boy:
Another redundant statement, had God’s Fatherhood toward Jesus been as commonplace as it is to all created things.
Added all up, Robert, it is blazingly clear to me, as it is to others, that Jesus’ virgin birth was a real historical event, complete with its theological implications influencing all humankind.
You say:
The later silence over the virgin birth in no way follows logically that the anointing of a King of Israel is actually spoken of. The one premise does not by default lead to another. It is as non-consequential as saying, ‘The most reliable account of Jesus’ life, namely according to Mark, does not mention Jesus’ resurrection. So you have to deduct that Jesus never rose and is still dead in the grave.’ Or, ‘Nowhere in the book of Esther do we find the Divine Name, so you have to deduct that Esther was no worshiper of YHWH anymore, and the book should not be included in the Bible canon.’ The miraculous revival of Elizabeth’s reproductive ability is not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible either. Are we to dismiss that as inaccurate also? I disagree with all these slippery slopes.
Jesus can be of David’s seed, even though he is not biologically Joseph’s son. Adoption allows for this according to Jewish tradition. Take for instance this example from the Talmud:
Now as to R. Joshua b. Korha, surely it is written, And the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul whom she bore to Adriel. – R. Joshua [b. Korha] answers thee: Was it then Michal who bore them? Surely it was rather Merab who bore them! But Merab bore and Michal brought them up; therefore they were called by her name. This teaches thee that whoever brings up an orphan in his home, Scripture ascribes it to him as though he had begotten him. (Talmud Mas. Sanhedrin 19b)
An adopted child is as good as a legitimate child according to Jewish tradition.
You are a supporter of the Hebrew Matthew yourself (as am I). You may also be aware of the strong evidence in favor of Matthew’s Marian genealogy, and not Joseph’s. The key is in Mt. 1:16, where a certain Joseph is said to be Mary’s gowra in Aramaic. This word does not limit its meaning to “husband,” but primarily refers to “guardian.” This genealogy clearly goes through David.
Having Elizabeth, a Levite, as a cousin in no way limits Mary to have descended from Levi. Tribal inter-marriage was very common, as long as the inheritance does not go from one tribe to another. A simple permutation of possibilities would allow for the possibility that, if Mary’s father married a Levite who had a brother, this Levite (Mary’s uncle) could have had Elizabeth as a Levite daughter and Mary’s cousin.
I disagree with your statement above. I can say the very same thing about the contrary position and respectfully so.
Thanks for the exchange,
Jaco
“Even though Luke’s account does not explicitly state that Jesus was born of a virgin, textual and discourse analysis have us arrive at exactly that conclusion.”
Jaco
I am sorry but I dont see an announcment of a future event holding the present states.
Mary was ingagaed to Joseph and Hoped she would concieve in the near future. this conception would of been the first thing to come to mind but she was being told the father would be a man named David who was a king. You can see the confusion she must of had thus the statement that she didnt even know a man named David. I dont deny that She wasnt a virgin but wont ignore the that Joseph And Jesus are the only persons spoke of as the seed of David according to the flesh which does limit to the biological geneology.Considering hebrew thought at the time that the man put the seed there during sex it would be understandable that Mary believed the Seed of Joseph was going to be put there by an act of God sometime in the near future.It is even possible that Joseph and Mary were legally married by the customs but havent made if official with intercourse at the time of this message.
Lukes in no way presents the view that Josephs seed is not used, It was just flat out the birth announcement of a future King of Israel.
As far as Jesus calling God father in the temple, it would be natural for any Israelite to make the same statement.
So you may say that mine is a slippery slope but that certainly makes yours a 100 foot drop off..
I cant give language that doesnt exist or ignore clear language to support this traditional view just because the early church fathers need a way to make a human into a god.
Robert,
At least our readers have the opportunity to compare the lines of evidence and come to their own conclusion based on sound argument.
Thanx
Jaco
Jaco,
Very well presented. I would also add Matthew 1:18 & 20:
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.
20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
I really don’t know how it could be clearer.
Mark
Matthews birth narrative is a forgery and has been shown it did not exist in the original Matthew.
This is testified by Many early Christian writers.
Who ever added the first 2 chapters to Matthew misquoted OT , Had no idea that Jesus’ geneology could not come through Solomen.
There is no doubt a greek scribe added these 2 chapters when he translated matthew from hebrew into greek because they do not show ANY EVIDENCE OF BEING INSPIRED.
As early as the end of the first century there were paganized christians who were making Jesus into a god(their former god) who was born of a virgin concieved by a god.
The virgin birth of a God conceived man is the earlier version of the trinity.
Considering there are words in greek for adopted,step father, step brother, half brother I find the lack of use of them to describe Josephs fatherhood to Jesus and James’ brotherhood to Jesus very important. This, the lack of mention of virgin birth and the true context of Luke’s narrative shows this as the infancy of the adult trinity.
