“The angel answered and said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.’”
(Luke 1:35, NASB)
(Luke 1:35, NASB)
For what reason was Jesus to be called the Son of God?
- Thread starter Matthias
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
“Therefore. Of the nine times dio kai occurs in the NT, three are in Luke / Acts. It involves a certain causality; and Lyonnet, ‘L’Annonciation,’ 61.6, points out that this has embarrassed many orthodox theologians, since in pre-existence christology a conception by the Holy Spirit in Mary’s womb does not bring about the existence of God’s Son. Luke is seemingly unaware of such a christology; conception is causally related to divine sonship for him.”
(Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, p. 291)
(Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, p. 291)
“will be called holy - Son of God. See NOTE on ‘will be called’ in vs. 32; it is tantamount to saying ‘he will be.’ And so I cannot follow those theologians who try to avoid the causal connotation in the ‘Therefore’ which begins this line by arguing that for Luke the conception of the child does not bring the Son of God into being, but only enables us to call him ‘Son of God’ who already was Son of God.”
(Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, p. 291)
Luke the physician, Gabriel the angel and a Catholic scholar vs. certain of the early church fathers and later theologians.
(Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, p. 291)
Luke the physician, Gabriel the angel and a Catholic scholar vs. certain of the early church fathers and later theologians.
“power. … Not knowing the rules of parallelism in biblical poetry which make it clear that ‘power from the Most High’ is synonymous with ‘Holy Spirit,’ some patristic and medieval theologians thought that the reference in 35b,c were respectively to the Third and Second Persons of the Trinity, so that ‘power’ was the Second Person descending to take flesh in Mary’s womb. As we shall see, there is no evidence that Luke thought of the incarnation of a Pre-Existant.”
(Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, p. 290)
(Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, p. 290)
PS95
Well-Known Member
Yep, remember that the doctrine of eternal Sonship has evangelical Christians on both sides of this debate.
Is the end result of how you see it is the same, then it's no big deal.
The better questions to ask are-
Is the Word of God in John 1 eternal?
Did the Word become flesh as Jesus, and walk among us?
Mary was His mother and God His Father?
Is he the UNIQUE son of God?
The answers to those questions on both sides of that issue is YES.
Which is why it's not really a big issue.
End result being the same.
“In 1:27 Luke tells us twice that Mary was a virgin at the time of the annunciation. This detail is not something that can be explained from the literary pattern of OT annunciations of birth since none of the annunciations cited in Table VIII concerned a woman who was a virgin. A conception by a virgin who had not known a man (1:34) would be something more startling in the biblical record than the oft-attested conception by a set of parents whose barrenness God had overcome. It would be consonant with a theology of a new creation wherein God’s Spirit, active in the first creation of life (Gen 1:2), was active agian.”
(Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, p. 298-299)
My readers will no doubt recall that this is precisely what I see John speaking about in the prologue of his Gospel.
(Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, p. 298-299)
My readers will no doubt recall that this is precisely what I see John speaking about in the prologue of his Gospel.
The end result isn’t the same. Jewish monotheism is wholly incompatible with the concept eternal Sonship.
It was the key (the Lutheran scholar J.L. Neve calls it his “helpful suggestion” in his A History of Christian Thought) contribution of Origen - eternal generation - which set the stage for what eventually came to be called orthodoxy by the Nicene fathers.
PS95
Well-Known Member
Well, Matt what can I tell you? You brought it up as if it's divisive amongst Christians and it is not among those who don't wish it to be since the end result is the same.
If for you, as a Jewish Monotheist as you keep telling us- does not have the same end result- what can I say? I'm sorry to hear that.
Conception christology is the underpinning of Jewish monotheism. It doesn’t work at all with literal preexistence christology. I’ll soon document this point using trinitarian scholarship.
It’s of critical importance for me to keep this uppermost and fixed in your mind. I’m identifying with 1st century Jewish monotheists who believed that Jesus of Nazareth (himself a Jewish monotheist) is the Messiah, the Son of the living God; not with Nicene Christianity.
Luke isn’t a Nicene Christian. There are no Nicene Christians in the New Testament. That is a constraint of history.
It can’t have the same end result. “Jesus was brought into existence” vs. “Jesus has always literally existed” are irreconcilable concepts.
This is an “Other Faith” thread. Members who are registered “Christian” shouldn’t be able to agree with it. It isn’t trinitarian theology. It’s Jewish theology.
