Jesus is God? Or Jesus is begotten of God?
- Thread starter Greg Jennings
- Start date
keypurr
Well-known member
No, there is only one express image spirit son and he was in Jesus only.
The express image is NOT the Holy Spirit.
keypurr
Well-known member
Man was not, made in the express image of God friend.
All things were made by God through his son, they are both spirits, not men.
The spirit son took the form of man by dwelling in Jesus who was prepared for him by the Father. Christ spoke and worked through Jesus. The word (logos) is the spirit son Christ.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
a matter of terms and definitions......
a matter of terms and definitions......
In chronology we can assume God's thought/plan/logic precedes his actions, so the 'logos' was in towards 'God' or within Him from eternity as a hidden potential as it were. This logos would be 'divine' by origination or nature (to some degree), being an emenation/offspring or creative expression(creation) of God.
IF the logos was in any way 'begotten' (before creation) and in the person of Jesus via the 'incarnation', in the sense of a generation of some kind taking place, which would be the case in the 'birth' of the man Jesus (no matter when the 'logos' took up residence in or came upon Jesus)...then such is a beginning of existence in space-time.
In this sense 'Christ' is not 'unbegotten' as only God the Father is (as having no beginning, being 'unborn'),...because he is the special and unique 'begotten' Son of God. We can even say (as some Arians even admit) that in John 1:18 (note some manuscripts say "only begotten God"), that Jesus is a kind of 'begotten God', a begotten divinity or a 'god', and STILL in this relational context, Christ is different from and subordinate to the Father. He is divine by origination/special creation or 'begettting' in a 'special' and 'unique' way being the Firstborn,...but this does not (necessarily) make him the same 'being' or 'essence' of God the Father. (this very point of likeness or unlikeness between God and Christ is the crux of the debate).
Christ still holds all the qualifications and requirements to be Lord, Messiah, Savior, Deliverer, etc.....as the only 'begotten' Son of God (this 'begetting' in his case is 'special' and 'unique'). Therefore on some levels I see the whole Arian Controversy as a strenuous debate over terms and definitions influenced by so much political or state pressures in the various church councils over 'doctrine', until the factions of bishops/priests that got more support by the state gained victory which ultimately put the supporters of the Nicean Creed (Trinitarians) ontop, although Arian theology did have state sanction for some decades during the the controversy, as the tides went back n forth for a period of at least 50 years.
For more on this research the teaching of Arius and Arian Controversy. - if time/interest permits I may began a new thread on Arianism.
a matter of terms and definitions......
In chronology we can assume God's thought/plan/logic precedes his actions, so the 'logos' was in towards 'God' or within Him from eternity as a hidden potential as it were. This logos would be 'divine' by origination or nature (to some degree), being an emenation/offspring or creative expression(creation) of God.
IF the logos was in any way 'begotten' (before creation) and in the person of Jesus via the 'incarnation', in the sense of a generation of some kind taking place, which would be the case in the 'birth' of the man Jesus (no matter when the 'logos' took up residence in or came upon Jesus)...then such is a beginning of existence in space-time.
In this sense 'Christ' is not 'unbegotten' as only God the Father is (as having no beginning, being 'unborn'),...because he is the special and unique 'begotten' Son of God. We can even say (as some Arians even admit) that in John 1:18 (note some manuscripts say "only begotten God"), that Jesus is a kind of 'begotten God', a begotten divinity or a 'god', and STILL in this relational context, Christ is different from and subordinate to the Father. He is divine by origination/special creation or 'begettting' in a 'special' and 'unique' way being the Firstborn,...but this does not (necessarily) make him the same 'being' or 'essence' of God the Father. (this very point of likeness or unlikeness between God and Christ is the crux of the debate).
Christ still holds all the qualifications and requirements to be Lord, Messiah, Savior, Deliverer, etc.....as the only 'begotten' Son of God (this 'begetting' in his case is 'special' and 'unique'). Therefore on some levels I see the whole Arian Controversy as a strenuous debate over terms and definitions influenced by so much political or state pressures in the various church councils over 'doctrine', until the factions of bishops/priests that got more support by the state gained victory which ultimately put the supporters of the Nicean Creed (Trinitarians) ontop, although Arian theology did have state sanction for some decades during the the controversy, as the tides went back n forth for a period of at least 50 years.
For more on this research the teaching of Arius and Arian Controversy. - if time/interest permits I may began a new thread on Arianism.
Interesting. Luke thought it was the Father who worked through Jesus.
Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know... (Acts 2:22 NKJV)
Why do you believe Luke was mistaken?
God the Father spoke and worked through Jesus.
John 5:19 New King James Version (NKJV)
19 Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner.
...and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ... (Ephesians 3:9 NKJV)
God created all things through Jesus Christ.
Thank you Freelight!
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
If I may add more.....
If I may add more.....