Whats sad is Jaco’s point of view will probably be accepted overall because this is a very sacred cow to traditional christianity.
But if this was 1900 years ago my point of view would as witnessed by the earliest mentioned christians who followed Jesus and later James the brother of Jesus but were marked as heretics by the trinity forming early church fathers.
We have beat this subject to death on this blog and yes there is enough for anyone who wants to know the truth to find it.
Jaco
As usual you have presented a very christian case and a very christian way.
I suggest that we translate correctly in Matt 1:20 “that which is begotten” (not “conceived,” although it was also a conception of course), ie the activity of the Father! Jesus is defined as Son because of the virginal begetting (Luke 12:35). Why is this not perfectly obvious throughout the NT. If God is your Father and you are the Son, and Luke 1:35 is part of your tradition, what need to keep repeating it.
If one just excises the first chapters of Matthew, one has become an authority greater than almost everyone and any kind of unity is impaired. Can one prove that Matt 1 and 2 are fakes and forgeries?
I think not.
Restorationists do better to just proclaim the unity of God, which, when one sees it, is expressly there on nearly every page of the Bible. The degree of responsibility of those who have not, for whatever reason, examined the issue, is beyond me. Better not say anything about that, I suppose. One can at least say that teachers will be more severely treated. Jesus obviously spoke fiercely about unexamined tradition.
“If one just excises the first chapters of Matthew, one has become an authority greater than almost everyone and any kind of unity is impaired. Can one prove that Matt 1 and 2 are fakes and forgeries?
I think not.”
Anthony
Yes many times here on this blog. Maybe you should kill your sacred cow because it might be standing in the way.
There is much written on this subject,I suggest you read all of it and then go grab a gun to shoot the cow that is no longer sacred
“One can at least say that teachers will be more severely treated.”
I agree if you are saying this about false prophets who teach not the truth because the truth is unpopular.
Anthony writes-I suggest that we translate correctly in Matt 1:20 “that which is begotten “not conceived,” although it was also a conception of course
Response….How can the words begotten and conception be speaking of the same event?
The kingdom of God will occupy both heaven and earth.
When Christians die, the part of the soul that is in Jesus is taken to heaven by the Holy Spirit, (as they are in the Spirit and not in the flesh, for the spirit of Christ dwells in them) while the part of the soul that is carnal, dies.
Take your God out of the box!! It would seem from the last several comments, many are willing to put their God in a box. In other words, they have to have a rational, logical reason for every event in scripture. They have to understand it in man’s terms, almost as if it can’t be proven logically by scientific answers, then it cannot be. What happened to your faith in an all powerful, omnipotent God. The God who created this world and universe. The God who caused the earth to stop its rotation so the sun would not go down so that the Israelites could win a battle. (Jos 10:13) Or as God caused hailstones to fall from heaven of such size that many of the enemy were killed.
I say that to ask, if you believe God can do all those things, then why can’t you believe that God is a able to cause an egg within a woman to germinate without as some suggest sperm from God himself. Is He a man that He would need to do such a thing. He merely has to speak and it is done. In that consideration, then the question and made up belief that Jesus is half man and half God or 100 percent man and 100 percent God is a moot point. He was a man, just as scripture relates. By God’s power He brought life into woman and brought forth His son, His only begotten son. Belief in the Kingdom of God and in Jesus, God’s son is necessary for salvation. To believe that Jesus is one of three gods is to introduce another doctrine and to believe such is to believe wrongly, hence it is to deny that Jesus is the Son of God, the risen Savior.
I agree with you, Randy, that God is capable of anything, and we don’t need to be too concerned about physical sperm.
However, I hope you don’t mind of I suggest that God did not stop the earth’s rotation in Joshua 10:13. The Moody Bible Atlas (pp. 96-98) looks at the actual words of the WHOLE passage, coupled with a map of the area, and suggests an interpretation that fits BOTH.
It was still miraculous; but it did not involve disrupting the entire solar system. The physical laws of the universe are wonderful – and reliable. I believe God created them that way.
But I certainly agree that Jesus is the Son of God, the risen Savior. Hallelujah!
Hi Margaret
Great to hear from you again. I tried Googling Moody Bible Atlas and it gave me various links (Amazon.com, Bible Atlas Review etc…). Is there a way I can read pages 96-98 online without actually buying the book???
Michael
Randy
Thanks for saying exactly what I wanted to say, virtually from the beginning of this blog!
Fiona
Hi, Thomas. I don’t know whether you can read it online, but I’m going to give you the three clues that I found most helpful.
First clue: When Joshua prayed, he said, “O sun stand still on Gibeon and moon in the valley of Aijalon.”
