Is Jesus really God ?

[Drew]

It is you that insist on making it a fundamental doctrine. It is men that have insisted on making it fundamental. Men who insist this must be a fundamental doctrine have killed each other over this issue, subjecting those that disagreed with them to hideous torturous types of death. History is full of examples.

The fact that some men have killed over this issue does not mean that we should stop trying to get it right. Now I will give you an opportunity to engage a Biblical argument that Jesus is, in fact, God. Please do not simply ignore this material as many others have done. It may not be "correct", but I will dare to say it is clear. As Free has pointed out, it is simply not acceptable for the opponents of the "Jesus is God" position, to simply declare that particular "Jesus is God" arguments are wrong without explaining to the readers exactly how they are wrong. Did you ever explain to us why Free's arguments about John 1 are mistaken?

Anyhoo, I will shortly repost this argument in 2 sequential posts.

Special Note to "Truth over Tradition": I really appreciate the fact that you (alone) have taken this argument seriously and critiqued it (in the other thread, I believe). I still owe you an answer, so please feel free to pester me if I do not provide one reasonably soon.

 

[Drew]

Post 1 of 2 of an argument for the "divinity" of Jesus:

One Old Testament theme is often overlooked is the theme of the promised return of YHWH to Zion – that though God has abandoned His people through the exile, He will, one day, return to them. A wide range of Old Testament texts embody this hope. Here are just two:

Ezekiel 43:1-7:

Then he led me to the gate, the gate facing toward the east; 2and behold, the glory of the God of Israel was coming from the way of the east[ And His voice was like the sound of many waters; and the earth shone with His glory. 3And it was like the appearance of the vision which I saw, like the vision which I saw when He came to destroy the city And the visions were like the vision which I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell on my face. 4And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate facing toward the east. 5And the Spirit lifted me up and brought me into the inner court; and behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house. 6Then I heard one speaking to me from the house, while a man was standing beside me. 7He said to me, "Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell among the sons of Israel forever And the house of Israel will not again defile My holy name, neither they nor their kings, by their harlotry and by the corpses of their kings when they die,…

Remember the context. The Jews are in a state of exile. The temple had been abandoned by God and destroyed. This vision given to Ezekiel constitutes a promise that God will return to inhabit the “temple†once more.

Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the LORD of hosts. 2"But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.

This material, just like the Ezekiel text, was written during the time of exile. Once more we have a promised return of God to the temple.

These and other texts express a deep hope of the Jewish nation – the God that had abandoned them will one day return to them. When we forget such expectations, and reduce the discussion of Jesus’ divinity to technical matters about the boundaries between the concept of “man†and of “godâ€, we entirely overlook what really matters – the Jewish matrix of expectation into which Jesus was born. I suggest the Biblically literate 1st century Jew would be anticipating this return. If that Jew were being true to the Biblical tradition, he would at least be open to the possibility that YHWH might return to His people in the form of a “humanâ€. From the famous throne chariot vision of Ezekiel 1:

And there came a voice from above the expanse that was over their heads; whenever they stood still, they dropped their wings. 26Now above the expanse that was over their heads there was something resembling a throne, like lapis lazuli in appearance; and on that which resembled a throne, high up, was a figure with the appearance of a man.

I want to be clear: this and other texts such as Daniel 7 only hint at a possibility - there is no strong and pervasive theme in the Old Testament that clearly anticipates the notion of God incarnated in the form of man. But, and this is key, neither is such a possibility over-ruled, with texts like this one from Ezekiel and the one from Daniel 7 giving the hint of the possibility a divine human figure.

This is why arguments against Jesus’ divinity that are grounded in conceptual distinction entirely miss the point (e.g. Jesus is man, and a man cannot be God, Jesus is the “son†of God and therefore cannot be God, etc.). The real issue is the grand plan of covenantal redemption that we see woven through both testaments. If honouring the coherence of that story leads us to see Jesus as divine, so be it – the conceptual distinctions are derivative, not fundamental.

