The Divinity of Christ

Bruce Michael

Well-Known Member
Messages
797
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Trans-Himalayas
Hello Friends,


Relevant to the discussion on the divinity of Christ are the doctrines of an early Christian group: the Nestorians- I prefer "group" to "sect" as the latter is now mainly used in the pejorative sense.

Before the Muslims came and spoiled the party, the Nestorians were set to be the major Christian religion of Asia. In 1625 a Nestorian pillar at Sian-Fu in Northwest China was discovered. It was carved with inscriptions of how Nestorian missionaries reached that remote land in A. D. 635- the pillar was set up in A.D. 781. That represents the farthest point East of Jerusalem to which Christianity had penetrated at that time.

Nestorious (died circa 451) was not above persecuting others himself. He had persecuted the Arians and was known thereafter as the "incendiary".

Nestorious was patriarch of the Church in Constantinople from 428 to 431. His doctrine, which later became heretical, was that Mary could not be called the Mother of God, for Mary was a human being, and that God should be born of a human being is impossible.

The Nestorians were quite correct however, as Christ entered into the Body of Jesus at the time of the Baptism. The saying
"Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Mark 1:11)​
is rendered correctly as
"Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee" (Psalms 2:7),​
as it does appear in some Bibles. This is one of those cases were the Bible was changed to fit in with preconceived ideas.
Further proof that this is the correct rendering is found in Augustine's dispute with Faustus the Manichean (circa A.D. 400):

Therefore, thou didst generate the Coeternal, to whom
thou didst say, "This day I have begotten thee." Mark 1:9-11​

This is the reason for the Voice of the Father
spoken over him at his baptism, "Today have I begotten thee,"
which pointed not to that particular day on which he was baptized,
but to that "day" of changeless eternity, in order to show us that
this Man belonged to the personal Unity of the Only Begotten. For
a day that neither begins with the close of yesterday nor ends
with the beginning of tomorrow is indeed an eternal "today."​
The author of Hebrews made it clear:
"So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee." Hebrews 5:5- compare Hebrews 1:5-Paul's comment is in Acts 13:33.

Christ was "begotten" at the time of the Baptism. Here is an image from Markus' wonderful site:

Baptism of the Jordan
Visegrád Codex, 1085

-Br.Bruce
 
This is one of those cases were the Bible was changed to fit in with preconceived ideas.

Evidence, please?

+++

Another view is that Christ was demonstrating something for the benefit of all — a Mystery that would become increasingly apparent as His ministry unfolded.

Again, this is a case of having to read Scripture in context of the whole, and not extracting one verse and building a speculative edifice upon it, ignoring all other data.

For example:
It is evident that baptism is a requirement to attain the Kingdom — yet we have no evidence, nor even a suggestion, that the 12 and the disciples were ever baptised. Who baptised Paul?

Thomas
 
It doesn't make Nestorious right though, does it?

Thomas
 
It also ignores Matthew 1:20-23 and John 1:1-3, 14.

Futhermore, Jesus referred to God as Father as far back as age 12, when He was in the Temple making inquiry with the doctors of the law in Luke's account. So the relationship was existent far before His Baptism.
 
It also ignores Matthew 1:20-23 and John 1:1-3, 14.

Futhermore, Jesus referred to God as Father as far back as age 12, when He was in the Temple making inquiry with the doctors of the law in Luke's account. So the relationship was existent far before His Baptism.

Not to throw in a wrench but might I also be so bold to say God is my Father? Does not my spirit cries out abba abba?

Love and Peace,
JM
 
That would be the word of Tradition, not Scripture.

Thomas
 
Not to throw in a wrench but might I also be so bold to say God is my Father? Does not my spirit cries out abba abba?

But would you have said that, if it had not been said before?

Thomas
 
Hi All,

Just to let you know I merged the two threads of the same name. Hope that the post order is not too confusing.

luna
 
I can only speak for myself but I am a creation of God. He is my direct source. I know nothing of adoption or being created by any other.

Created, yes. Not begotten, there is a difference. We are not sons and daughters in the same way that Jesus Christ is Son.

Thomas
 
Hebrew Scriptures
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. (Psalms 82:6)
New Testament
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? (John 10:34, in reference to the above)
... oh, wait wait wait - my bad. You're saying we can know this without a Bible, or even Christ Jesus to tell us this (Jesus loves me, this I know - for my Bible tells me so)???

Oh yeah. How true that is ... :)
 
Created, yes. Not begotten, there is a difference. We are not sons and daughters in the same way that Jesus Christ is Son.

Thomas

And what is that difference between 'this day have I begotten thee' and being created by God? Have you read the previous post? Any problems with it?

JM

PS The last time I read the BIble I remember Jesus saying " Pray ye in this manner, Our Father " Can't remember him saying pray Jesus's father.
John 8:42
Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
I love him, therefore God must be my Father also. Neither came I here of myself.
 
Last edited:
Jesus is the Son of God.
The Son of God is the Word of God who is God come in the flesh.
Christ died and rose again for our sins so we might be saved.
Therefore, we are made sons of God through and in Jesus Christ.
Whoever has the Son has the Father who sent him.
So, Jesus is the Son of God by the nature of who God is,
both sharing the same glory as one God.
and we are adopted sons of God thru God's salvation, Jesus Christ.
 
So is what I'm hearing by the use of this word "adopted" ... that you (and Dondi, and Thomas), Blazn, don't regard yourselves as Children of the Most High God, just as was Christ Jesus? In other words, you don't feel comfortable with that, or believe it, unless you qualify it with the word "adopted?"

If so, I can dig it. I don't buy it, not for a heartbeat, but I can dig it.

As an adopted KID, you know, of HUMAN parents, I've had my issues. But when people meet me and my parents, and ask me: "Are you their son?" ... I don't say, "Yes, but I'm their ADOPTED son." :(
 
If thru our knowledge of Jesus's Divinity and acceptance of his works and following in his footsteps we too have the keys to the kingdom...

Oneness with the Father is ours as well...

Is it not possible that He continues begetting the only begotten?

Are we all not one of a kind individuals yet in his image?
 
So is what I'm hearing by the use of this word "adopted" ... that you (and Dondi, and Thomas), Blazn, don't regard yourselves as Children of the Most High God, just as was Christ Jesus? In other words, you don't feel comfortable with that, or believe it, unless you qualify it with the word "adopted?"

If so, I can dig it. I don't buy it, not for a heartbeat, but I can dig it.

As an adopted KID, you know, of HUMAN parents, I've had my issues. But when people meet me and my parents, and ask me: "Are you their son?" ... I don't say, "Yes, but I'm their ADOPTED son." :(
No one comes to the father, but through Christ Jesus, the Son of God.
By accepting and believing in Jesus Christ, we are taking into the kingdom of God. I am a child of God, but I am not the one and only Son of God.
 
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High ... Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? (John 10:34, in reference to Psalms

That's one interpretation. Not the scholarly one, however, and also presentedd in support of TS dogma. It is not the only interpretation, nor therefore can it be considered authoritative. Scholarship offers a considerable weight of argument to suggest otherwise — the onus is on you to provide well-founded argument to support the case, not simply quoting verses as if that's a fait accompli

Thomas
 
Back
Top