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.
Mel.
Do you believe Jesus was God in the flesh?
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
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…
Mel.
Do you believe Jesus was God in the flesh?
A37, I still have your posts blocked from appearing; although I can still see that you have posted. I thought you had gone?
Mel.
Nope. Still here. Will you please answer the question?
Mel.
Ok… By your silence I’m assuming you do not. Mel, every person who does not confess Jesus is God in the flesh is not of God and has the spirit of the Antichrist. ( 1 John 4:2-3) If you didn’t know that now you know. If you do believe Jesus is God in the flesh…ignore this post.
Aaron37,
Mel can’t see the content of your posts. He can only see that you have posted, not what you’ve written. (Actually, I’m surprised that he can even see you posted!–but since I can’t foe anyone, I don’t have any direct experience with the experience of it I guess. 
)
1 John 4:2-3 does not, by the way, specifically say that Jesus is God in the flesh. (I’m a hyper-orthodox trinitarian theologian, and I would appeal to that verse as scriptural testimony if so, I assure you. )
What John says there is, “In this you know the spirit of God: every spirit which is avowing Jesus Christ having come in flesh, is out of God, and every spirit which is not avowing Jesus the Lord having come in flesh is not out of God. And this is that of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and is now already in the world.”
There is (I certainly avow) a massive amount of evidence to the effect that the NT authors are applying the divine plural ADNY (lords) to Jesus by means of the Greek ‘ho kurios’; and I think it’s proper to read that interpretation into 1 John 4:2-3 and its use of ‘kurios’ there. But strictly speaking, that’s the only way for the verse to definitely mean “Lord” as “God Most High”. Consequently, the verse cannot be used as scriptural evidence in favor of that contention. i.e. the contention cannot be read out of those verses, nor out of their immediate contexts. (Offhand, I can’t even find another use of “Lord” in 1 John, though possibly I just missed it.)
As to your other question–MacD is applying the principle that a lesser good when acted upon to the exclusion of a greater good, especially when it leads to just the kinds of things you mentioned, becomes an evil. The subtlety of the temptations is that each of them could easily be considered faithfulness to the Father in various ways, not rebellion.
But MacD goes into more detail than I have time to do at the moment.
Jason.
sigh. I’m a hyper-orthodox trinitarian theologian??? Ok…Anyway…John gives a measuring stick to determine whether the propagator of the message is a demon spirit or the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. This is the first test of a true teacher: they acknowledge and proclaim that Jesus is God incarnate in human flesh. The construction does not mean that they confess Christ as having come to earth, but that they confess that He came in the flesh to the earth, His human body was physically real. Both the full humanity and full deity of Jesus must be equally maintained by the teacher who is to be considered genuinely of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit testifies to the true nature of the Son, while Satan and his forces distort and deny that true nature.
Jason, all I see when A37 posts is a little block like what surrounds a regular post with the following in it:
This post was made by Aaron37 who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
If I click on the "display this post link, I can see the content of the post appearing as it normally would.
Aaron, he just did. You can react to explanation - but you CAN’T say he didn’t try to explain why he didn’t agree with you. It’s not being courteous and appreciative to his or anyone’s response to ignore the attempt as if it didn’t happen. Capish?
Ran.
I edited my post. You saw it before I edited it. Capish?
A37, I see that you’ve PM’d me again after I twice asked you not to. Please note that any further PM’s (including this most recent) will simply be deleted unread.
Mel.
Just thought you should know that if you do not think Jesus is God in the flesh you have the spirit of the Antichrist and your not a child of God.
While not specifically saying that, I think it IS saying that Jesus is God in the flesh if one let’s that verse harken back to the first sentence of this same epistle.
" That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched - this we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us."
Now, I suppose one could say that that opening doesn’t specifically say that Jesus is God either - but that’s missing the forest for the parsing…or arithmetic skills in adding 2 plus 2 and coming up with something other than the obvious.
Let us look at what the verse actually said:
James 1:13 …For God cannot be tempted by evil.
Again, as mentioned before concerning his usage of Romans the details of Scripture must be taken into account, not the straw man a person may create. It doesn’t say that God cannot be tempted, it says that God cannot be tempted by evil.
Now whether or not this appears to be rhetoric,what may appear as nuances, are significant. Whether or not God can be tempted is absent but that Scripture cannot be used to conclusively say that God cannot be tempted (again associating temptation with sin which is erroneous reasoning).
Matthew 4:3 the tempter came…
**1 Corinthians 10:13 ** No temptation has seized you except what is common to man.
So the act of tempting; enticement or allurement by another, regardless if one actually is enticed, or lured is called temptation.
Jim wanted a glass of water, but the clerk tempted him with coffee; Jim does not like coffee, and declines and insists on the glass of water.
If one is tempted by another, it also does not mean one has been given into temptation, only that he was tempted. The grammar does not exclusively mean that it addressed a weakness or a desire contrary.
So Jim was tempted with coffee, but there was no interest for coffee by Jim. The temptation of Jim by the tempter clerk failed in it’s attempt to tempt Jim who was not tempted by what the tempter is tempting although Jim was tempted.
So Jesus was tempted with evil because a tempter tempted him with it but Jesus is never tempted by evil to be tempted by it.
LOL, no, I’m glad for the intro to what seems to be an interesting concept. I’d like to look into it more. My initial, off the cuff, reaction is to wonder how likely it is that we can come to valid conclusions in that kind of reasoning about God–considering our very limited information. I’ll have to put Boyd’s paper on my reading list. Do you happen to have a link handy?
Thanks,
Sonia
No ‘paper’ to speak of, Sonia. It’s his doctoral dissertation.
Like Jason, I’m nutso for the Trinity. Wouldn’t know how to be a theist apart from that.
T
I doubt Adam, Moses, and David were trinitarians, although I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss OT reflection upon God’s nature as a personal and related being. The building blocks where there. And inasmuch as persons are only truly and ultimately revealed as persons in/through persons (not books or prophetic messages), connecting the dots to compose a full appreciation of God’s relational nature as maximally personal being only really becomes possible when Christ shows up. When I say I wouldn’t know how to be a theist without being a trinitarian, I’m speaking from where I’m located in this whole unfolding story of God’s saving acts and revelation in Christ.
Hugs,
Tom