As I argue below, Jesus clearly sees Himself as fitting into the story in a specific way – it is His life’s work to embody the promised return of YHWH to Zion. And that makes Him “divineâ€, with divinity understood in the appropriate framework – not the framework of conceptual categories that have little connection to large Biblical narrative of covenantal redemption, but rather in the context of a God who promised to return to His people. In that framework, we have a young Jew named Jesus who saw Himself as called to the vocation of implementing that promised return.

 

[Drew]

Post 2 of 2 of an argument for the "divinity" of Jesus:

Much of the gospel of Luke is the story of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. Towards the end of that journey, Jesus tells the parable of the returning king – the story of a king who goes away and then returns to call his servants to account. This parable is found in Luke 19:11 and following.

This parable has almost universally been understood to constitute a statement by Jesus that He will go away, though crucifixion, resurrection, and then ascension, only to return in the future (i.e. in the 2nd coming). On such a reading, Jesus sets Himself, as He tells the parable, in the role of the king who is about to leave.

I suggest this is not the correct reading. Instead, we should understand that in telling the parable, Jesus is setting Himself in the role of the returning king, not the departing one. On such a reading, the departing king represents YHWH leaving his people by abandoning the temple and sending the Jews into exile, something that lies in the past of Jesus’ audience. If this interpretation is correct, Jesus can logically fill only one role in the parable: YHWH returning to Zion as promised. And this means, of course, that Jesus is the embodiment of Israel’s God.

Why should we read the parable this way? Well, for starters, the parable does not really work on its traditional reading. Note what happens to the third servant – all that he has is taken from him. This really cannot be reconciled with the notion that the returning King is Jesus at his 2nd coming, calling his people to account. Nowhere in the New Testament is there even the slightest suggestion that any of Jesus’ followers will be cast out and lose all at Jesus’ 2nd coming as the parable would seem to suggest on the traditional reading. It is clear from the scriptures that that believers who “build with hay and stubble†will still be saved. So it is very hard to make the parable work with Jesus as the King about to go away and return at a 2nd coming.

Besides, consideration of what happens next makes it clear that Jesus is setting himself in the role of the returning king. Note what happens after parable is told – Jesus rides on to Jerusalem and, upon seeing it, says the following:

"If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. 43"For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, 44and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation."

Clearly, Jesus sees Himself as the King returning in visitation, returning to judge Jerusalem who is set in the role of the unfaithful 3rd servant. If, as many believe, the returning King in the parable is Jesus at His second coming, then it would be deeply misleading for Jesus to give the parable then immediately ride into Jerusalem as He does, to palm branches waving no less, with all the imagery of a returning King that this action clearly evokes. No. Jesus clearly intends his listeners to understand that He is the returning King, not the departing one. In giving this parable and then riding into the royal city as a king, Jesus is clearly telling us that He, through this teaching and these actions, is embodying the fulfillment of the hoped for return of YHWH to his people. And what does Jesus do next?:

Then he entered the temple area and began driving out those who were selling. 46"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be a house of prayer'; but you have made it 'a den of robbers.'

Note how this maps perfectly to this prophecy about the return of YHWH to his people:

Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the LORD of hosts. 2"But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.

The overall picture is clear. As per an earlier post, we have the strong Biblical tradition of the promised return of YHWH to Zion (and his temple) after the time of the exile. Now here, in Luke, we have the journey of a young Jew named Jesus to Jerusalem. As He is about to enter, He tells a parable of a king who goes away and then returns. Next, He laments over Jerusalem and declares that she is not recognizing His mission as a “visitationâ€. In the context of Jews who saw themselves still in exile, and still awaiting the return of YHWH, Jesus’ intended meaning is clear. In saying that Jerusalem has not recognized her visitation, He is saying that she has failed to recognize that, in His very actions, the promised return of YHWH to Zion is being fulfilled. And then Jesus enters the temple and overturns the tables in judgement, fulfilling the Malach 3 promise that YHWH will come suddenly to the temple in judgement. The coherence of this picture is compelling. Jesus is embodying the return of YHWH to Zion. And that, of course, makes Him the embodiment of Israel’s God.

