An old question- Was Jesus God?

[Razeontherock]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory,the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Apparently John thought that Jesus is God.

John the beloved, John the theologian, John the revelator. There's a really good axiom for understanding Scripture: if you're ever in doubt or conflict about meaning, GO WITH JOHN! Not only does he have a way of making (most) things plainly understood,
what he presents us with is very strong, theologically. And what tenet of the Faith that is of primary importance does he not address?

 

[LovethroughDove]

https://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry...here-did-my-dna-come-from-and-why-it-matters/

Hi all. This link was to clarify my point about 50% mother side, 50% father side. We're not 100/100

 

[LovethroughDove]

I want to make it perfectly clear that I do believe Jesus is God, just because I see his DNA as 1/2 human DNA.

 

[Razeontherock]

I want to make it perfectly clear that I do believe Jesus is God, just because I see his DNA as 1/2 human DNA.

Just a question: does this mean it's biologically impossible for Mary to have furnished all the DNA?

 

[LovethroughDove]

Just a question: does this mean it's biologically impossible for Mary to have furnished all the DNA?

Scripturally and biologically that would be "yes". The 2 together show this.

 

[Runner]

Being non-denominational means I don't need any organised religion to do my thinking for me..;)

And therein lies your answer.

The segment of Christianity represented by this forum requires a particular and very strict view of biblical inerrancy. This view requires that all books and verses be harmonized. To admit the existence of disharmony would be contrary to the strict view of inerrancy held by this segment of Christianity.

Thus, those who hold this view must harmonize those verses suggesting that (1) Jesus is not divine at all; (2) Jesus is divine as the only begotten son but is not on the same level as the Father; and (3) Jesus is the divine second person of the Trinity (i.e., "Jesus is God"). To harmonize these three sets of verses virtually requires that strict inerrantists opt for number (3) since numbers (1) and (2) can be explained away or subsumed within number (3), whereas number (3) cannot easily be subsumed within (1) or (2). Ergo, members of this segment of Christianity inevitably hold to the doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus as the second person thereof.

To hold to the doctrine of the Trinity is like the "secret handshake" for being a member of this segment of Christianity (which is, of course, a very large segment). And even among those Christians without such a strict view of inerrancy, the doctrine is widely held - to such an extent that those who do not hold it, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, are often accused of not being Christians at all solely on this basis. It often seems to me that those for whom the Trinity is a critical issue are more interested in defending what they regard as "doctrinal purity" than in examining what they really believe and why. "We believe the Trinity because ... well ... well ... because you gotta believe it to be a Christian!"

Someone who thinks for himself - you and I - may see that the Trinity is not clearly set forth in the Bible at all and that the verses regarding the nature of Jesus (including those purporting to be from his own mouth) are all over the map. They cannot reasonably be harmonized. I and apparently you are not interested in being card-carrying members of any particular segment of Christianity or in what someone else thinks constitutes "doctrinal purity." I am interested only in what my own experiences, observations, studies and intuition tell me is most likely to be true and in what I am constitutionally capable of believing.

The fact is, the nature of Jesus was one of the raging debates of early Christianity. The fact is, the Trinity is a heavily negotiated, man-made doctrine. It emerged as the "winner" after a long process of debate and political intrigue. It may well be the best approximation of the actual nature of God (I don't happen to think so, but it may be). Authors such as Larry Hurtado have shown that the divinity of Jesus was one of the earliest Christian doctrines, but "divine" does not inevitably mean "one member of a triune godhead." It is entirely possible (I am not promoting this) that Jesus did not exist at all before the Incarnation and is "divine" only in the sense of having been fathered by the Holy Spirit.

I happen to believe that if God were a triune God and we were supposed to worship Jesus as the second person of the godhead, these facts would have been made far more clear in the Bible than they actually are and would have appeared far more clearly in the earliest Christian writings than they actually do. My best understanding of the gospels is similar to yours. Notwithstanding the words placed in his mouth, notably in the Gospel of John, I believe on the basis of verses such as the ones you cite that the real Jesus might have been aghast at any notion he was the second person of a Trinity. I don't "object" to the Trinity as a useful way of "thinking about" God and Jesus, but I have great doubt that it is ontologically true and certainly don't believe that holding the doctrine is essential to being a Christian.

