Results 1 - 11 of 11
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is Jesus the 'Eternal Father'? | Is 9:6 | Makarios | 5154 | ||
Does the fact that Jesus is called "Eternal Father" in Isaiah 9:6 mean that Jesus is the Father?No, Jesus is not the Father. As we interpret the meaning of the phrase "Eternal Father" in reference to Christ, it is critical to keep in mind what other Scriptures have to say about the distinction between the Father and the Son. The Father is considered by Jesus as someone other than Himself more than 200 times in the New Testament. Over 50 times (in the NT) the Father and Son are seen to be distinct within the same verse (for example: Rom. 15:6, 2 Cor. 1:4, Gal. 1:2-3, Phil. 2:10-11, 1 John 2:1, 2 John 3). If the Father and the Son are distinct, then in what sense is Jesus the "Eternal Father"? One explanation is that this phrase is better translated 'Father of eternity', and carries the meaning "possessor of eternity." Father of eternity is here used in accordance with a custom usual in Hebrew and in Arabic, where he who possesses a thing is called the father of it. Thus, the father of strength means strong; the father of knowledge, intelligent; the father of glory, glorious. According to this common usage, the meaning of Father of eternity in Isaiah 9:6 is 'eternal'. Christ as the "Father of eternity" is an eternal being. The Targum- a simplified paraphrase of the Old Testament Scriptures utilized by the ancient Jews- rendered Isaiah 9:6: "His name has been called from of old, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, He who lives forever...." Clearly, the ancient Jews considered the phrase Father of eternity as indicating the eternality of the Messiah. Also, this refers to Christ's divine quality as an enduring, compassionate provider and protector (see also Isaiah 40:9-11). Scripture is clear that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons. Scripture tells us that the Father sent the Son (John 3:16-17), the Father and Son love each other (John 5:20), and the Father and Son speak to each other (John 8:47, 11:41, 42). Moreover, the Father knows the Son and the Son knows the Father (John 10:15), and Jesus is our advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1).Also, it is clear that Jesus is not the Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus at His baptism (Luke 3:22). The Holy Spirit is said to be another comforter (John 14:16). Jesus sent the Holy Spirit (John 15:26). And the Holy Spirit seeks to glorify Jesus (John 16:13-14). In view of these facts, it is impossible to argue that Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit.Does John 10:30 teach that Jesus and the Father are the same person? No. Jesus affirmed, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). This verse does not mean that Jesus and the Father are one and the same person. We know this to be true because in the phrase, "I and the Father are one," a first person plural- "we are" (esmen in the Greek)- is used. The verse literally reads from the Greek, "I and the Father we are one." If Jesus intended to say that He and the Father were one person, He certainly would not have used the first person plural, which clearly implies two persons. Furthermore, the Greek word for "one" (hen) in this verse refers not to personal unity (that is, the idea that the Father and Son are one person) but to unity of essence or nature (that is, that the Father and Son have the same divine nature). This is evident in the fact that the form of the word in the Greek is neuter, not masculine. Further, the verses that immediately precede and follow John 10:30 distinguish Jesus from the Father (John 10:25,29,36,38). Jesus is the perfect revelation of the Father (John 1:18). We also know that 2 Corinthians 3:17 does not prove that Jesus is the Holy Spirit. Just earlier, in vv. 3-6, the apostle Paul clearly distinguishes between Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Moreover, the whole of Scripture indicates that Jesus is not the Holy Spirit.Sources: NASB Study Bible (Zondervan), Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (Hendrickson), Matthew Henry's Unabridged Commentary, Strong's Concordance, "The Complete Book of Bible Answers" by Ron Rhodes, "Evidence Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. | ||||||
2 | Is Jesus the 'Eternal Father'? | Is 9:6 | Ray | 5309 | ||
Hi Nolan Keck, You have some very good postings here. Thank you. I have written in this forum about how I like to interpret John 20:22 and appreciate your literal Greek of "I and the Father we are one". I can go along with that one too. I believe that there should be three pronouns whether it be "I and the Father are One", or I and My Father are one", or "I and the Father, We are one." I don't know if you have read my posting or not. I don't agree with you that Jesus is not the Holy Spirit. He was born of the Holy Spirit, God is Spirit, He is God. He came to earth as a Man, and to me that means heavenly Man as per NKJ 1Cor 15:48,49. 1Cor 15:45 "So it is written, 'The first man Adam, became a living soul.' The last Adam became a life-giving spirit." Compare that with your 2Cor 3:6, "...for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." Jesus didn't come with the glory of the Father and the Spirit for He humbled Himself and found Himself as a Man, emptying Himself. But the Spirit rested on Him for the mission He had to perform. And I believe He was filled with the holy spirit, power from on high. A Spirit is shown by scriptures in Christ being the Son of Man, Son of David, Son of Abraham, Son of Joseph, last Adam, heavenly Man, Holy One... Later, Ray Thanks again. |
||||||
3 | Is Jesus the 'Eternal Father'? | Is 9:6 | Makarios | 5323 | ||
Thank you Ray! I can see where you are coming from as far as Jesus being filled with the Holy Spirit and He was from birth! However, I believe that the Holy Spirit is a separate person from the Son. I believe that even though the Son could be filled with the Holy Spirit, He in Himself is not the Holy Spirit. I appreciate your comments though! Thank you Ray, and I will try to continue to post 'good' posts! :) | ||||||
4 | Is Jesus the 'Eternal Father'? | Is 9:6 | Ray | 5479 | ||