This is why arguments like “Jesus cannot be divine since Jesus was tempted and God cannot be tempted†are a spectacular exercise in missing the point. Such arguments assume a model for the nature of God-hood and human-ness and then leverage that assumption to make the case against Jesus’ divinity. Well, we should be getting our concepts of who YHWH is from the Old Testament, not from conceptual definitions with no connection to the Jewish worldview. And in the Old Testament, YHWH is the one who has left His people and promised to return. When Jesus, then, so obviously sees Himself as embodying that promised return, that, and not vague conceptual arguments, makes the case that Jesus sees Himself as the incarnation of Israel’s God. Again, the conceptual arguments you make are deeply misleading since they are built on a model of the “boundaries†between god and man that make no reference at all to the Scriptures.

 

[Who Says]

You or Free do not see what I say when I say it. So matter not what i say you will say I have never addressed it.

So understand I do not speak for the benefit of you only but for those looking on who might think about it and so benefit themselves.

I leave you with this comment:

Go ahead and use the light given you so that you are able to see to make war on others if that is what you insist on doing.

I believe the light is given us to see our own path and conform it to God's love and holiness in peace.

I see myself as my problem and so use that light to see me and compare myself to the righteous things of Christ that I might conform myself to them.

May your heart take hold on peace and not let it go. :waving

 

[Drew]

You or Free do not see what I say when I say it. So matter not what i say you will say I have never addressed it.

Well if you really have addressed Free's point, you should be able to identify specific posts where you have done so. Please do so.

So understand I do not speak for the benefit of you only but for those looking on who might think about it and so benefit themselves.

The one who is evading an entirely appropriate challenge is hardly in the position to lecture others about a proper approach to debate.

I leave you with this comment:....

Why are you refusing to defend your position and engage in these mini-sermons that are entirely besides the point?

Please address the relevant arguments.

 

[Sam21]

It is you that insist on making it a fundamental doctrine. It is men that have insisted on making it fundamental. Men who insist this must be a fundamental doctrine have killed each other over this issue, subjecting those that disagreed with them to hideous torturous types of death. History is full of examples.

If you cannot even keep peace in this world there is no way Christ will let you rule with him in the next.

2 Peter 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

You are missing the point, the BIBLE says that Jesus is God,so therefore when YOU take a contrary position then you are fighting against the God that you claim to serve. I have studied the bible daily for many years and I have had personal experiences with God, if I thought for a moment that the scriptures did not uphold the concept that Jesus is God I would drop it immediately. Jesus is not the Father,however Jesus is God. We are only allowed to worship God,yet Jesus is worshipped by both men and angels in the bible and that worship is commanded by God the Father.

 

[MarkT]

I do not think this position can work. I politely suggest you are implicitly appealing to a "God cannot be both something non-physical and also be a physical man".

This is a very appealing argument to those in the post-enlightenment west who have been raised on Greek dualism - the idea that there is a "physical" world and there is an "non-physical" spiritual world.

The godless say there's no God and no heaven or hell. Is that what you're saying?

Well, look at how Paul uses the concept of "spirit" in relation to the concept of a "body" here in 1 Corinthians 15:

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

No doubt, many will deny the "physicality" of this spiritual body. But the overall argument Paul is making will not sustain this - he clearly believes in a physical resurrection body and he describes it as "spiritual".

So there is no contradiction with the concepts of "spiritual" and "physical" being integrated together.

Doesn't Paul say we will be changed? 1 Cor. 15:51 What does 'changed' mean to you? Changed from what, if not from the physical to the spiritual body?

He also said flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom. 1 Cor. 15:50

Paul said, "The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. 50 I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality.