The reason I don't post here anymore is that any attempt at discussion between a Christian who thinks for himself and a group of Christians who define themselves (and the Christian faith) by reference to some creed of orthodoxy is essentially futile. Jesus' question "“But who do you say that I am?” (Matt. 16:15, NASB) is one that I believe each person must answer for himself or herself.

 

[Selah]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory,the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Apparently John thought that Jesus is God.

That I think is because Disciple John was told by Jesus that, "I (Jesus) and the Father are one."

 

[Selah]

And therein lies your answer.

The segment of Christianity represented by this forum requires a particular and very strict view of biblical inerrancy. This view requires that all books and verses be harmonized. To admit the existence of disharmony would be contrary to the strict view of inerrancy held by this segment of Christianity.

Thus, those who hold this view must harmonize those verses suggesting that (1) Jesus is not divine at all; (2) Jesus is divine as the only begotten son but is not on the same level as the Father; and (3) Jesus is the divine second person of the Trinity (i.e., "Jesus is God"). To harmonize these three sets of verses virtually requires that strict inerrantists opt for number (3) since numbers (1) and (2) can be explained away or subsumed within number (3), whereas number (3) cannot easily be subsumed within (1) or (2). Ergo, members of this segment of Christianity inevitably hold to the doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus as the second person thereof.

To hold to the doctrine of the Trinity is like the "secret handshake" for being a member of this segment of Christianity (which is, of course, a very large segment). And even among those Christians without such a strict view of inerrancy, the doctrine is widely held - to such an extent that those who do not hold it, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, are often accused of not being Christians at all solely on this basis. It often seems to me that those for whom the Trinity is a critical issue are more interested in defending what they regard as "doctrinal purity" than in examining what they really believe and why. "We believe the Trinity because ... well ... well ... because you gotta believe it to be a Christian!"

Someone who thinks for himself - you and I - may see that the Trinity is not clearly set forth in the Bible at all and that the verses regarding the nature of Jesus (including those purporting to be from his own mouth) are all over the map. They cannot reasonably be harmonized. I and apparently you are not interested in being card-carrying members of any particular segment of Christianity or in what someone else thinks constitutes "doctrinal purity." I am interested only in what my own experiences, observations, studies and intuition tell me is most likely to be true and in what I am constitutionally capable of believing.

The fact is, the nature of Jesus was one of the raging debates of early Christianity. The fact is, the Trinity is a heavily negotiated, man-made doctrine. It emerged as the "winner" after a long process of debate and political intrigue. It may well be the best approximation of the actual nature of God (I don't happen to think so, but it may be). Authors such as Larry Hurtado have shown that the divinity of Jesus was one of the earliest Christian doctrines, but "divine" does not inevitably mean "one member of a triune godhead." It is entirely possible (I am not promoting this) that Jesus did not exist at all before the Incarnation and is "divine" only in the sense of having been fathered by the Holy Spirit.

I happen to believe that if God were a triune God and we were supposed to worship Jesus as the second person of the godhead, these facts would have been made far more clear in the Bible than they actually are and would have appeared far more clearly in the earliest Christian writings than they actually do. My best understanding of the gospels is similar to yours. Notwithstanding the words placed in his mouth, notably in the Gospel of John, I believe on the basis of verses such as the ones you cite that the real Jesus might have been aghast at any notion he was the second person of a Trinity. I don't "object" to the Trinity as a useful way of "thinking about" God and Jesus, but I have great doubt that it is ontologically true and certainly don't believe that holding the doctrine is essential to being a Christian.

The reason I don't post here anymore is that any attempt at discussion between a Christian who thinks for himself and a group of Christians who define themselves (and the Christian faith) by reference to some creed of orthodoxy is essentially futile. Jesus' question "“But who do you say that I am?” (Matt. 16:15, NASB) is one that I believe each person must answer for himself or herself.

