Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek
Two substantial passages in which Paul commented on who Jesus was are Romans 1: 1–6 and Philippians 2: 5–11. In the first passage he states that Jesus was ‘descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead’. Paul says Jesus was ‘designated’ Son of God only at the time of the resurrection.
|
Yes but John the Baptist declared him the Son of God at his baptism.
Tim is the son of Bob. Did I become the son of Bob at my conception or my birth? It is only a question of importance in the abortion debate. Otherwise it is silly to argue the point.
In trying to state when Jesus became the Son of God (baptism or resurrection) it is equally unimportant.
The "Spirit of holiness" that raised Jesus from the dead was the same Spirit that came down at his baptism. There were not two visitations of the Spirit: one at his baptism and another at his resurrection.
Likewise the Spirit that raised Jesus lives in me, and it is by this same Spirit that I will be resurrected. I am both a child of God now, and will become a child of God at my resurrection.
My birth as a human was ordained by an act nine months earlier. Jesus' resurrection was assured when the Spirit entered him at his baptism.
This why both Paul and the Baptist are correct.
The reason why the debates rage on is due to the perversion introduced by Matthew and Luke. Now we debate all kinds of things as a result. Because of the perversion, we read John 1:14 as referring to Jesus' birth instead of reading it in the context of John 1:12-14. We argue whether or not "Jesus is God". We ignore or belittle the significance of Jesus' baptism, because we moved the "conception" up the timeline to his natural birth.
Why would the Spirit need to come down on God (or even the Son of God, if you make a distinction)? Trypho asked this question of Justin Martyr. Let's hear any of you try to answer it. C'mon, we've had 1900 years to come up with an answer.