Last edited:
I hadn’t planned to quote A.E. Harvey in this thread but now I think I will.
”In later times the church, no longer perceiving the power and decisiveness of the agent-son-representative model, and having among its members men used to a more philosophical analysis, felt it necessary to go further in the direction of metaphysical identity between Jesus and his heavenly Father: released from Jewish monotheism, gentile Christians began to think of Jesus as also, in some sense God.”
(Jesus and the Constraints of History, p. 173)
The highly regarded Anglican author knows his church history. Orthodoxy is free from Jewish monotheism (and condemns it) but Jewish monotheism preceded orthodoxy in the church.
My “Other Faith” is primitive Christianity. My “Other Faith” is the initial faith of Christianity.
Orthodoxy condemns me. I don’t condemn orthodoxy. Those who are persuaded by orthodoxy should hold on to it.
”In later times the church, no longer perceiving the power and decisiveness of the agent-son-representative model, and having among its members men used to a more philosophical analysis, felt it necessary to go further in the direction of metaphysical identity between Jesus and his heavenly Father: released from Jewish monotheism, gentile Christians began to think of Jesus as also, in some sense God.”
(Jesus and the Constraints of History, p. 173)
The highly regarded Anglican author knows his church history. Orthodoxy is free from Jewish monotheism (and condemns it) but Jewish monotheism preceded orthodoxy in the church.
My “Other Faith” is primitive Christianity. My “Other Faith” is the initial faith of Christianity.
Orthodoxy condemns me. I don’t condemn orthodoxy. Those who are persuaded by orthodoxy should hold on to it.
PS95
Well-Known Member
Whaaat? He pre- existed as the Word. He became flesh. Surely, you can grasp that?
He was not the son of Mary when he was the Word. The Word BECAME flesh.
When people say "Jesus"- many times they mean "the Word. Maybe that's where your confusion comes in.
Enjoying straining out gnats, Matt?
The two views have peace with one another. It doesn't change much in the end , as I've said.
I'm sorry that you can't grasp that.
That's about all I have to say.
PS95
Well-Known Member
Here Matt, I found this article. I didn't look for others. Maybe this will help you to understand what I'm saying to you. I don't see it as a big issue, Christians don't either, and you shouldn't either. Hope this helps..
What is the doctrine of eternal Sonship and is it biblical? | GotQuestions.org
What is the doctrine of eternal Sonship and is it biblical? Was Jesus always the Son of God, or did He become the Son of God at the incarnation?
www.gotquestions.org
I grasp that what you’ve asserted is consistent with trinitarian theology (It’s also consistent with binitarian theology, and with the largest branch of unitarian theology.)
Have you grasped that it isn’t consistent with the theology of Jewish monotheism? It’s important that you do.
This has nothing to do with straining out gnats.
The origin of Jesus, his genesis, is in the womb of the virgin.
They don’t.
It changes everything in the end.
Here Matt, I found this article. I didn't look for others. Maybe this will help you to understand what I'm saying to you. I don't see it as a big issue, Christians don't either, and you shouldn't either. Hope this helps..
What is the doctrine of eternal Sonship and is it biblical? | GotQuestions.org
What is the doctrine of eternal Sonship and is it biblical? Was Jesus always the Son of God, or did He become the Son of God at the incarnation?www.gotquestions.org
Thanks. I appreciate the effort that you‘ve gone to in order to make certain that I understand your position. I’ve used the same article myself in conversations with trinitarians.
It’s a departure from the Jewish monotheism of Israel. It is for that reason that I reject the concept.
PS95
Well-Known Member
PS95
Well-Known Member
You're welcome and ok.
I don't know about your beliefs enough to debate them.
I looked back when we first met and there are NO churches like yours anywhere near me.
You worship God and our our Messiah, who died for your sins as a substitute, and that's enough for me to call you my brother.
“Conception christology and pre-existence christology were two different answers to adoptionism. In the former, God’s creative action in the conception of Jesus (attested negatively by the absence of human fatherhood) begets Jesus as God’s Son. Clearly here divine sonship is not adoptive sonship, but there is no suggestion of an incarnation whereby a figure who was previously with God takes on flesh.”
(Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, p. 141)
I’m not an adoptionist. I believe in the virgin birth of the Messiah.
Dr. Brown (a Roman Catholic) points out that in conception theology - Luke’s theology (and Matthew’s theology) - there is no person who previously existed with God. God is literally no one other than the Father.