What segment of Christianity would you be referring to?

 

[JohnDB]

That I think is because Disciple John was told by Jesus that, "I (Jesus) and the Father are one."

Jesus also referred to Himself as "The Son of Man" same as Nebachadnessar did to the fourth "person" in the furnace where Shadrach, Meshack and Abednego were placed.

 

[Selah]

Jesus also referred to Himself as "The Son of Man" same as Nebachadnessar did to the fourth "person" in the furnace where Shadrach, Meshack and Abednego were placed.

Yes, the glory of the Lord God in flesh appeared as a son of a man. Because he could not otherwise bring the new covenant to man.
"And again he said: Thou canst not see my face: for man shall not see me and live."

 

[PeterJens]

And therein lies your answer.

The segment of Christianity represented by this forum requires a particular and very strict view of biblical inerrancy. This view requires that all books and verses be harmonized. To admit the existence of disharmony would be contrary to the strict view of inerrancy held by this segment of Christianity.

Thus, those who hold this view must harmonize those verses suggesting that (1) Jesus is not divine at all; (2) Jesus is divine as the only begotten son but is not on the same level as the Father; and (3) Jesus is the divine second person of the Trinity (i.e., "Jesus is God"). To harmonize these three sets of verses virtually requires that strict inerrantists opt for number (3) since numbers (1) and (2) can be explained away or subsumed within number (3), whereas number (3) cannot easily be subsumed within (1) or (2). Ergo, members of this segment of Christianity inevitably hold to the doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus as the second person thereof.

To hold to the doctrine of the Trinity is like the "secret handshake" for being a member of this segment of Christianity (which is, of course, a very large segment). And even among those Christians without such a strict view of inerrancy, the doctrine is widely held - to such an extent that those who do not hold it, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, are often accused of not being Christians at all solely on this basis. It often seems to me that those for whom the Trinity is a critical issue are more interested in defending what they regard as "doctrinal purity" than in examining what they really believe and why. "We believe the Trinity because ... well ... well ... because you gotta believe it to be a Christian!"

Someone who thinks for himself - you and I - may see that the Trinity is not clearly set forth in the Bible at all and that the verses regarding the nature of Jesus (including those purporting to be from his own mouth) are all over the map. They cannot reasonably be harmonized. I and apparently you are not interested in being card-carrying members of any particular segment of Christianity or in what someone else thinks constitutes "doctrinal purity." I am interested only in what my own experiences, observations, studies and intuition tell me is most likely to be true and in what I am constitutionally capable of believing.

The fact is, the nature of Jesus was one of the raging debates of early Christianity. The fact is, the Trinity is a heavily negotiated, man-made doctrine. It emerged as the "winner" after a long process of debate and political intrigue. It may well be the best approximation of the actual nature of God (I don't happen to think so, but it may be). Authors such as Larry Hurtado have shown that the divinity of Jesus was one of the earliest Christian doctrines, but "divine" does not inevitably mean "one member of a triune godhead." It is entirely possible (I am not promoting this) that Jesus did not exist at all before the Incarnation and is "divine" only in the sense of having been fathered by the Holy Spirit.

I happen to believe that if God were a triune God and we were supposed to worship Jesus as the second person of the godhead, these facts would have been made far more clear in the Bible than they actually are and would have appeared far more clearly in the earliest Christian writings than they actually do. My best understanding of the gospels is similar to yours. Notwithstanding the words placed in his mouth, notably in the Gospel of John, I believe on the basis of verses such as the ones you cite that the real Jesus might have been aghast at any notion he was the second person of a Trinity. I don't "object" to the Trinity as a useful way of "thinking about" God and Jesus, but I have great doubt that it is ontologically true and certainly don't believe that holding the doctrine is essential to being a Christian.

