logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline catherder  
#1 Posted : Tuesday, April 12, 2011 8:58:53 PM(UTC)
catherder
Joined: 3/9/2011(UTC)
Posts: 59
Location: in the mountains of Oregon

Their were some early Christians who believed not that Yeshua had always been divine, but that at some point in his life he was adopted by Yahweh, either at his birth, or at his baptism, or his resurrection. Luke 3:22, it was believed according to Luke’s version of the baptism of Yeshua, a voice comes from heaven, and at least in some of the manuscripts say, “Today I have begotten you.” Of course that is a quotation from Psalm 22, but the person quoting it is implying that Yeshua was adopted by Yahweh, or begotten by Yahweh at his baptism, not at his birth or before. Now if one disagreed with that interpretation, and if one is a good orthodox Christian, one should disagree with that interpretation, because that’s not now Christian orthodoxy. Orthodoxy in the way it is believed, think of it now, it didn’t exist of course in the first century in a fully defined way, it took a few centuries to develop. At that this time if one is an orthodox Christian, one is not supposed to believe that Yeshua was simply adopted by Yahweh at his baptism. If someone came to that person with that reading of that text in the Gospel of Luke, arguing for an adoptionist Christology, how would one argue against that interpretation? One might have argued, for example, by saying, let’s look at how this story is told, in say the Gospel of Mark or in other places, where that -today I have begotten you- is not found. One could say, well one is supposed to use Mark in order to interpret Luke, but the other interpreter could just come back and say, well Mark didn’t include it, but that’s not a denial of it. Luke obviously included it for some other reason.

One could also say, well that’s probably not what Luke meant, what the author of Luke meant to say, because Luke seems to have other passages in Luke and Acts, where it seems he’s accepting that Yeshua was divine in some sense before his baptism, maybe even at his birth, because the angels announce it, and there’s the worship of Yeshua that happens then. One could just come right back and say, well, who says? I mean this is the clearest key in Luke of when precisely Yeshua actually becomes the Son of Yahweh. It’s not contradicted by anything else in Luke, so one should take this verse much more heavily than what one is willing to take it.

http://thatlifeyahwehhas...08:00&max-results=12


Offline FredSnell  
#2 Posted : Wednesday, April 13, 2011 2:26:06 AM(UTC)
FredSnell
Joined: 1/29/2011(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Houston, Texas

Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Hey there, catherder! While I'm still on the bottom rung of YHWHs ladder, but trying, I see your logic with "One could just come right back and say, well, who says?" I think John may provide that answer. The 1st few verses tells us who and how long.
John

1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with YHWH, and the Word was YHWH.

1:2 The same was in the beginning with YHWH.

1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

1:6 There was a man sent from YHWH, whose name was John.

1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of YHWH, even to them that believe on his name:

1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of YHWH.

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.


These few verses alone are what give me trouble with anything that is not directly of YHWH. I think we know who I'm hinting at here? The "WORD", "YHWH", "Beginning." I think the WORD was in the beginning, meaning billions upon billions of yrs of trust had been built before we ever heard a sound.

Offline Richard  
#3 Posted : Wednesday, April 13, 2011 8:53:50 AM(UTC)
Richard
Joined: 1/19/2010(UTC)
Posts: 695
Man
United States

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
It seems we are forgetting that the messenger from Heaven told Miriam, "That thing which will be born of you will be called the Son of the Most High." There was no adoption taking place.

In another place, the Spirit of the Son declares, prophesying through a Tanakh writer, "A body You have prepared for Me: behold! I come to do Your will, O God!" Again, His emergence into the realm of humanity was carefully planned and arranged.

"Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." Does that not suggest somewhat strongly that He was truly with the Father before the physical universe was created?
Offline catherder  
#4 Posted : Wednesday, April 13, 2011 12:06:52 PM(UTC)
catherder
Joined: 3/9/2011(UTC)
Posts: 59
Location: in the mountains of Oregon

flintface wrote:
It seems we are forgetting that the messenger from Heaven told Miriam, "That thing which will be born of you will be called the Son of the Most High." There was no adoption taking place.

In another place, the Spirit of the Son declares, prophesying through a Tanakh writer, "A body You have prepared for Me: behold! I come to do Your will, O God!" Again, His emergence into the realm of humanity was carefully planned and arranged.

"Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." Does that not suggest somewhat strongly that He was truly with the Father before the physical universe was created?


I agree with you, I just showing some crazy teaching that have crept out of this adoption thing. Crazy what those creeds of man teach, and how those creeds of man came about.
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.