The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Sorry, but I'm not ready to agree that "what I've been defending here has always been about semantics." In this thread you have stated:

It is not "just semantics"! Semantics is when I say, "London is the capital of England" and you say, "No, I'm sure it is the capital of Great Britain." But when you say, London is the capital of France, it is not a semantic difference, it is an error.

It is not a slip up to refer to Jesus as Creator, for that is what Paul and John both affirm in their writings. Jesus IS the Eternal Word of God, the Great I AM. ("Before Abraham came to be, I AM.") To say that He is a created being who did not exist prior to the incarnation is an error, it is not semantics.

Regards.

_________________
All Scripture quotations are New American Standard Bible, unless otherwise indicated.

while i agree with this stmt, let me caveat it -- it is an error from the Christian perspective

cults can claim it's factual & i'm sure some of them do

this isn't some ancillary doctrine where Christians can safely "agree to disagree" either

Summarizing my Jesus theology ...
-- Father God created "all things" through the Word (the Logos), who is the Second Person of the Triune Godhead
-- this Word/Logos came to earth to become Man, i.e. Jesus
-- the Holy Spirit had to play the "role" of Jesus' "father" so Jesus would not have man's inherited sin nature
-- being the Son of the Holy Spirit (God) proved that Jesus really was "the Son of God"
-- probably while in Mary's womb, Jesus' spirit(man) was filled with the Holy Spirit
-- Scripture gives this Man a ton on names/titles (many are the same as what God is called in the OT)
-- Jesus had several baptisms in the presence of that great locust-eater in the Jordan
(i.e. baptism in water, baptism with the Holy Spirit, and just possibly baptism into the church body)
-- with these baptisms, Jesus was just beginning to demonstrate how we should live our lives
(i.e. praying constantly to Father God for many things, relying on the Holy Spirit's power, etc.)

That's enough for now ... I'm certain you will have fun finding fault with some of this.

Does the Scripture actually state Jesus did not receive our "sin nature" or simply that he did not "sin" and "sin was not found in him"? How does he bear our sinfulness then? And it is a distortion of the text to suggest the Holy Spirit as "fathering" Jesus.

_________________
Everyone is equal at the foot of the cross...just some are more equal than others.
Forum Code of Conduct
Bible.org Doctrinal Statement
rickwadholmjr.wordpress.com
iheartbarth.wordpress.com
bluechippastor.org
Twitter: @RickWadholmJr

No one is having "fun" finding fault. It seems to me that you are the one with attitude and not the reverse.

You bristle when anyone either questions or disagrees with your assertions. If there is error, should others not point it out? To not point out error seems to me to be absurd. Are you a Christian who wishes to grow....or someone who wishes such thoughts to be proposed and simply accepted whether they are correct or not? Again, as a growing Christian the latter of these options seems quite absurd to me.

On that note,
This is quite un-Biblical IMO. You have made the 2nd person of the Trinity the physical product of the 3rd. This thought of yours is against the distinctions within the Trinity drawn by the revelation of God given to us. Your definition of the Holy Spirit here seems to point to His essence being used in making the physical Christ. As Avid Reader pointed out, (Underlining & italics mine) Nothing in Scripture points to the Holy Spirit playing the role of "Father" this is wholly a product of conjecture which is in opposition to the Scripture.

Again you focus on your conjecture and not what Scripture reveals. Nowhere does Scripture affirm Jesus as the "Son of the Holy Spirit". This is in opposition to John 15:26 which shows that the Son has a sort of sending authority over the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit is not the Father (See also John 16:12-15). The proof of his being the Son of God had nothing to do with His physicality but everything to do with His character.

Colossians 1:15 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation, Context (NET)

Colossians 1:19 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in the Son Context (NET)

The fact that He reflected the very character of God was proof of His sonship.
Again complete conjecture which over-emphasizes the humanity of Christ IMHO. In mary's womb as in all of eternity He was and is God. God the Son who became subject to the will of the Father and took on flesh for the purpose of redeeming the people of God by taking upon Himself the wrath of the heavenly Father for their sins.

IMHO I see no evidence of these assertions at all. Rather I see His baptism necessary to "fulfill all righteousness" (Matthew 3:15 NKJV). Not that His righteousness was in question which is indicated by John the Baptists reaction in Matthew 3:14.

Rather, by that baptism He, God my Savior, identifies Himself with my need for Him.
I, by my baptism, become buried in His likeness (essence if-you-will) that I might live through His being.

Praise His Holy Name!

_________________
Blessings,
Randy
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The Net Bible Online

Which scripture says that?

_________________
All Scripture quotations are New American Standard Bible, unless otherwise indicated.

I would like to add 2 more items to my list.

Summarizing my Jesus theology ...
-- Father God created "all things" through the Word (the Logos), who is the Second Person of the Triune Godhead
-- thereafter, this Word/Logos has been the Sustainer of "all things"
-- this Word/Logos came to earth to become Man, i.e. Jesus
-- the Holy Spirit had to play the "role" of Jesus' "father" so Jesus would not have man's inherited sin nature
-- being the Son of the Holy Spirit (God) proved that Jesus really was "the Son of God"
-- probably while in Mary's womb, Jesus' spirit(man) was filled with the Holy Spirit
-- Scripture gives this Man a ton on names/titles (many are the same as what God is called in the OT)
-- Jesus had several baptisms in the presence of that great locust-eater in the Jordan
(i.e. baptism in water, baptism with the Holy Spirit, and just possibly baptism into the church body)
-- with these baptisms, Jesus was just beginning to demonstrate how we should live our lives
(i.e. praying constantly to Father God for many things, relying on the Holy Spirit's power, etc.)
-- Jesus, "fully man and fully God" while on earth, was then, and is now, the Giver of eternal life

That passage, in Luke 1:35, reads to me that the Holy Spirit is overshadowing Mary not Jesus. Is there any reason to think that Gabriel refers to the Holy Spirit overshadowing Jesus?

Theo, yes, I agree the HS is being said to overshadow Mary, not Jesus, but I think that is the passage he is referring to. I should have let him answer rather than jumping in.

Regards.

_________________
All Scripture quotations are New American Standard Bible, unless otherwise indicated.

Luke 1:
“The Holy Spirit will come upon you (Mary), and the power of the Highest will overshadow you”

Matthew 1:
“… she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. ... that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.”

Sorry, my mistake. No overshadowing of Jesus ... IMO, He wasn't even formed yet!

This overshadowing of Mary somehow produced THE BABY, who was to be called "Jesus" (Luke 1:31).

I have a couple of related questions ...

-- Did this baby have His spirit(man) filled with the Holy Spirit, i.e. was He born-again,
OR did He become born-again when He was with that wonderful locust-eater in the Jordan?

-- Did this baby have man's inherited sin nature,
OR was this averted due to Him not having a human father?

In my opinion, Jesus did not need to be born again as he was born of the Spirit. John 3:6-7

Jesus did not have the sin nature. Heb 4:15