The reason I don't post here anymore is that any attempt at discussion between a Christian who thinks for himself and a group of Christians who define themselves (and the Christian faith) by reference to some creed of orthodoxy is essentially futile. Jesus' question "“But who do you say that I am?” (Matt. 16:15, NASB) is one that I believe each person must answer for himself or herself.

The above proposition is more than just trying to harmonise a few verses.
If Jesus is not God, the whole reason for His coming to earth, His gospel, the
sending of the Holy Spirit, morality, oneness with God through Jesus, walking
in the Spirit and not the flesh, become ideas which do not make sense.

What you find in various sects or sub divisions from othordoxy, is they have to
rewrite sections of scripture and put on meanings which the writers clearly did
not mean. And Jesus is saying something very profound. He declares His sheep
listen to His voice. So if you find someone teaching something that contradicts
His voice, you know they are not part of His sheep. It is really this simple.

And I know from experience those who reject this simple declaration are not listening
to Jesus by definition, and that for just excludes them from me listening to them.

My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.
John 10:27-28

 

[Runner]

His gospel, the sending of the Holy Spirit, morality, oneness with God through Jesus, walking in the Spirit and not the flesh, become ideas which do not make sense.

The "Christian essential," as I see it - even from an ultra-conservative Christian perspective, which frankly isn't my own - is that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus were sufficient in God's view to satisfy his requirement for justice, to reconcile fallen humanity to him, and to afford individual humans who respond to his gift the means of salvation. I do not see any respect in which the Christian faith does "not make sense" if Jesus was "merely" the only begotten son of God but not the second person of a Trinity (or, for that matter, how it does not make sense if Jesus had no existence before his conception in Mary's womb).

A Jesus who is something less than the second person of a Trinity may not "fit" one's notion of Christianity if one begins with a set of assumptions (i.e., a creed) as to how Christianity is "supposed to work," but this is putting the cart before the horse. This is why I asked on another thread what people thought were the true Christian essentials - and frankly I got no good answers because most people are too locked into doctrinal creeds to think outside those creeds. The essential, in my opinion, is that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus were sufficient in God's view to satisfy his requirement for justice, to reconcile fallen humanity to him, and to afford individual humans who respond to his gift the means of salvation - none of which necessarily depends on Jesus being the second person of a Trinity or having any particular nature at all.

His sheep listen to His voice.

OK, but his voice includes all the verses Poor Old Spike has quoted, which are probably more historically reliable than the "Jesus is God" verses on which Trinitarians rely. You think you are listening to his voice, Spike thinks he is listening to his voice, and I think I am listening to his voice.

When you state, "What you find in various sects or sub divisions from orthodoxy, is they have to rewrite sections of scripture and put on meanings which the writers clearly did not mean," I can just as easily turn this around and say (as Spike more or less already has): "What you find in those who claim to be orthodox is that they must ignore and/or manipulate large swaths of scripture in order to preserve their supposed orthodoxy." The fact is (I believe) that scripture is riddled with inconsistencies that are impossible to reconcile, confusion and conflicts about doctrine have been endemic to Christianity since the earliest days, "orthodox" or "mainstream" Christianity is merely one way that the confusion and conflicts have been negotiated into a more-or-less settled creed, and while most people find a comfortable landing spot within orthodoxy there are those of us who insist on thinking for ourselves and who are unwilling to accept doctrines that are inconsistent with our own experiences, observations, studies and intuition and in which we are constitutionally incapable of believing.

 

[Razeontherock]

And therein lies your answer.

The segment of Christianity represented by this forum requires a particular and very strict view of biblical inerrancy. This view requires that all books and verses be harmonized. To admit the existence of disharmony would be contrary to the strict view of inerrancy held by this segment of Christianity.

Thus, those who hold this view must harmonize those verses suggesting that (1) Jesus is not divine at all; (2) Jesus is divine as the only begotten son but is not on the same level as the Father; and (3) Jesus is the divine second person of the Trinity (i.e., "Jesus is God"). To harmonize these three sets of verses virtually requires that strict inerrantists opt for number (3) since numbers (1) and (2) can be explained away or subsumed within number (3), whereas number (3) cannot easily be subsumed within (1) or (2). Ergo, members of this segment of Christianity inevitably hold to the doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus as the second person thereof.