You're welcome,
As one somewhat familiar with some historical developments reaching their 'crest' by the Arian Controversy and the evolution of Christology, its 'old territory' so to speak, but always fun learning more.
I usually verge on a more agnostic/skeptical conclusion at least on a transcendental level looking down on all the 'techinicalities' and 'squabbles' involved in why the 'push' to make Jesus 'God' was forthcoming, making him the same 'being' and 'essence' of the Father (to complete an orthodox Trinitarian formulation), when such is not really necessary. And to those who claim its 'necessary', I find no satisfactory rationale that it must be so, since believing that Jesus is the 'representative' and 'representation' of 'God' in a special and unique way, is all that is sufficient to appreciate the ministry and personality of Jesus,...while all else is but non-essential, secondary, speculative observations or preferred assumptions that agree with one's philosophical leaning or theology, which is fine, so long as the essential value and meaning of Jesus ministry is not distorted.
Arius is a wonderful character. The more liberal modern day Arian Catholic Church holds to some of the essentials he taught, but not all, having their own innovations and the taking of some parts of scripture as merely 'figurative'. On this level, I would probably enjoy a priesthood venture in such a liberal Arian community, or a more theosophically friendly one like the Liberal Catholic Church....these hold to the traditional Christian sacraments and symbology, but allow for a much more liberal intellectual freedom in individual interpretation and practice, as being true to one's own 'religious experience', the community or sacraments serving to enhance that 'communion'. In this sense they accept a general unity of all religions in-as-much as they hold to universal truth and principles common to all.
If I may add more.....
You're welcome,
As one somewhat familiar with some historical developments reaching their 'crest' by the Arian Controversy and the evolution of Christology, its 'old territory' so to speak, but always fun learning more.
I usually verge on a more agnostic/skeptical conclusion at least on a transcendental level looking down on all the 'techinicalities' and 'squabbles' involved in why the 'push' to make Jesus 'God' was forthcoming, making him the same 'being' and 'essence' of the Father (to complete an orthodox Trinitarian formulation), when such is not really necessary. And to those who claim its 'necessary', I find no satisfactory rationale that it must be so, since believing that Jesus is the 'representative' and 'representation' of 'God' in a special and unique way, is all that is sufficient to appreciate the ministry and personality of Jesus,...while all else is but non-essential, secondary, speculative observations or preferred assumptions that agree with one's philosophical leaning or theology, which is fine, so long as the essential value and meaning of Jesus ministry is not distorted.
Arius is a wonderful character. The more liberal modern day Arian Catholic Church holds to some of the essentials he taught, but not all, having their own innovations and the taking of some parts of scripture as merely 'figurative'. On this level, I would probably enjoy a priesthood venture in such a liberal Arian community, or a more theosophically friendly one like the Liberal Catholic Church....these hold to the traditional Christian sacraments and symbology, but allow for a much more liberal intellectual freedom in individual interpretation and practice, as being true to one's own 'religious experience', the community or sacraments serving to enhance that 'communion'. In this sense they accept a general unity of all religions in-as-much as they hold to universal truth and principles common to all.
keypurr
Well-known member
I believe God did everything through Christ. Christ is a copy of the Father, it would be like having God in Jesus. Except, Christ got his ok from his father to do things. Like when he taught us the prayer "our Father, which art in heaven....", that shows that God was not physically in him like Christ was. So I think it was Christ that he was anointed with.
keypurr
Well-known member
Jesus is God? Or Jesus is begotten of God?
Look at the verse BR. The son is in Jesus, the son became flesh, not the Father.
Look at the verse BR. The son is in Jesus, the son became flesh, not the Father.
Ok, then it was not the express image who indwelt Jesus, it was the Holy Spirit.
Then Jesus, being filled with the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness. (Luke 4:1 NKJV)
After Jesus was baptized he was anointed with the Spirit of God.
When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water and behold the heavens were opened to Him and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. (Matthew 3:16 NKJV)
Jesus always was the Christ.
Matthew 1:16 New King James Version (NKJV)
16 And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.
Matthew 1:18 New King James Version (NKJV)
Christ Born of Mary
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 1:16 New King James Version (NKJV)
16 And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.
Matthew 1:18 New King James Version (NKJV)
Christ Born of Mary
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.
Right Divider
Body part
The angels are created beings and nowhere does it say that they are made in the image of God. That is only said of man.
You must understand that Jesus is BOTH God and man. He did not give up His deity when He came down from heaven.
When Jesus said that "Mat 24:36 KJV But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.", He was not excluding Himself, as He has the same Spirit as His Father (i.e., the Spirit of God).
God's Truth
New member
People would like to start new conversations about old topics. Why would you try to make anyone feel wrong for doing so?
God's Truth
New member
God did not pretend to come as a Man He really came as a Man.
As a Man, God did not know as much as God the Father.
Jesus is God the Father come in the flesh as a Son of Man.
Right Divider
Body part
Complete and utter confusion.