A father and son are two distinct beings; nor is there any term that more strongly marks derived existence, than the term son. Besides, Jesus founds the propriety of calling himself the Son of God, not on any thing peculiar in his nature, or any supposed resemblance or likeness to his Father, but simply on the ground of his being sanctified, and sent by the Father.
He repels the charge of blasphemy, by appealing to the well known scripture usage, by which they are called Gods unto whom the word of God came. So that if he had called himself God which he had not done it would have implied, according to his own explanation, nothing more than that he was a divine messenger—one to whom the word of God came.
That this is the sense in which the Jews understood the answer of Jesus is evident from the fact that they never after accused him of making himself God, though urged to do so by considerations as powerful as can well be conceived. When he was arraigned before their Council, and the accusation was blasphemy, they made great efforts to support the charge. They could not obtain the necessary evidence. After they had suborned witnesses, all they could prove by them was, that he had said he could raise up the Temple in three days.
Now if Jesus had ever made himself God, or intimated any desire to be considered as God, it is incredible that they should not have urged it against him at a time like this. This would have been the very evidence they felt themselves so much in need of.
When they were ready to seize on every circumstance, however trifling; and were driven to extremities, to obtain witnesses to support the charge of blasphemy, it is incredible, I say, that they should not have availed themselves of such an advantage. It is as certain, then, that Jesus never made himself God, as it is that the Jews did not urge it against him at his trial.
The Jewish Talmud asserts that whoever denied Mosaic authorship would be excluded from Paradise. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.
Mark John 3. Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me? How could they have formed and successfully sustained a conspiracy for such a purpose, without ever falling out, or betraying themselves by some inconsistent word or act?
And who can seriously believe, for a moment, that the Christian Church for these eighteen hundred years, now embracing nearly the whole civilized world, and among them the strongest intellects and the noblest hearts, the greatest divines, philosophers, poets, orators, statesmen, and benefactors of the race, could have been duped and fooled by a Galilean carpenter or a dozen illiterate fishermen?
Verily, this lowest form of infidelity is the grossest insult to all sound reason and sense, and to the dignity of human nature.
It is this office that men derive from God. Thus it can refer to other gods Ex. I cannot wield the pen. But Scripture represents Jesus, in arguably his most important mission, as a man: The Apostle says, that, since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
By the nature of any person or being, is always meant his essential qualities. On the one hand, we can have no doubt that his highest nature is here spoken of, for there is no passage in which stronger words are used. Only through the help of an illustration—for which, however, we need not apologize, as the candid will recognize the simple intent of a parallelism at only one point—can we express the real embarrassment which we meet in attempting to deal with the theory of a double nature in Christ. It should also be observed that the holy spirit, which is supposedly co-equal with the Father and therefore entitled to the same degree of reverence, is not even mentioned here.
The difficulty is not lessened by shifting the charge of fraud from Christ upon the apostles and evangelists; for they were any thing but designing hypocrites and deceivers, and leave upon every unsophisticated reader the irresistible impression of an artless simplicity and honesty rarely equaled and never surpassed by any writers, learned or unlearned, of ancient or modern times. We believe in the Divinity of his mission; because God sent him. We believe in the Divinity of his authority, wisdom, power, and glory; because God gave them to him. A father and son are two distinct beings; nor is there any term that more strongly marks derived existence, than the term son. This doesnt mean the Dagon was the Creator in the Canaanite Pantheon nb.
Does he do such things?
Christianity is founded in large part upon the words of Jesus. This is illustrated by such verses as 2 Samuel "Absalom has slain all the king's sons, and there is not one of them left"; 2 Samuel "And of all the men that are with him we will not leave so much as one"; Exodus "There did not die of the cattle of Israel even one"; 2 Samuel "There lacked not one of them that was not gone over the Jordan. Chicago: Moody Press, , c This would have been the very evidence they felt themselves so much in need of. I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and where you made a vow to me. Let me read to you, also, the beginning of that same chapter, that you may see how plainly the dependence of Christ upon the Father is expressed.
There just weren't that many encounters with regular angels. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy. Lamech refers to himself in the 3rd person, but that doesn't prove that HE was a bi-unity! You did not withhold your manna from their mouths, and you gave them water for their thirst. In this sense of word we speak of the Divinity of the Scriptures; meaning that they came from God. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell.
There are two points I want to demonstrate here in this regard: First, that many of the messianic passages were understood by non-Christian Jewish interpreters and therefore not even remotely suspect of high-Christological bias! Farewell to the Yahwist? On the other hand, the visions of Zech involving the Angel of YHWH, with similar types and amounts of material DO include an occasional 'slip' of that type--cf.
Again, in all unitarian views, the key is that divine sovereignty is not shared in any way. By its admission, the Bible cannot be interpreted like other books. If we think of him in his supposed capacity as God, then the records of him as a man will mean nothing to us. But of what benefit to us can such an example be? Also, there is a long passage in the Talmud Jers. Both Jesus and Christians, by virtue of being born from above, are filled with the same divine attributes; Jesus simply took greater advantage of his than anyone else ever has and he was never corrupted by sin.
God qualified him for his office, appointed him to it, and sustained him in it. Acts says, Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Where the Akkadian writing system is used, combining a syllabic script with various logograms, plural forms are less ambiguous.
Could anything be plainer than that statement? Is These passages were considered by the Rabbinical writers as part of a messianic-passage-complex that included Is We believe in the Divinity of his works; because of himself he could do nothing; but it was the Father that performed the works by him.