To hold to the doctrine of the Trinity is like the "secret handshake" for being a member of this segment of Christianity (which is, of course, a very large segment). And even among those Christians without such a strict view of inerrancy, the doctrine is widely held - to such an extent that those who do not hold it, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, are often accused of not being Christians at all solely on this basis. It often seems to me that those for whom the Trinity is a critical issue are more interested in defending what they regard as "doctrinal purity" than in examining what they really believe and why. "We believe the Trinity because ... well ... well ... because you gotta believe it to be a Christian!"

Someone who thinks for himself - you and I - may see that the Trinity is not clearly set forth in the Bible at all and that the verses regarding the nature of Jesus (including those purporting to be from his own mouth) are all over the map. They cannot reasonably be harmonized. I and apparently you are not interested in being card-carrying members of any particular segment of Christianity or in what someone else thinks constitutes "doctrinal purity." I am interested only in what my own experiences, observations, studies and intuition tell me is most likely to be true and in what I am constitutionally capable of believing.

The fact is, the nature of Jesus was one of the raging debates of early Christianity. The fact is, the Trinity is a heavily negotiated, man-made doctrine. It emerged as the "winner" after a long process of debate and political intrigue. It may well be the best approximation of the actual nature of God (I don't happen to think so, but it may be). Authors such as Larry Hurtado have shown that the divinity of Jesus was one of the earliest Christian doctrines, but "divine" does not inevitably mean "one member of a triune godhead." It is entirely possible (I am not promoting this) that Jesus did not exist at all before the Incarnation and is "divine" only in the sense of having been fathered by the Holy Spirit.

I happen to believe that if God were a triune God and we were supposed to worship Jesus as the second person of the godhead, these facts would have been made far more clear in the Bible than they actually are and would have appeared far more clearly in the earliest Christian writings than they actually do. My best understanding of the gospels is similar to yours. Notwithstanding the words placed in his mouth, notably in the Gospel of John, I believe on the basis of verses such as the ones you cite that the real Jesus might have been aghast at any notion he was the second person of a Trinity. I don't "object" to the Trinity as a useful way of "thinking about" God and Jesus, but I have great doubt that it is ontologically true and certainly don't believe that holding the doctrine is essential to being a Christian.

The reason I don't post here anymore is that any attempt at discussion between a Christian who thinks for himself and a group of Christians who define themselves (and the Christian faith) by reference to some creed of orthodoxy is essentially futile. Jesus' question "“But who do you say that I am?” (Matt. 16:15, NASB) is one that I believe each person must answer for himself or herself.

You could not hold a conversation with me and pretend that I don't think for myself. Not at any age. Not when I was 5, not now, nor at any point in between. Yet that is the claim you just made.

I consider myself to be impossible to offend. You managed. I'll get over it.

 

[WIP]

He doesn't want fawning servants, he wants MATES, so I'd certainly give him a big hug..
"You're my friends if you follow me. I don't call you servants, but I call you friends"- (John 15:15)

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you are on an equal plane with Jesus?

 

[Runner]

You could not hold a conversation with me and pretend that I don't think for myself.

Lest there be any confusion, my point is not that it would be impossible for someone who thinks for himself to arrive at the conclusion "The doctrine of the Trinity is correct and Jesus is God." To say that would be ridiculous.

My point to Spike was that the fact he thinks for himself and does not align himself with any denomination is why he, like me, is able to reach his own conclusions on these matters regardless of what "orthodoxy" says.

The fact is, "orthodoxy" comprises a large segment of sheeple who have never given any thought whatsoever to what they actually believe. Not everyone, certainly, but many.

