Quote:
Originally Posted by Timotheist
Yes but John the Baptist declared him the Son of God at his baptism.
|
And Peter declared Him the Son of God on the mountain. The Roman centurion declared Him to be the Son of God too on the cross.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timotheist
In trying to state when Jesus became the Son of God (baptism or resurrection) it is equally unimportant.
|
If it is "equally unimportant," why won't you accept the whole Bible which identifies Jesus as the Son of God at conception?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timotheist
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.
|
And likewise this same Spirit of God visited Mary at her conception. (Matt 1.18, 20; Luke 1.35)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timotheist
The reason why the debates rage on is due to the perversion introduced by Matthew and Luke.
|
Debates have raged since the dawn of time. Didn't Cain kill Abel over one? Needless to say, the "perversion" did not come via Matthew and Luke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timotheist
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.
|
I don't know how you read the Bible, but I read John 1.12-14 in context of John. John 1.12-13 refer to those who "receive Him," and is the end of a sub-section which started with John 1.10, while John 1.14 is a direct continuation of John 1.1-5 concerning the Word of God.