Hi Nolan Keck, Can you tell me why scripture translators need a son of man? Can you tell me why Isa 9:6 in our beloved NASB has every pronoun capitalized except "a Child" and "a Son"? What are the scriptures that prove Christ was fully man? | ||||||
5 | Is Jesus the 'Eternal Father'? | Is 9:6 | Makarios | 5531 | ||
Jesus' most common title for Himself is the "Son of Man", occurring 84 times in the Gospels and never used by anyone but Jesus. Daniel 7:13-14 picture the 'Son of Man' as a heavenly figure who in the end times is entrusted by God with authority and sovereign power. "Son of Man" is the Messianic title of Jesus Christ, occurring in Matt. 8:20, 9:6, Mark 2:10, 10:33, Luke 12:10, 18:31, John 6:27, 13:31 to name a few. This title correlates with Jesus' title as Son of God, showing that He was fully God and fully man, but yet did not sin. Translators need a 'Son of Man' not only because it is in the text, but also because it helps to explain that Jesus was fully man. As for why 'son' and 'child' are not capitalized, do you notice the separation or shift in the phrase of the first sentence? The first phrase begins by introducing the next phrase, which will expound upon and give the precise meaning for what is meant by 'son' and 'child'. In this way, a human child or son will be given (from the royal line of David) that will be wholly divine in nature, as seen by the capitalized titles that are given to Him in the second half of the sentence. So you can see that even the sentence structure of this verse shows the fullfillment of Christ as Messiah, King and Mighty God! But to deny either the undiminished deity or the perfect humanity of Christ is to put oneself outside the pale of orthodoxy (1 John 4:2-3). There are innumerable passages in the New Testament that confirm Christ's full humanity. For example, Hebrews 2:14 tells us that "he too shared in their humanity". Also, Romans 8:3 says that God sent Jesus "in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering." Paul affirms that "in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form" (Col. 2:9).Scripture is clear that He experienced normal human development through infancy, childhood, adolescence and adulthood. In Luke 2:40, Jesus 'grew', 'became strong' and was 'filled with wisdom'. These are things that could never be said of His divine nature. Also, Luke 2:52 tells us that "Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." Again, this can only be said of His humanity. However, Christ always did the will of God and never sinned. Hebrews 4:15 says "tempted in every way just as we are - yet was without sin." Christ is 'holy', 'blameless', 'pure' (Hebrews 7:26). Sorry I didn't get back with you a little sooner Ray, since I have been engrossed with other topics.. :) I hope that you have found 'my take' on things interesting.. God bless! Nolan (Sources: NASB Study Bible) | ||||||
6 | Is Jesus the 'Eternal Father'? | Is 9:6 | Ray | 6286 | ||
Hi Nolan, I have to reopen this topic because I don't think you answered my question. I asked, and pay attention to the capitalization please, "Why do people need a son of man?" You answered, "Translators need a 'Son of Man'..." Do you see why I believe you did not answer the question? You gave references to the Son of Man and they were all capitalized. Why do we need to bring Jesus down to our level and make Him a man? You say that He did not sin. Then make Him God and capitalize Him as a Man. You don't call Him the son of God. You don't think that He is Joseph's illegitimate son. Why must translators make Him a man? It just now dawned on me. If we make Him a Son of Man then we make the Man the Father of the Son and that is what you are denying. I would lead you to Matthew 21:33-46. |
||||||
7 | Capitals? What was your question Ray? | Is 9:6 | Makarios | 6306 | ||
Ray, I don't understand what you are asking or saying here.. Please clarify for me so that I can give you an informative response. As for translating Jesus as 'son of man' (lower capitals) this is done usually to focus on Jesus' humanity. Is this what you are referring to? As for the translators and why they chose to or not to capitalize certain things, that is probably best answered by the translators themselves. | ||||||
8 | Capitals? What was your question Ray? | Is 9:6 | Searcher56 | 6309 | ||
Capitalization is not in the orginial text. Transaltions vary on if the captialize a name/ attribute of God. Christ was both fully human and fully God. |
||||||
9 | Capitals? What was your question Ray? | Is 9:6 | Makarios | 6313 | ||
Yes, this is where we can find agreement: That Christ was both fully human and fully God. Praise the Lord that we have a High Priest that is able to relate to and understand all of our sufferings! I'm willing to look at specific passages with you in the New Testament to see if the Greek specifically 'capitalizes' each noun that refers to the person of Christ. I don't know what end that this would serve, except to help understand why certain translators decided to capitalize here or there and some didn't. I do not have a complete copy of the Hebrew here with me, so I would be ill-suited to help you with Hebrew. But I would be willing to look at the Greek. | ||||||
10 | Capitals? What was your question Ray? | Is 9:6 | Ray | 6367 | ||
Hi Nolan, I think I can agree on fully human, also. I expect some help on a new question under Hebrews 7:26. | ||||||
11 | Capitals? What was your question Ray? | Is 9:6 | Makarios | 6812 | ||
Hello Ray! Hebrews 7:26 is describing Jesus as our "high priest". The word usage in the Greek for 'high priest' in this verse does not refer to God directly (as far as specific word usage) and therefore does not denote capitalization for the noun 'high priest'. Therefore, 'high priest' in the context of this verse is indeed describing Jesus as our perfect and exalted high priest, but is using a human term ('high priest' as pertaining to the Law vv. 28) to describe Jesus, and is therefore not capitalized. We can contrast the word usage here with vv. 25 and 27-28, where Diety is directly referred to (and rendering capitalization), while the human term as pertaining to the law, 'high priest', remains uncapitalized. | ||||||