The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Is Jesus God or What?

Theology Christology
#27

Craig.

If Jesus wasn’t corruptible…why did the devil try to tempt Him? I agree, temptation is not corruption, but if Jesus gave into that temptation he obviously would of been corrupted. This is what I believe. Jesus was the only man born spiritually alive since Adam. ( John 1:4-5) Jesus was not born with a sinful nature (spiritual death spirit) like us. Jesus was born with the same body as we have. His body( flesh) had the same desires as ours do. Jesus chose to operate out of his spirit rather than to satisfy the desires of his flesh. That is how he defeated the devil and chose not to be corrupted. (Hebrews 4:15)

#28

Begotten, not made. He’s God’s ONLY Son!

He’s not a ‘human vessel’ - He’s God - A Person - Not to be divided up into ‘concepts.’ Wholly God and Wholly Man in a single Person.

Why does He have to be the God/man? Read Anselm: ‘Cur Deus Homo’ “Why the God Man?” It’s brilliant! You can find it on the web - it’s a free book.

You can count me in that club as well.

#29

Thanks for reminding me of that, btw! (Still haven’t read it yet. Lots of other things since you last mentioned it–or since someone last mentioned it :mrgreen:–but not that yet.)

#30

I think it’s significant that the only time the word “begotten” doesn’t imply being made or brought into existence is when it’s being used by Trinitarians to speak of the relationship between Jesus and God, the Father. Go figure. :slight_smile:

#31

Well, not exactly. I’m well aware that temptation is not the same as sin. I’m simply raising the point that Jacob did, which is that God cannot be tempted, according to scripture.

What I’m trying to sort out is how Jesus, if he was God, could be tempted. I’m not denying that God was in him (as the scripture testifies to), but there seems to be a clear distinction there. Whether Jacob’s use of that verse is correct or not is sort of beside the issue.

#32

Good thought; I’ll see what I can do about that.

Incidentally, George MacDonald’s sermon on the Temptation of Jesus helped put a lot of things in perspective for me; his basic theme is that Satan tempted Jesus with good, not with evil. It’s a very thoughtful piece of work.

I posted a transcript of it up already as part of my project of posting up MacD’s Unspoken Sermon series (plus later Hope of the Gospel which for all practical purposes is US Vol 4.) It can be found here. I have a little commentary on parts of it along the way, too.

Somewhere in my thread concerning metaphysical crits of ortho-trin, I wrote an entry on the Temptation, too. (But I’m in too much of a hurry to look it up and link to it at the moment.)

#33

I’m curious too! Because the Hebrew people were certainly theists and (as I hope to demonstrate in a response to the first part of Jason’s “Trinity Digest” paper), they weren’t Trinitarians. In fact, I’d be curious to know from the Trinitarians on this forum who they think were the first Trinitarian theists. :smiling_imp:

#34

Adam, Abraham, David, MARY!

#35

To which I might interject the correction, he’s not God’s only son, he’s the only begotten son. I think that is perhaps significant.

So what does it mean to say that he is the only begotten son? Perhaps it means that he is the only son created in the unique way Jesus was? There are certainly other unique features that apply to no one else that the scripture testifies to as well.

#36

Interesting. I haven’t heard that take on the temptation before!

#37

Btw, I hope everyone noticed I’ve moved the thread to “Christology”. :slight_smile: (I left a shadow thread behind for redirection purposes, so it shouldn’t be hard to get here again.)

Incidentally–and I don’t remotely have time to go into detail on this–but I don’t consider the term “begotten” to be primarily about the Incarnation. Many (or most?) technical trinitarians don’t.

Mel,

Yeah, I hadn’t either until I read his work back in 99 or 00. It was a really fresh take on the topic, to me. (And still probably applicable to non-trin theologies, too, whether modalistic or unitarian. :slight_smile: )

#38

It means that he wasn’t created or made the way God creates everything else. There was never a time when He was not begotten.

#39

Sonia,

Greg wouldn’t hurt. :wink:

It’s long an drawn out, but basically it starts with the philosophical conviction that “relationality” is irreducible; or better, reality is irreducibly relational. That much might not be so objectionable. Process theists believe it, for example, but they posit a necessary God-world relationship to account for this. If God’s necessarily related, then he has to be related to something ‘other’ than Godself. Process theologians fill the blank with creation(s). So God’s necessarily related to some non-divine creation. Without some such created world, there is no God. And that’s how God’s essentially related. He’s never without some created order to relate to.