The fact is, once one buys into a particular creed, one is forced to at least pay lip service to every element of that creed regardless of whether he actually believes it or has given any thought to it. And that's why I, like Spike, go my own way. I decided long ago I was no longer going to play sheeple games. I will adopt the "creed" (such as it is) that my experiences, observations, studies and intuition lead me to conclude is the closest approximation of the Truth. If your mileage varies, that is not my concern - which is why I am no longer interested in debating on these forums.

I do not reject the Trinity. It is simply not a doctrine that I believe reflects the best understanding of scripture or the early Christian writings or Jesus' self-understanding. Moreover, I believe it is unintelligible and generally unhelpful. It is a man-made concept, an attempt to comprehend the incomprehensible. I believe God is transcendent and far more mysterious than the human term Trinity. But if your conclusion is different, go for it.

 

[brujaq]

"Poor Old Spike, post: 1459164, member: 12993"]Right, when Jesus said "Father take this cup from me", my opinion is that he was speaking to God.
Or was he speaking to himself?

Hebrews 4:15, KJV: "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are,(as a man) yet without sin."
He was speaking to God the Father as a man .. God suffered in all ways as a man . God himself became our sacrifice, only God could do that for us .. Jesus , Emmanuel, God with us ..

 

[brujaq]

Jesus could have turned stone into bread when he was hungry, called a legion of angel to rescue himself but God chose to suffer as a man for us even suffer death and hell for us .. That's a big mighty God .. If I could call a legion of angels no one would be left but me probably or ether everyone would be mindless robots with no free choice with no love .. At the least I would have been on the first donkey out of town before they put me willingly on a cross for nothing, but I ain't God .. I might dream I could, but I'm for real .. And for an ungrateful stinking world, I don't think so, nada

 

[Razeontherock]

Lest there be any confusion, my point is not that it would be impossible for someone who thinks for himself to arrive at the conclusion "The doctrine of the Trinity is correct and Jesus is God." To say that would be ridiculous.

My point to Spike was that the fact he thinks for himself and does not align himself with any denomination is why he, like me, is able to reach his own conclusions on these matters regardless of what "orthodoxy" says.

The fact is, "orthodoxy" comprises a large segment of sheeple who have never given any thought whatsoever to what they actually believe. Not everyone, certainly, but many.

The fact is, once one buys into a particular creed, one is forced to at least pay lip service to every element of that creed regardless of whether he actually believes it or has given any thought to it. And that's why I, like Spike, go my own way. I decided long ago I was no longer going to play sheeple games. I will adopt the "creed" (such as it is) that my experiences, observations, studies and intuition lead me to conclude is the closest approximation of the Truth. If your mileage varies, that is not my concern - which is why I am no longer interested in debating on these forums.

I do not reject the Trinity. It is simply not a doctrine that I believe reflects the best understanding of scripture or the early Christian writings or Jesus' self-understanding. Moreover, I believe it is unintelligible and generally unhelpful. It is a man-made concept, an attempt to comprehend the incomprehensible. I believe God is transcendent and far more mysterious than the human term Trinity. But if your conclusion is different, go for it.

This is a great follow-up, thank you!

 

[Razeontherock]

"Poor Old Spike, post: 1459164, member: 12993"]Right, when Jesus said "Father take this cup from me", my opinion is that he was speaking to God.
Or was he speaking to himself?

Hebrews 4:15, KJV: "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are,(as a man) yet without sin."
He was speaking to God the Father as a man .. God suffered in all ways as a man . God himself became our sacrifice, only God could do that for us .. Jesus , Emmanuel, God with us ..

Yes, exactly. Jesus' crucifixion accomplishes nothing if He is not God.

 

[Razeontherock]

Jesus could have turned stone into bread when he was hungry, called a legion of angel to rescue himself but God chose to suffer as a man for us even suffer death and hell for us .. That's a big mighty God .. If I could call a legion of angels no one would be left but me probably or ether everyone would be mindless robots with no free choice with no love .. At the least I would have been on the first donkey out of town before they put me willingly on a cross for nothing, but I ain't God .. I might dream I could, but I'm for real .. And for an ungrateful stinking world, I don't think so, nada

This is the Gospel!