Son of God - Humanity or Deity?

[101G]

It is not speaking of His birth, but the conception,

you're missing it, a conception of WHAT? definitly not "spirit", for a spirit is "GIVEN by God, so what is concieved ... and "birthed" is Flesh and blood. HELLO?

see your mistake now? a spirit is not concieved, but Given by god and at NATURAL DEATH, the first death, is returned to God. so in any birth, or conception, concering the Lord Jesus, it's not Spirit, do you understand ?

You have yet to prove this statement.

ONCE AGAIN, Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

so again, what is "BORN" is flesh and blood, see above.

PICJAG, 101G.

 

[all4Him]

you're missing it, a conception of WHAT? definitly not "spirit", for a spirit is "GIVEN by God, so what is concieved ... and "birthed" is Flesh and blood. HELLO?

see your mistake now? a spirit is not concieved, but Given by god and at NATURAL DEATH, the first death, is returned to God. so in any birth, or conception, concering the Lord Jesus, it's not Spirit, do you understand ?


ONCE AGAIN, Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

so again, what is "BORN" is flesh and blood, see above.

PICJAG, 101G.

Not “WHAT,” but “WHO.” The “who” is Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

You are inserting a different view into the text and it changes the purpose of the passage. This passage was not intended to show the humanity of Jesus, but it was about Mary, the conception, and virgin birth of the Messiah. The Messiah will be called the Son of God, not because of His humanity, but because of His deity. John the Baptist testified about this in John 1:15;30;34.



Joh 1:15 John *testified about Him and called out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who is coming after me has proved to be my superior, because He existed before me.’”

Joh 1:30 “This is He in behalf of whom I said, ‘After me is coming a Man who has proved to be my superior, because He existed before me.’

Joh 1:34 “And I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God.”


John the Baptist testified that Jesus is the Son of God and that He existed before Him, even though John was actually born before Jesus.

Since you believe the term "the Son of God" refers to Jesus' flesh, bone, and blood; do you believe that this humanity existed before His birth?

 

[101G]

You are inserting a different view into the text and it changes the purpose of the passage.

another assumption,

Joh 1:15 John *testified about Him and called out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who is coming after me has proved to be my superior, because He existed before me.’”

well now did that flesh of JESUS existed before John? please tell us? now before you answer, think long and hard, remember John was six months before Jesus in flesh .... drum roll please... your answer, can't wait to hear that answer.

see how you answer your own question, what was before John is "spirit", because the flesh of Christ came six month after, so the before "HIM" is not speaking of the Flesh but the Spirit.... mon Oh man how simple can it get. that Isaiah 9:6 is very clear.

now, is what I said id TRUE?

PICJAG, 101G.

 

[all4Him]

another assumption,

well now did that flesh of JESUS existed before John? please tell us? now before you answer, think long and hard, remember John was six months before Jesus in flesh .... drum roll please... your answer, can't wait to hear that answer.

see how you answer your own question, what was before John is "spirit", because the flesh of Christ came six month after, so the before "HIM" is not speaking of the Flesh but the Spirit.... mon Oh man how simple can it get. that Isaiah 9:6 is very clear.

now, is what I said id TRUE?

PICJAG, 101G.

wow! Since you look at Jesus with the view that He did not preexist His incarnation you continue to miss the point of the scriptures. Read the context of John 1. I can't help you if you do not understand simple grammar.

Jesus existed as the Word/God before John.

 

[101G]

wow! Since you look at Jesus with the view that He did not preexist His incarnation

where did I say that at? you alway assume things. no NATURAL flesh existed before Adam. but JESUS did, the Spirit always existed. but not the flesh that he, the Ordinal Last came in, until John 1:1

esus existed as the Word/God before John.

see above

PICJAG, 101G.

 

[Yahchristian]

It is NOT speaking of His human nature.

Do all Trinitarians believe “that holy thing which shall be born of thee” is NOT speaking of his human nature?

Luke 1:35... And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

 

[all4Him]

Do all Trinitarians believe “that holy thing which shall be born of thee” is NOT speaking of his human nature?

Luke 1:35... And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

To answer this, does the verse tell you this speaking of His humanity? Paul tells us to not go beyond what is written. More people should practice this.

 

[Yahchristian]

To answer this, does the verse tell you this speaking of His humanity? Paul tells us to not go beyond what is written. More people should practice this.

Yes.

Luke 1:35 says “that holy thing” would be “born” to Mary.

Humanity is “born” to humanity.

Are you suggesting that Jesus’ divine nature was born to Mary?

I don’t even think Catholics believe that.

 

[all4Him]

Yes.

Luke 1:35 says “that holy thing” would be “born” to Mary.

Humanity is “born” to humanity.

Are you suggesting that Jesus’ divine nature was born to Mary?

I don’t even think Catholics believe that.

You are going beyond the purpose of the text. It says the holy Child was be called the Son of God. This is a statement of His deity, not His humanity.

Luk 1:35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; for that reason also the holy Child will be called the Son of God.

1Co 4:6 I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.

 

[Yahchristian]

You are going beyond the purpose of the text. It says the holy Child was be called the Son of God. This is a statement of His deity, not His humanity.

Luk 1:35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; for that reason also the holy Child will be called the Son of God.

1Co 4:6 I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.

So........

Are you suggesting that Jesus’ divine nature was born to Mary?

 

[all4Him]

So........

Are you suggesting that Jesus’ divine nature was born to Mary?

The passage is speaking the Son of God and His relations with His Father. There would not be a need to use the term Father if there wasn’t a Son and vise-versa. This was the introduction of the coming of the messiah.

 

[Caroljeen]

John 19:7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die, because He made Himself out to be the Son of God!”


David Bernard claims the term "Son of God" cannot be used apart from the humanity of Jesus. If this is correct; why would the Jews want to crucify Him for simply making a claim to His humanity?



I have always understood the term "the Son of God" to be in relations to the Father and not to humanity. The term Son of Man, it would seem to be in relations to His humanity.

I was thinking about responding to this thread but as soon as I saw "David Bernard", I decided not to. I'm not interested in defending his beliefs.

 

[all4Him]

I was thinking about responding to this thread but as soon as I saw "David Bernard", I decided not to. I'm not interested in defending his beliefs.

I don't blame you, his entire doctrine is false, including his teaching on the Godhead.