Originally Posted by Mililalil XXIV
Many have wondered why one thing about JESUS is first stressed her, then another there, in defining WHO and WHAT HE is. Why, for example, is HE now called "GOD", then "SAVIOR", then "JUDGE", then "SON OF GOD", then "SON OF MAN", then "CHRIST", then some other NAME?
In emphasizing that a MAN in their midst be none other than GOD, HIS Disciples emphasized HIS Incarnation, defining both HIS IDENTITY primarily as GOD, and HIS DEITY in the prime Nature of that PERSON, on one hand, and HIS Humanity assumed, on the other. In so doing, the approach to stating the fact of the matter was as follows:
All Jews were expecting YAHWEH's Promises to all be fulfilled. This went for the opponents of CHRIST among the Jews as well as for the first Christians, all of which were Jews, some even being from the High Priest's family, and from the Pharisaical rabbinical council. The general preeminent expectation was for someone greater than all else of Israel to make an appearance soon. Most longed for was the MESSIAH. In agreement with all Scripture, the nation of Israel foresaw HIM to be a MAN of their nation WHO surpasses all other men. (Thus, for this reason alone, no Jew or Christian could ever think that Muhammad is the greatest man, nor even on par with the MESSIAH. While still in debate with Christians over the identity of the MESSIAH, non-Christian Jews agree with Christians that no other man than the MESSIAH can be on par with HIM.)
There is proof in the Dead Sea Scrolls that much of what Christians now believe was also considered Orthodox by Jewish sects that had no direct social standing with JESUS as many one day would, being in the right place at the right time. Many things I shall get into can be seen in those written remains of Qumran, showing that Christians shared a common religious background with many other Jews who had a lot in common after generations of intersectarian strife.
To open things up, let me focus on the concepts of "CHRIST", "SON OF GOD", and "GOD", with direct bearing on Christological Teaching.
In the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (which the oldest manuscripts show as existing in the same form as today, and not as an initial Isaiah Book with additional books appended on by some pseudepigraphical forger), we see statements that bespeak GOD as a SON. In Is. 7:11, GOD says to King Ahaz of Judah, "Ask thee a sign of YHWH thy `ELOHIM: ask it either in the depth, or in the height above." Keep this in mind while reading on as to the Sign GOD picks for him. Ahaz seems to despise the lofty Words as unworthy of using great Faith to respond to. Thus, what is ultimately promised is left to a future generation Ahaz wouldn't get to live in, while GOD knew how great a thing HE would accomplish, even if Ahaz weren't worthy to be around then to behold it.
In verse 13, Isaiah, as GOD's Oracle, turns over his address to all the House of David, and he addresses now no longer merely Ahaz. In verse 14, we read, "Therefore `ADHONAY HIMSELF shall give you a Sign: behold, the Virgin shall conceive, and bear a SON, and shall call HIS NAME 'IMMANUEL'." When he says "to you", he uses the second person plural, addressing the House of David he has just called upon as witnesses after hearing Ahaz' decline to name a Sign when enjoined by GOD so graciously to do so. Here we see that a SON of one called "the Virgin" (as understood by Hebrew-speaking, rabbinical translators centuries before CHRIST, in establishing the Greek Septuagint Translation), is called "WITH-US-IS-GOD", and that this great Sign mentioned is GOD's own suggestion for HIS original, lofty invitation to choose a Sign that is either in the depth or in the height below. The details make THIS SON to be of the House of David. Already, unless such a ONE is to be taken as able to be surpassed, HE must be the promised MESSIAH. Thus, some Disciple's first dialogues with their rabbinical opponents started not from calling JESUS "GOD", but from provong that HE fulfilled the Prophecies about the MESSIAH, and that HIS Miracles were well-known, and, being irrefutable as a fact, lent a second Witness to WHO HE is. Unless ONE greater than HE to be born of the Virgin of David's House, and WHOSE NAME is "IMMANUEL", and WHOSE Birth alone is comparable to the depth and to the height as a milestone Sign, was to come, then this had to be none other than the greatest MAN to be expected: the MESSIAH. Since no opponent could just say that HE was not GOD INCARNATE and be satisfied he had won his argument, the opposition sought to disprove HE was the MESSIAH (for, if they could prove that to be a lie, then their opponants had no further cause to show that, since the MESSIAH is also GOD, JESUS, as the proven MESSIAH is GOD).
If we read just a little further in Isaiah, we read (9:5), "For a CHILD is born unto us, a SON is given unto us; and the Government is upon HIS Shoulder; and HIS NAME is called PELE` [WONDERFUL] YO'ETS [COUNSELLOR] `EL-GIBBOR [GOD OF MIGHT] `AVI-'ADH [FATHER OF ETERNITY] SAR-SHALOM [RULER OF PEACE]." Seeing this, for good reason, as a further reference to IMMANUEL, we see that the SON given is also called a number of other things that all sound very divine. Thus, just from these prophetic Words alone, there was and is a consensus that there would be a DIVINE SON. Since such a one could never be equaled, nor surpassed by any mere MAN, and since the MESSIAH was shown to be the greatest MAN to ever expect, it was obvious that the MESSIAH would also be the SON OF GOD. And, since this was clearly a SON with GOD's own qualities, this was none other than GOD manifest in Human Form.
Paul clearly agreed with all the Church that JESUS is GOD, and that HE is ONE of THREE that are GOD. With that in mind, some have been baffled at his approach with his former peers among the Pharisees. But the obscurity is in a lack of understanding as to what all the Pharisees already believed, and what in particular they held against Christians. There is some evidence that Trinitarian passages and verses in the Hebrew Scriptures were understood in a Trinitarian manner before the time JESUS was born. Paul never found argument with rabbis over this. What they picked out to argue with was that Paul considered JESUS in particular, among men, to be that special PERSON of the GODHEAD, made MAN.
When Peter realized JESUS was the MESSIAH, he also put Faith in the understanding of the Prophecies to indicate that the SAME was the SON OF GOD, and confessed further that JESUS' being the MESSIAH also meant HE could rightly be called the SON OF GOD. The Pharisees, in hearing of HIS being the SON OF GOD, understood that if HE considered HIMSELF thus, HE considered it not robbery, then, to be EQUAL to GOD.
In all matters about GOD, many with a refined manner of argumentation spend most of their focus on what seem to be side issues, to fortify the supporting pillars that will, once demonstrated, make the things harder to prove at once, easy to come to as the one conclusion of a straight line of reason.
