When Christians refer to the Messiah, they are referring to Jesus who is also thought to be a divine person.
However, the original Jewish concept, found the Old Testament, reports the Messiah to be a national leader, but not divine himself.
When did Christians begin to consider Jesus to be divine and how did the concept of a divine Holy Ghost develop?
Who is the Messiah supposed to be?
Moderator: Moderators
- onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 11114
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1581 times
- Been thanked: 469 times
Re: Who is the Messiah supposed to be?
Post #11Timothy has brought up a good point---what does "divine" mean to each person here? According to the dictionary, it simply means "of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God." This is the first definition, and it is what JWs believe. Jesus if "of" God, not God. He has proceeded directly from God, he is not God Himself.Elijah John wrote:polonius.advice wrote: When Christians refer to the Messiah, they are referring to Jesus who is also thought to be a divine person.
However, the original Jewish concept, found the Old Testament, reports the Messiah to be a national leader, but not divine himself.
When did Christians begin to consider Jesus to be divine and how did the concept of a divine Holy Ghost develop?
As for his "Divinity", scholars like Bart Erhmann claim such thinking began soon after his early folllowers experienced somthing they understood to be his resurrecton.
But I would ask, if God raised Jesus, how does that make Jesus "God"? Or the literal "Son of God".
Earlier claims of Jesus Divine Sonship* were writen retrospectively, as the Gospels were all penned after the resurrection experience.
-----------
Your observation is excellent where you said that "if God raised Jesus, how does that make Jesus God?" It's quite obvious from that that he could not be God. The Scriptures show that he is, however, the SON of God, just as he said to the Pharisees who falsely accused him of claiming to be God. (John 10:36)
- onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 11114
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1581 times
- Been thanked: 469 times
- onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 11114
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1581 times
- Been thanked: 469 times
Post #13
Well, I, personally, have no doubt about who Jesus is. It is pretty clear to me from the Scriptures, and it gets muddy only when pagan doctrines are melded by unscrupulous men into the fabric of true, untainted Christian belief.marco wrote:2timothy316 wrote:
This thread is interesting on this point: That people are still trying to figure out who Jesus is almost 2000 years after his death. That were trying to figure it out then and they are still not sure now.
This is an excellent though perhaps unintentional assertion of the failure of Christ's mission. People are still shaking their heads as to who or what he was! If he really were sent from God, it challenges the notion that God is omnipotent.
It is amusing to see that a way round the difficulty is to say only certain people know. This used to be a joke commonly made against Roman Catholics who thought they would be exclusive inheritors of heaven. For Catholics felt they knew. But then the folk across the street have a different view - they are the ones who know. And yet Christ condemned those who claim the top table for themselves. What a mess.
There is no mess in Christ's true church. Outside of that, there is.
- onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 11114
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1581 times
- Been thanked: 469 times
Post #14
We have Christ's view about his Son-ship throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures. He claimed to be the Son, no doubt about it. There IS certainty. The "Creed" is man-made. Why hang anything on that?marco wrote:Peter opined that Jesus was the Son of God but we don't have Christ's view on whether this flattering remark was meant literally or figuratively.
In the end there is no certainty. Those who claim certainty are making a personal interpretation, The Creed asserts that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God. Christ did not clarify anything so it is strange to hear that many people KNOW who Christ was.
Christ did indeed clarify who he was (and is), and it's unfair to him to say that he didn't. It's also unfair to say that he claimed to be God, which trinitarians cannot prove except by unbelievably distorting the Scriptures.
Re: Who is the Messiah supposed to be?
Post #15Acts 3:15onewithhim wrote: Remind me---which verse in Acts shows that Peter refers to Jesus as "the Author of life"?
Understand that you might believe. Believe that you might understand. –Augustine of Hippo
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4069
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:07 pm
- Has thanked: 105 times
- Been thanked: 64 times
Post #18
The claim is therefore ambiguous. You choose which meaning you want. What we read is man made. Some believe it is God-inspired of course, just as some believe the Koran is the actual word of God. The Creed is an interpretation of Scripture just as your beliefs are an interpretation. There is no point in quoting original words to back your interpretation because then an argument follows as to the true meaning. For exampe a Catholic would say: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it," is adequate confirmation that Peter was the first representative of Christ and future representatives woud have Christ's guarantee that they would not be overcome by Satan. You may disagree.onewithhim wrote:
We have Christ's view about his Son-ship throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures. He claimed to be the Son, no doubt about it. There IS certainty. The "Creed" is man-made. Why hang anything on that?
Unfortunately "son of God" is ambiguous. He did not say: I am God but he did not clarify. I agree with you but that is a mere interpretation. Trinitarians make a strong point. Jesus could have made himself clearer but perhaps he didn't anticipate the notion of Trinity, which is a pity.onewithhim wrote:
Christ did indeed clarify who he was (and is), and it's unfair to him to say that he didn't. It's also unfair to say that he claimed to be God, which trinitarians cannot prove except by unbelievably distorting the Scriptures.
Re: When Jesus himself became divine?
Post #19You have quoted this passage from the Catholic Encyclopedia before, but failed to address ways that it is problematic or misleading. I would point you back to this thread to see if you can defend the claim:polonius.advice wrote: https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=10948
The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 89:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).
viewtopic.php?p=914318#914318
Understand that you might believe. Believe that you might understand. –Augustine of Hippo
Re: Who is the Messiah supposed to be?
Post #20[Replying to post 16 by Checkpoint]
arxēgós is usually translated as: originator, author, or founder.
http://biblehub.com/greek/747.htm
I see little importance in the distinction. "Author of life" and "Founder of life" appear to mean essentially the same thing.
arxēgós is usually translated as: originator, author, or founder.
http://biblehub.com/greek/747.htm
I see little importance in the distinction. "Author of life" and "Founder of life" appear to mean essentially the same thing.
Understand that you might believe. Believe that you might understand. –Augustine of Hippo