I take the traditional route and say the requirements of this essential relationality are in God’s case met by Godself. God’s essentially self-related. This gets unpacked as interpersonal relations (which is not as incoherent or self-contradictory as one might think, though there’s erasing all mystery–who would want that anyhow?). For several theological reasons I don’t use the created world to fit the bill as God’s necessary personal ‘other’ with whom God relates (as process folk do).

So for me, the only kind of God I can see my way through to believing in is a personal one, and personal means inter-personal. You can’t have a SINGLE personal being who’s maximally personal (and loving, loves goes with personhood) but unrelated to any other person. ‘Person’ is an inherently relational notion and the relations have to be between persons (who co-constitute the personal identities in relation).

So God, if personal, has to be inter-personally related. But that means you need a plurality of persons to exist necessarily. Where do you get them? You either (traditionally) get them by positing their existence as divine by virtue of consubstantial existence OR you get them by saying God necessarily creates worlds and relates to these worlds. The problems for the latter (process) view are fatal (for me). You can’t get the necessary ‘personal others’ for God to relate to just by supposing that God’s necessarily creates this world (or has been creating worlds like this forever), for not just any created entity will suffice. God needs a ‘maximally personal other’ if we’re going to say God is–necessarily–a maximally personal and loving being. That right there would (in my view) rule out ‘created personhood’ as filling the role of personal other for God. Has our world always, necessarily, been constituted by (among other things) ‘persons’? This world hasn’t. And why suppose (in fact HOW do we suppose) that if God’s always been creating, every world God’s ever created has from the moment of its inception contained maximally personal loving beings necessarily related to God (which is what you NEED if God’s essentially a maximally personal and loving being AND if God derives his personal identity from created beings).

But EVEN IF we were to suppose there have always existed ‘fully personal created beings’ (just saying it sounds weird), they’d be non-divine in nature, and I just don’t think they’d qualify to be the KIND of persons who could, through inter-relationship with God, empower God to be a divine person. God would derive his divine identity and personhood by relating to non-divine persons? I don’t see it.

The only way I see to get a maximally personal and loving God is to posit a plurality of persons whose relationality is uniquely divine and self-constituting. Jonathan Edwards’ paper on the Trinity (which Greg draws from big-time, though minus the determinism) works this out in a very cool way.

Many (maybe all) process theologians just bite the bullet and deny that God is necessarily personal. God ‘becomes’ personal and ‘achieves’ his personal being through time as creation evolves and personal created beings arrive on the scene. THEN God has personal others and becomes a personal being only by relating to them. Thus, God achieves his being over time via creation. What was God before personal others arrived on the scene? Who knows? But whatever he was, it wasn’t maximally personal love.

That was rushed and mangled. Sorry Sonia. I bet you’re thinking it woulda been better had I not said anything!

Pax,
Tom

#40

Jason.

you said: Incidentally, George MacDonald’s sermon on the Temptation of Jesus helped put a lot of things in perspective for me; his basic theme is that Satan tempted Jesus with good, not with evil. It’s a very thoughtful piece of work.

Aaron37: What? Satan tempted Jesus with good, not with evil? Huh?

First temptation: doubt the word of God. ( Jesus was hungry and the devil tempted his flesh or physical nature)
Second temptation: deny the word of God.( to test and prove his faith in God…The devil wanted Jesus to worship him.)
Third temptation: defy the person of God. ( defy the purpose why he came into the world. he came to redeem them, not to rule them.)

Please explain to me how this was good and not evil?

#41

It seems self-evident (to me) that your first statement is true. I’ll have to think more about the second statement.

Does anyone know offhand what “begotten” is in the Greek? If Jason is correct, and “begotten” doesn’t really have anything to do with the incarnation as such, then perhaps you’re right about the second statement as well. I’ll see what I can dig up.

#42

Mel.
Do you believe Jesus was God in the flesh?

#43

Depends on where you think the root came from (it’s 2:30 AM and I not gonna explain it well; Janson will!). It might not have anything to do at all with “birthing” or “begetting.” It may just come from the Greek for “kind.” So monogeneis would be “one of a kind” or simply “unique.”

Gotta sleep.

Tom

#44

Strong’s gives begotten as monogenes Which he defines as “only born, that is, sole”. The generative root word ginomai is given as “A prolonged and middle form of a primary verb; to cause to be, that is to become (come into being)”. Interestingly, ginomai is the same Greek word in John 1:14 where it says that the Word was made flesh.

On the surface of it, ginomai seems to indicate “to cause to be or come into being”. That sounds like creation to me, although in the case in question, in certainly a unique way.

I’m not sure if that’s much help…

#45

Mel.
Do you believe Jesus was God in the flesh?

#46

A37, I still have your posts blocked from appearing; although I can still see that you have posted. I thought you had gone?