When Jesus Became Son of God

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I prefer to leave off debating because as I said you will not change my mind, but I will continue to counter what you post on the subject.


Revelation 1:17
When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.” (NIV)

1. The phrase, “the First and the Las ...[text shortened]... First and the Last.”

Morgridge, p. 122

Racovian Catechism, pp. 157-163

Snedeker, p. 469

Originally posted by sonship
Hey, you said something to the effect that you didn't want to argue about this anymore with me, with parting words of peace and love.

Do you want me to read your post and reply ?

Originally posted by checkbaiter

"Jesus answered and said to them. Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. ... But He spoke of the temple of His body." (See John 2:19,21)

"For whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. " (Rom. 10:13)

"And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah shall be saved; For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem will be an escape, ... " (Joel 2:32)

"To keep the commandment spotless, without reproach, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, (v.14)

Which in its own times the blessed and only Sovereign will show, the King of those who reign as kings and the Lord of those who rule as lords, (v.15)

Who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen nor can see, to whom be honor and eternal might. Amen. (v.16)

"These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings, ... (Rev. 17:14)

"And He has on His garment and on His thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS." (Rev. 19:16 RcV)

" ... until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, Which in its own times the blessed and only Sovereign will show, the King of those who reign as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords, WHO ALONE HAS IMMORTALITY, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen nor can see, to whom be honor and eternal might. Amen."

Originally posted by sonship
So I reply something.

[b] 1. The phrase, “the First and the Last,” is a title that is used five times in the Bible, twice in Isaiah of God (44:6; 48:12) and three times in Revelation of the Son (1:17; 2:8; 22:13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for placing them all together.

[b ...[text shortened]... e is really not about persuading the other debater, but presenting the best case to an audience.[/b]

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I prefer not to, there are more important things for Christians to discuss. I am simply posting an opposing view to your interpretation of Isaiah 9:6
I would much rather see Christians discuss practical every day living, for example how to receive physical healing, how to overcome fear, doubt, depression, poverty, etc.
While we debate the trinity, which neither of us is about to change our minds, the enemy just laughs at us.

Originally posted by JS357
"That's ok because a good debate is really not about persuading the other debater, but presenting the best case to an audience."

Then perhaps if is time for each side to present a summation.

However, I feel the debate has drifted from my OP. That's fine, because it has been interesting, to say the least, and I respect both of you for it, FW (my opinion) ...[text shortened]... e there is the divine audience, watching to see if He has communicated the truth effectively. 🙂

Originally posted by JS357
"That's ok because a good debate is really not about persuading the other debater, but presenting the best case to an audience."

Then perhaps if is time for each side to present a summation.

However, I feel the debate has drifted from my OP. That's fine, because it has been interesting, to say the least, and I respect both of you for it, FW (my opinion) ...[text shortened]... e there is the divine audience, watching to see if He has communicated the truth effectively. 🙂

Isa 52:14
Just as many were astonished at you,
So His visage was marred more than any man,
And His form more than the sons of men;
NKJV

Acts 2:24
24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.
NKJV

Acts 2:33
Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.
NKJV

Acts 2:36
"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
NKJV

John 14:28
You have heard Me say to you, 'I am going away and coming back to you.' If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, 'I am going to the Father,' for My Father is greater than I.
NKJV

So the only last thing I ask, is, what is the Biblical (and any other) evidence that Jesus was, or became, the Son of God, and when in His life did that happen. No arguments, just the citations, are kindly asked.

Originally posted by JS357
So the only last thing I ask, is, what is the Biblical (and any other) evidence that Jesus was, or became, the Son of God, and when in His life did that happen. No arguments, just the citations, are kindly asked.

Some responses:

Jesus is much more valiant and my champion, because he was a man, not a Godman.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus is Godman or He could not indwell us.

"the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)

Over and over the Bible, the Word of God, asserts that there is only one God and one person who is God.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

True. And just as much "over and over again" it speaks of the Holy Spirit bringing the Father and the Son into the believers in Christ.

God is triune for the dispensing of Himself into man,
He is not a trinity just for an objective doctrine.
He is the Trinity for the dispensing of God into His people.

He finally REACHES man's inner being as "a life giving Spirit" who is the last Adam in a form in which He can enter into our spirit. When He comes the Father comes too. They both of the ONE GOD come but as the Divine "We".

" ... and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23)

"And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding that we might know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ.

This is the true God and eternal life." ( 1 John 5:20)

" For You are our Father, since Abraham does not know us, And Israel does not acknowledge us.

You, Jehovah [Yahweh] are our Father, Our Redeemer from of old is Your name." (Isaiah 63:16)

" ... but they will rely upon Jehovah [Yahweh], the Holy One of Israel.

A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob to the mighty God." (Isaiah 10:20b,21)

But of the Son, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever ... " (Heb. 1:8)

" the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)

"Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!

Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and believed." (John 20:28,29)

I am beginning to wonder if there is a connection between the failure to see that Jesus is God in incarnation and the bafflement in eternal punishment for rejecting Him. But that is only a question I have.

For some exceptions in most cases on this Forum, those having a problem with the Trinity or with Christ being God incarnate seems to go hand in hand with unbelief in a greatest possible offense which could lead to eternal damnation.

Matt 16:15-16
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
NKJV

Matt 16:17-18
Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
NKJV

Was the Son of God merely a human body which God had prepared for himself to dwell in? If so then did God’s own personality come to occupy the place where the man’s personal center would have been?
Or else was a complete human being created who like every other human being had an autonomous selfhood of his own – an independent will? If so, then Jesus and God are two distinct individuals, however close their relationship. The first is a complete man and the second the God who inhabits him. The choice here is between a ‘flesh-bearing God’ (theos sarkophoros) and a‘God-bearing man’ (anthropos theophoros).

