Preaching the Gospel, Preparing a People

The Nature of God

You are here

The Nature of God

Downloads
MP3 Audio (42.62 MB)

Downloads

The Nature of God

MP3 Audio (42.62 MB)
×

The God Being Who Came in the Flesh as Jesus Christ was also the God Being Who Interacted with Humans in the Old Testament

You might also be interested in....

Comments

  • Mat_Cauthon
    I think there's something wrong with arguing that they were not in a Father-Son relationship before Jesus was born in the flesh when there is no evidence of it, and certainly evidence to the contrary. To take a leaf from Mr. Metzel's book, if you examine a direct interlinear translation of Proverbs 30, you can see that it is not referring to someone else. "he confirmed all of limits of earth what? name of him and what? name of son of him". While this feels like awkward wording, it does agree with the adjusted translation, "Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son's name, if thou canst tell". This is referring to God the Father and Jesus Christ, since there is no one else who it could refer to. If it was referring to "Who can tell this, and what is his son's name", there would have to be at least a little reference to that, and there is not. Every word of God is pure, including Proverbs 30. It's there for a reason, and we can learn from it. As a question, where does it say that they were not in the relationship? It's important, so God would put it in, 2 Pet 1:3.
  • metzeld
    Hi Again Mat August 29, 2017 Part 5 You mention the phrase, “You shall have no other God’s before Me”, ….shows that there cannot be two (2) Beings of equal eminence. Actually you missed one of the main points of the sermon and I suggest you listen to it again. The word “God” represents a Family or Kind of Being and it may also refer to individual members of that Family. So there is no problem saying, “You shall have no other Gods before Me”, when you are talking about the God Family as a unit, even though there are two (2) members of that Family at that time.
  • metzeld
    Hi Again Mat August 29, 2017 Part 4 You also mention that people heard the Father’s voice when Christ was baptized. The Bible does not say that. It says that people heard “a voice”. Please refer to an article we have, https://www.ucg.org/world-news-and-prophecy/thy-kingdom-come. You also mention Proverbs 30 again. I have addressed this question in a previous message and I sent you a link where you can find additional information. I hope you check out the link as I think it will be helpful to you
  • metzeld
    Hi Again Mat August 29, 2017 Part 3 You refer to John 5:37 and apply this verse only to the Pharisees who heard His voice. John 5:37 says, You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. I think we both agree that Christ was referring to the Father. John 1:18         No one has seen God (the Father) at any time – the Son declared Him John 6:46         Not that anyone has seen the Father – except Jesus Christ 1 John 4:12      No one has seen God at any time If your understanding is correct, how would we know in other instances whether Jesus was talking only to those who were hearing His voice or for all mankind. For example: Mat 5:21-26 He said to not murder or to hate Mat 5:27-30 He said to not commit adultery or to lust How would we know if He was talking to just those who heard His voice or to all mankind? I know that is a silly question, He obviously is talking to all. But how would we know that He was talking to all mankind in Matthew but in John 5:37 He was only talking to those at that time? And why would Christ have to declare (reveal) the Father if He was known?
  • metzeld
    Hi Again Mat August 29, 2017 Part 2 You put a lot of weight in the phrase, “No one believed whom He sent”. Actually, that statement is as true today as the day it was spoken. Obviously some few (very few) did believe when it was spoken, but most did not believe back then and the same is true today.
  • metzeld
    Hi Again Mat, August 29, 2017 Part 1 You wrote that, “You do not see the difficulty saying that the Father and the Son have been Father and Son from eternity”. The question is not whether you see a difficulty or not, the question is whether it is true or not. Your opinion or my opinion does not count. The fact is the Bible says that there are two (2) eternal beings and that have existed from eternity. It does not define the relationship between the two (2) beings before Christ came to earth as a human. Some believe as you do and others believe that they were equal in all aspects, but it is not clearly spelled out. You refer to Psalm 2. I think we both can agree that this psalm is clearly prophetic. Verse 2 talks about God’s Anointed, Verse 6 talks about My King, Verse 7 talks about My Son – today I have begotten you, Verses 8 – 9 talks about the Son ruling over nations, - all of these are prophetic. It would be a stretch to say that most are prophetic and that the Son is in the past. You wrote about multiple subjects, so I have multiple responses.
  • Mat_Cauthon
    I posted a few responses about a month ago, but they never came through for some reason. I will try to sum them up in a single comment. Responses to "part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5". Part 2. In this you agree with me. "Obviously some few did believe when it was spoken". Saying this you show that what my point was was correct. Some few did believe, some few did hear, etc. Part 3. "How would we know that He was talking to all mankind"? When it is supported elsewhere in scripture. Part 4. That link uses circular reasoning. It references John 5:37 which I already proved was not applicable. As to Proverbs 30, I brought more to the table which was not covered in the link, or your response. Please respond to what I write, don't simply repeat yourself when it's not applicable. Part 5. The wording is very important. "Me". There is one being speaking. God and Christ don't talk in unison (as far as the Bible says). "I am the LORD most high" is a single being speaking. It's the difference in Guardians of the Galaxy between "I am Groot" and "We are Groot". One versus multiple. "I am the LORD most high" is the first case. (No disrespect meant). There is one LORD most high, the Father.
  • metzeld
    Hi Again Mat, It seems that communication has broken down between us. You either do not understand or accept what I have already said and I certainly do not agree with you regardless of what you said above. It seems that we are talking past each other to no good purpose for either of us, so I think at this point it is best for us to go our separate ways and continue to study God’s Word for further understanding. Also remember, it is not what you know that counts with God, but what you do with what you know. May God bless you in your further study of His Word and as you do His will.
  • Mat_Cauthon