If you look at a map of the region, you will see that Gibeon is EAST of Aijalon. So the prayer seems to describe the sun rising in the east (over Gibeon) and the moon setting in the west (in the valley of Aijalon). That would be in the morning, just after the Israelites had taken the Amorites by surprise and delivered Gibeon. [But read the whole story. It’s fascinating.]
The second clue has to do with the Hebrew words translated “stand still”. Both words are used in a variety of ways, depending on the context. One possible paraphrase of v. 13 (according to the atlas) is, “And the sun was silent (was obscured) in the sky and did not press onward to sunset as on a normal day.”
The third clue is the hail storm which occurred between Bethhoron and Azekah. If what Joshua really wanted was for the sun to be obscured (in which case it would not be seen crossing the sky), then the answer to his prayer had the added benefit of providing hailstones that killed more of the enemy than Israel’s weapons did.
That’s pretty sketchy; but if you read Joshua 10:1-14 enough times to become thoroughly familiar with it, I think you will get the picture.
Margaret
I just read Joshua 10:1-14 and I see what you mean. One thing I am learning is that there are many different ways to interpret each and every scripture. Just today I was watching TV and this preacher said that when Yeshua/Jesus said that he was the truth, he was really saying that he was almighty God. Since God is the truth. I guess it all depends on your perspective…
Xavier writes-What do you mean? How can these words (begotten and conception) be speaking of a different event?
Response… Conception is the fertilization of an egg and a woman giving birth to children is being begotten with the exception of children begotten by God. As Nicodemus misconstrued “How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?”
Jesus answered “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”
Being begotten by God has nothing to do with birth from a human female for anyone.
Right, Thomas. We can’t be too dogmatic about an interpretation – IF a different one fits the context.
The idea that Joshua was asking for shade from the sun makes sense. The Israelites had just marched all night, a distance of about 20 miles, all uphill. Then they drove the Amorites away from Gibeon, and saw the enemy fleeing west toward Behthoron.
Joshua’s prayer fits this location. The sun would be rising behind them – over Gibeon. The moon (that had given them light during the night) was setting in the west. They still had a long day ahead of them. Shade from the sun would be a real boon.
Cloud cover would give them that. And then the sun would be completely obscured, so that “in the sight of Israel,” it stopped moving across the sky for a whole day. And from those same clouds in the sky, Yahweh sent hailstones on the Amorites.
Was it a miracle? Of course. God had made the forces of nature subject to the words of a man. (Compare Matthew 8:23-27.)
One more thing. If the clouds went away at the end of the day, the moon would be there to give light for whatever the Israelites needed to do after that.
I am happy with this interpretation, because it fits the text, and it does not require a cataclysmic suspension of the physical laws that govern the universe.
Getting back to Randy’s point, I do agree that God is able to cause an egg to germinate without the need for a physical sperm.
I also agree that details like this (which are not told us, and which we probably could not understand anyway) we simply do not need to know.
Jesus is “the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” In that I can rejoice.
Margaret
You said, “I also agree that details like this (which are not told us, and which probably could not understand anyway) we simply do not need to know.”
I agree completely. We could all speculate till the cows come home.
You also said, “Jesus is ‘the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.’ In that I can rejoice.”
I also think it is important to rejoice that Yeshua/Jesus loves me and gave himself for me. I don’t attend church but I do set aside time (probably not as much as I should) to sing songs of praise and thanksgiving. I find that if I do this just prior to my prayer time, it makes my time in prayer just that much more fulfilling and enjoyable. I really should make an effort to do this more often…
“Right, Thomas. We can’t be too dogmatic about an interpretation – IF a different one fits the context.”
Marg
I agree but just when will i find someone who does this, All i see is people ignoring the context.
Margaret
Adding to what we had said in msg. #86 and #87, I have been making it a point to try to sing more songs of praise to God lately. It is remarkable how much it has improved my mood and changed my outlook on the things that come up in my day to day life. I agree with what Sean once wrote on this blog, and that is it seems like we were created to praise God (it just comes naturally and seems to make us feel good)…
Right on. Even when we make requests, we should make them with thanksgiving (Philippians 4:6).
I have just gone through this thread again. I notice that one statement from early in the thread is:
Can someone refer to a single scripture which uses the title, “God the Son”? I have never found one.
On another topic – thank you to Jaco, Mark and Anthony Buzzard for their comments regarding the virgin birth of Jesus. They are totally convincing. Great work.
Margaret,
The phrase “God the Son” is never used in Scripture.
Thanks for your other comments.
Margaret,
I think that was more than likely a typo. It probably should have said, “and most can tell you that it does ‘not’ mean that Jesus is God the Son.”
BTW – It’s great to see you back here on KR again…