When a human person is begotten by their human father / conceived by their human mother the person is brought into existence. Jesus wasn’t begotten by Joseph. He was supernaturally begotten by his God and Father. It is the creative act of the Father - the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, reminiscent of the Genesis creation - which caused the virgin to conceive Jesus in her womb.
Life begins at conception. Prior to begetting by the father and begetting by the mother, there is no existence.
This is the beginning of the existence of the Son of God in Hebraic thought. It most certainly is not the beginning of God the Son in trinitarian thought. In trinitarian thought, there has never been a time when the Son did not exist.
We must always remember that in the thought of historical orthodox trinitarianism, Jesus of Nazareth is not a human person. He is only one person, a divine (i.e. deity) person, who took upon himself impersonal human nature. He is eternal, without beginning or end.
P.S.
I’ve documented elsewhere, using both Catholic and Protestant sources, why trinitarianism has to insist that Jesus is not a human person. In my experience, and in the experience of trinitarian clergy which I’ve spoken with, the vast majority of persons who self-identify as trinitarian don’t know this. I place the figure at around 80 percent. I do come across non-clergy trinitarians who know it.
It’s easy to confirm the trinitarian teaching: Search the internet for “Jesus is not a human person” or ask a trinitarian scholar.
(Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, p. 141)
I’m not an adoptionist. I believe in the virgin birth of the Messiah.
Dr. Brown (a Roman Catholic) points out that in conception theology - Luke’s theology (and Matthew’s theology) - there is no person who previously existed with God. God is literally no one other than the Father.
When a human person is begotten by their human father / conceived by their human mother the person is brought into existence. Jesus wasn’t begotten by Joseph. He was supernaturally begotten by his God and Father. It is the creative act of the Father - the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, reminiscent of the Genesis creation - which caused the virgin to conceive Jesus in her womb.
Life begins at conception. Prior to begetting by the father and begetting by the mother, there is no existence.
This is the beginning of the existence of the Son of God in Hebraic thought. It most certainly is not the beginning of God the Son in trinitarian thought. In trinitarian thought, there has never been a time when the Son did not exist.
We must always remember that in the thought of historical orthodox trinitarianism, Jesus of Nazareth is not a human person. He is only one person, a divine (i.e. deity) person, who took upon himself impersonal human nature. He is eternal, without beginning or end.
P.S.
I’ve documented elsewhere, using both Catholic and Protestant sources, why trinitarianism has to insist that Jesus is not a human person. In my experience, and in the experience of trinitarian clergy which I’ve spoken with, the vast majority of persons who self-identify as trinitarian don’t know this. I place the figure at around 80 percent. I do come across non-clergy trinitarians who know it.
It’s easy to confirm the trinitarian teaching: Search the internet for “Jesus is not a human person” or ask a trinitarian scholar.
Last edited:
I’m not interested in debating my belief but I’m open to discussing it.
There are few churches like mine anywhere in the world. Orthodoxy has crushed it for 1700 years.
My personal faith statement is that I believe in God and I also believe in Jesus of Nazareth. I take it from John 14:1.
The God whom I believe in - the God of the Jews - didn’t die and cannot die. I worship the God of the Jews and I also worship the Messiah. It is the Messiah, not the God of the Jews, who died for my sins as a substitute in my place.
A brother which the creeds of your theology assert is a heretic who isn’t saved and cannot be saved.
Rather than focusing on me, I want us to focus in this thread on Luke’s Gospel (and Matthew’s Gospel) and what Gabriel said to Joseph and Mary.
The reason Gabriel gives for Jesus being called the Son of God is not the reason which orthodoxy gives for Jesus being called the Son of God / God the Son (the terminology being interchangeable in orthodoxy; not in Jewish monotheism). That is what Dr. Brown is pointing out to us.
The reason Gabriel gives for Jesus being called the Son of God is not the reason which orthodoxy gives for Jesus being called the Son of God / God the Son (the terminology being interchangeable in orthodoxy; not in Jewish monotheism). That is what Dr. Brown is pointing out to us.
TrevorHL
Member
Greetings Matthias,
Kind regards
Trevor
I was very interested in your posts and the references that you were able to cite. I agree with all that you stated except I believe that Jesus is our representative. He opened the way to life by his death and resurrection and we share in this when we identify with his death and resurrection by water baptism.
I do not know how widespread is your fellowship. Possibly we are more numerous and in many countries.
Kind regards
Trevor
Similar threads