    I apologize if that came across as argumentative. I was trying to be terse, as I was running up against the 1200 character limit, and I had already considered several of the counter arguments which I discussed, and used against myself. Other places I see God the Father talking to people are when Jesus was baptized ("This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased"), in Psalms, where David quotes him as 'The LORD said to my lord: "Sit at my right hand..."', and several others. One other thing that just occurred to me is this. If God the Father and Jesus Christ were exactly the same before Christ came down, how could there be the commandment "You shall have no other gods before me"? There cannot, as I see it, be the "LORD most high" if there are two beings of identical eminence. So there have to either be two who are equal but not identical (A Wrinkle in Time, if you're into literature, discusses something along these lines", or only one being; God or Christ. We believe in one God Being, where God and Christ are one, but we believe in both of them. To say that they were of equal eminence would be to nullify part of the bible, or one of them. Thanks, sorry for the tone, 1200 charac--
  • Steven Britt
    Hi Mat - your central question is whether the Father-Son relationship existed before Jesus' human birth, and I think your process could benefit by looking at the big picture. What does it mean for Jesus to be the "Son of God," or what does it even mean to be a "son"? One can follow the human analogy to say that there must have been some process of conception/birth for Jesus to become the Son of God, while the alternative is to assert that the analogy breaks down regarding Jesus and the Father. In the latter case, the process of entering that relationship is simply an abstract agreement between the two. However, either understanding points to an event that happened at a distinct point in time, not an eternity-past mode of existence. And we're still left wondering whether the Father-Son relationship began before the Word became flesh or after. If it happened at some point before, the Scriptures are silent about the process itself. However, Jesus being conceived by the Father through a literal human birth process that made Him unambiguously the Son of God in plain human language, and then again when He was resurrected He became the "firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18).
  • Mat_Cauthon
    Part 1. What about Psalm 2? It mentions the Son several times, especially clearly in verse 12. I guess I don't see the difficulty with saying that the Father and Son have been Father and Son from eternity, choosing rather to adjust scripture to show that they haven't been. Two beings can be on the same plane of equality without being identical. Part 2. If Jesus was not talking only the the Jews (Or rather the Pharisees; I incorrectly stated it earlier), rather speaking to everyone, then not only would he be stating that no one had heard the Father, but also that no one believed in whom He sent. This, however, is clearly a contradiction, therefore showing the truth that Jesus was only talking to the Pharisees. Being a mathematician, I like using proofs such as this, though they can be confusing for others sometimes. Use wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction as a reference. After all, who would venture to rest the proof of [whether the Father speaks] on such a text? Nowhere else in scripture does it say anything about the Father not speaking. Also, even in John 5:37, it doesn't mention "No one", rather choosing "You". Please help my understanding of this complex topic.
  • Steven Britt
    Psalm 2:7 refers to a future time, as it starts with "I will declare... You are My Son, today I have begotten You." Again in 2 Samuel 7:14, the future tense is used: "I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son." Both of these verses are quoted in Hebrews 1:5 dealing with the Father-Son relationship, and both of them were written in future tense before the coming of Jesus, whereas in the New Testament Jesus is referred to as the Son of God in the present tense consistently throughout. From a purely philosophical standpoint, I don't know if there really is a difficulty with the Father/Son relationship extending into eternity; however, as far as I can tell, the bible simply doesn't indicate that it was so. On a personal note, I'm also a mathematician! The bible is a wonderful object for analytical study, and those logic skills definitely come in handy.
  • Mat_Cauthon
    I have a question about the first few minutes. If God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son were not in a Father-Son relationship before Jesus Christ came to earth in the New Testament, who is being referred to in Proverbs 30:4. "Who has ascended into heaven, or descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son’s name, If you know?". This seems to me to be referring to God the Father, and it mentions "What is His Son's name", referring to the fact that He had a Son. Also, John 5:37 is the only place in the bible where it specifies that "You have neither heard His voice at any time". It continues "But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe". This is not referencing everyone, rather a specific group, in this case the Jews. Other places say that you have not seen the Father (His face, visage, etc.), but nowhere that you have not heard Him. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to say that He spoke to people, e.g. Hebrews 1:1 where it specifically says the Father spoke to the prophets before sending His Son.
  • metzeld
    Hi Again Mat, Second Part – your comment regarding John 5:37 and Hebrews 1:1 John 5:37 says that no one has heard His (The Father’s voice) at any time. To add the restriction that Christ was talking only to the Jewish audience at that time is adding a restriction that is not necessarily there. Looking closely at Hebrews 1:1, it does not specifically say that the Father spoke to the prophets before sending His Son. It says that He spoke to the fathers by the prophets. Other translations say He spoke through the prophets. How did He communicate with the prophets? He communicated in visions and dreams (Numbers 12:6 – 8). So this verse is consistent with John 5:37. I hope this helps and again I wish you well in the study of God’s Word. Regards, David Metzel
  • metzeld
    Hi Mat, Thank you for your question and comment. First Part– your question regarding Proverbs 30:4. This verse is not necessarily referring to God the Father and God the Son. It is likely that the author is asking, “Who knows – and what is his son’s name”. That is another way of asking, what man or his son have knowledge. See the United Church of God Bible Commentary, which quotes other sources, that provide alternate explanations at http://bible.ucg.org/bible-commentary/Proverbs/Confession-of-Agur/. Other translations use the word “child” or “children” instead of the word “son”. Adam Clarke’s One Volume Commentary says regarding Proverbs 30:4, “it may be so (that this verse refers to God the Father and God the Son), but who would venture to rest the proof of that most glorious doctrine on such a text, to say nothing of the obscure author.” He goes on and says to be very careful with the scriptures. So this verse does not show that the Father Son relationship existed before Christ was begotten as a human. I hope this helps and I wish you well in the study of God’s Word. Regards, David Metzel
  • Join the conversation!

    Log in or register to post comments