If Jesus and his God are ontologically one the biblical scheme of Jesus’ exemplary surrender to the will of God breaks down. The will which is surrendered to God is in actual fact God's, and the man offering himself to God is in reality no less God than the God to whom he prays. God, in the guise of a man is, in reality, simply submitting to his own self.
The proposition that, in Christ, God called forth an obedient response from humanity is called seriously into question if what really took place was a matter either of God trusting and submitting to himself, or one part of God doing so to another. For a person to will what God wills, an essential prerequisite must be that they have a will of their own to offer in the first place!

“The most complete, the fullest, the most organic and integrated union of Godhead and manhood which is conceivable is precisely one in which by gracious indwelling of God in man and by manhood's free response in surrender and love, there is established a relationship which is neither accidental nor incidental, on the one hand, nor mechanical and physical on other; but a full, free, gracious unity of the two in Jesus Christ, who is both the farthest reach of God the Word into the life of man and also (and by consequence) the richest response of man to God.”

On this basis, the author goes on to comment that for a person to do the will of God “to be fully and independently a man is a qualification, not a disqualification.” Ontological identity between God and Jesus serves only to undermine the validity of what the bible clearly tells us about both.

Another issue which brings us to the heart of this question, perhaps helping us to take a firmer grip of the pillar, is the question as to the scale of what God offered. It is a common assumption that if what God really offered in the person of his Son was his own self, then, God being infinite, his sacrifice would be of infinite value, nothing to be compared to the offering of a 'mere man'.
Let's examine this a little more closely... To begin with there is the fundamental contradiction inherent in the assertion that the immortal God, who cannot die, actually did. At the very least, on this basis it must be conceded that only the human, and not the divine part of ‘God-the-Son’ died, so Jesus did not give all of himself.


But, leaving that aside, who or what is it exactly that God sacrificed on the cross? This question
retraces our steps, moving back from soteriology into Christology and our ‘hollow’ man diagram.
Jesus’ cry of dereliction on the cross “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” effectively
focuses the question we asked earlier. If we remove God from Jesus, what is left? A man,
independent of God, or something less?
If Jesus is anything less than a complete man, distinct from the God who created and indwelt him
then when God forsook his Son on the cross, all he did was shed a body and return to heaven. The
Son’s cry of dereliction is reduced to the mere amputation of a temporary shell inhabited by the
eternal God.
According to the orthodox father Hippolytus, this could be compared to God removing an item of
clothing he had chosen to wear:
“The logos, as a bridegroom, had woven for himself a garment out of the holy flesh of the holy
Virgin...”
To which Werner comments:
“[the logos] used the holy flesh of the Virgin as an outward covering. This 'garment' was the
human physical body, indwelt by him, which became immortal, because it was 'compounded' of
the Spirit of the Logos and the physical substance of Man, i.e. of the immortal and the mortal.”17
But if Jesus is a complete human being in addition to the indwelling God, then both he and God
gave much, much more. God actually gave his own beloved Son in exchange for us. This is an act
of sacrificial love the scale of which lies beyond the power of human comprehension. And the
man Jesus gave up everything he was.
But what about the Trinitarian doctrine that there is a distinction of persons within the Godhead?
Perhaps this may account for Jesus' words in a way which does justice to his divinity without
reducing him to being a docetic hollow man.
In connection with this it is important to note what Jesus did not say. He did not say “my Father,
my Father” but “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Here Jesus reveals himself to be
not only someone other than the Father, which the Trinitarian model freely concedes. He is also
someone other than God. And, according to orthodoxy, the divine substance shared by both
Father and Son is the very basis of their ontological union. In one utterance Jesus uproots the
carefully crafted and much disputed pivotal homoousian element of the Trinitarian formula
depicted in the diagram below.

Only a ‘merely’ human Jesus could give up everything he is, completely offering his whole self,
pouring out his soul to death. Only for him could that surrender be a genuine step of faith18, into
the unknown, as opposed to the return to a prior state of existence in a far better place than the
troubled streets of an occupied land.
On this basis I would suggest that the Trinitarian Jesus actually sacrificed less, since it was only
his body that died - the material, mortal part of himself, which he assumed at his ‘incarnation’. He
was already a complete ‘divine person’ before his conception and presumably continued to be so
throughout the death and resurrection of his bodily shell.
CONCLUSION
The impulse which gave rise to the insistence that Jesus had to be God in order for his sacrifice
for our sins to be sufficient, arose from a set of cosmological concerns which are entirely alien to
both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament.
In spite of the fact that the current view is something of a more moderate residue of this and does
assign due emphasis to the significance of Christ's sacrificial work on the cross, nevertheless the
continuing insistence that Jesus had to be God in order to do this is incompatible with the
framework provided for us by the New Testament and does violence to its fabric.
1
The sacrifice of the Son of God
By Alex Hall

http://www.christianmonotheism.com/media/text/Alex%20Hall%20--%20The%20Sacrifice%20of%20the%20Son%20of%20God.pdf

Originally posted by checkbaiter
[quote]I am beginning to wonder if there is a connection between the failure to see that Jesus is God in incarnation and the bafflement in eternal punishment for rejecting Him. But that is only a question I have.

For some exceptions in most cases on this Forum, those having a problem with the Trinity or with Christ being God incarnate seems to go hand ...[text shortened]... ger of eternal damnation! Beware of what you think you know, it can get you in a lot of trouble.

[quote]Matt 16:15-16
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
NKJV

Matt 16:17-18
Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
NKJV

" But you are no in the flesh but in the [ regenerated human ] spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him. But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the [regenerated human ] spirit is life because of righteousness." (Rom. 8:9-11_ [/b]