New answers tagged

7

Adoptionism had been declared a heresy by the Synod of Antioch in A.D. 268, which meant that neither Lucian, Arius, nor Eusebius could openly embrace it. After that Synod, anyone who dared claim that Jesus Christ was not in any sense God but only a human prophet adopted by God into a special, unique, relationship would likely lose their church position, if ...


1

It is the having of a son that makes one a Father. Therefore the being "God" is made both God and Father by the begetting of the Son: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places - Ephesians 1:3 There are many places in Scripture where reference is made ...


4

There’s no need to detail different denominational interpretations of Colossians 1:15 as there are only two religious schools of thought on this verse. (1) Those who interpret it as meaning Christ has the pre-eminence / priority over all that is created (being their Creator) and, (2) Those who interpret it as meaning Christ was the first thing God created, ...


3

According to Trinitarians, is Jesus the begotten Son of God the Father, or the begotten Son of God? The short answer is that Jesus is the begotten Son of God the Father! Although Trinitarians will haggle to some degree over definitions in place here. I would like to give a response based on the Catholic viewpoint. Other denominations, I am sure will have a ...


0

A little consultation with the commentaries of such verses would clarify that such prayers of Jesus were from his human nature, also see his dual nature and hypostatic union. Jesus worshiped as a human, he was truly a human, but did not cease to be divine in the incarnation. This was an intercessory high priestly prayer for the world that they know the only ...


5

The words 'Father' and 'Son' provide the big clue here. Both are put together in scripture to show a connection that cannot be broken, as in John 1:14 - "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." Then the connection with God is made a few ...


1

For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich. 2 Cor 8:9 What is 'rich' meaning? Making this about material possessions presumes much and ignores context. The Q approaches from an odd stance regarding Jesus supposed pre-existence - as what we do not ...


0

I decided to edit my response in such a way that the Bible speaks for itself. How do deniers of Jesus' preincarnate existence interpret 2 Corinthians 8:9? I figured it would be better to just ask the Bible: THE HOLY BIBLE ―II Cor. 8:9―9For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you ...


-1

I am not knowledgeable enough to attempt "an overview of how different Christian denominations interpret Colossians 1:15". I will only examine the verse from an exegetical perspective. [italics added] The Greek term πρωτότοκος (prōtotokos) could refer either to first in order of time, such as a first born child, or it could refer to one who is ...


0

The first thing that has to be addressed is the idea of 'unambiguous' evidence. Given standard Trinitarian paraphrase of various passages, even a passage that said "Jesus was a man, and not God" would be ambiguous. First, Trinitarians hold that Jesus is fully man and fully God. So 'Jesus was a man' -> 'Jesus had a fully human nature in the ...


2

Regardless of the dating of the Didache, its formula for baptism is this. baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,2443 in living water. Didache Chapter 7 That, of course, is a Trinitarian formula found also in Matthew. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and ...


0

The Didache is probably "the most primitive Christology of all". Murray J. Smith remarks on this: The eschatological vision of the Didache centers on the “coming of the Lord” (Did. 16.1, 7–8; cf. 10.6). But which “Lord” does the Didache expect to come? In his 2003 commentary, Aaron Milavec argues that the Didache does not employ the title κύριος (“...


5

Arguments from Silence This is an articulate example of employing the argument from silence. Arguments from silence always rely on an unstated premise (think about it, it's actually pretty funny). This does not mean the conclusion of an argument from silence is always false. It means the argument is not logically valid. For example: P1: They didn't say it C: ...


-1

In my previous Answer, I replied to two "detailed questions". Here I want to answer the general question of how Mary's Assumption compares with Jesus' Resurrection. 2 Could Mary of Nazareth have experienced the drama of death in her own flesh? Reflecting on Mary’s destiny and her relationship with her divine Son, it seems legitimate to answer in ...


2

I will answer the detailed questions. Jesus "resurrected body" differs from Mary's "glorified body"? Essentially, no. Of course one has to accept the Catholic dogma of the Assumption, first. In the Question, no papal document is cited other than Pope Pius XII's decree of 1950. But "On 25 June 1997 during a General Audience Pope ...


-2

The resurrected body will have the characteristics of the body . But the glorified body will not feel physical. In the case of Jesus He had the resurrected body as well as the glorified body. And after His ascension to God, Jesus met His disciples, still has the wounds, also in luke 24:43 " And He took it and ate in their presence". He could enter ...


6

Why do I need to explain the reason Jesus Christ is not mentioned or noted as God in the "Roman Creed" and the Didache? ONE is arguing from silence any time you point to specific data that is not present. In this case, Jesus is not mentioned as God in these two documents. A rational inquiry would seek to understand the data (the words) that ARE ...


1

Biblical Unitarians have a wide range of views about a wide range of subjects - the term simply groups together people who believe God is the Father, not Jesus, and also hold that the Bible has authority in a strong sense (as opposed to other forms of Unitarianism which view the Bible as having authority in a weaker sense). Biblical Unitarians are a faction ...


5

The Trinitarian stance is that Jesus Christ was unarguably a man, “Son of Man” being his most-oft-used designation. It does not make sense for your question to add, “If the Pharisees were wrong in thinking Jesus was a man, why didn’t Jesus correct them, but instead reinforce that belief by calling himself ‘Son of Man’…” No Trinitarian thinks the Pharisees ...


6

First, when Jesus uses the phrase "the Son of Man," He is using that phrase technically, as we use "the Messiah" technically (whereas it meant 'king' since it means 'the anointed one') — referring to the eschatological messianic figure of Daniel 7, who is worshipped by all nations forever as king, and which is pondered on in pre-Christian ...


14

In Trinitarian theology, Jesus is both God and Man, so the title "Son of Man" isn't incorrect in that regard. Throughout Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus generally encourages the "Messianic secret" -- He doesn't directly state He is God. Instead He does or says things which lead sincere people to that conclusion. This miracle relies on a ...


Top 50 recent answers are included