Man is temporary. God is everlasting. Man is dust. God is spirit.

Jesus said that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. There's the physical body and the spiritual body. How can you read his words and say there is no difference between the physical body and the spiritual body?

Paul said -

1 Corinthians 6:19 RSV
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own;

2 Corinthians 6:16 RSV
What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will live in them and move among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people

 

[Drew]

Doesn't Paul say we will be changed? 1 Cor. 15:51 What does 'changed' mean to you? Changed from what, if not from the physical to the spiritual body?

We will indeed be changed, but not from having physical bodies into a disembodied state. Instead we will be changed from our present "fallen" physical bodies into bodies like the very "physical" one Jesus had after His resurrection.

Do you not believe in the creedal statement: I believe in the resurrection of the body?

He also said flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom. 1 Cor. 15:50

Indeed, but, again, this is not a statement that we will not have bodies in the final Kingdom, but rather that they will be transformed bodies. So while these bodies might not be properly described as "flesh and blood", they will nevertheless be physical.

This point is absolutely vital, but many Christians do not believe it - the final state of the redeemed person is in a body - one with arms, legs, head, stomach, etc.

I do not see how this can be Biblically denied: Jesus' resurrection body was "physical" and we are promised the exact same kind of bodies in the future.

 

[Eventide]

This point is absolutely vital, but many Christians do not believe it - the final state of the redeemed person is in a body - one with arms, legs, head, stomach, etc.

I do not see how this can be Biblically denied: Jesus' resurrection body was "physical" and we are promised the exact same kind of bodies in the future.

Amen Drew.. the literal and physical resurrection of the dead is central to the gospel.. and I might add that this is true even for the damned..

 

[Asyncritus]

You are missing the point, the BIBLE says that Jesus is God,...

Um, where?

 

[Drew]

Um, where?

Please read the argument in the two posts from me from earlier today.

 

[Eventide]

I'll also add that Christians who are born again by God have CHRIST in them, and Peter writes that we now partake of the divine nature..

The scriptures also teach us that the Father is in us, that Christ (the Son) is in us, and that the Holy Spirit is in us..

So my question to these who deny that Christ is God manifest in the flesh.. do you have the Father in you ? Do you have Christ in you ? Do you have the Holy Spirit in you ?

Or is that all just a bunch of cunningly devised fables..

 

[Drew]

I'll also add that Christians who are born again by God have CHRIST in them, and Peter writes that we now partake of the divine nature..

The scriptures also teach us that the Father is in us, that Christ (the Son) is in us, and that the Holy Spirit is in us..

So my question to these who deny that Christ is God manifest in the flesh.. do you have the Father in you ? Do you have Christ in you ? Do you have the Holy Spirit in you ?

Or is that all just a bunch of cunningly devised fables..

I generally agree - we have the theme of the believer "participating" in Christ, and how, as a result, the Holy Spirit - the very Spirit of God takes up residence in the believer. It is really awkward to make this work if Jesus is not "divine" - if we get God's very Spirit through our participation in Christ, how can this happen if Jesus is not, in some sense, a "repository" of God's actual Spirit.

However, in saying all this, we should not, of course, be saying that we believe ourselves to be fully divine - I can imagine those "on the other side" might see this as a problem.

 

[MarkT]

Mcgyer and Drew have adequately shown the problems with this argument, so I will not address it.

I wish you would because it was addressed to you.

I'm not sure why you can't understand that if Jesus is LORD, as the OT uses LORD, then this makes him YHWH, the one and only God of the OT, there is no other option. There is no LORD and Father, no LORD and God. This is utterly foreign to both Judaism and Christianity.

That understanding is what we're talking. You can't just say it makes him the true God. In the light of Christ, if Jesus was the LORD, then as Jesus could do nothing of his own accord, only what he saw the Father doing, it follows that the LORD could do nothing of his own accord, only what he saw God doing. The Father is the true God.

As I also stated previously, the only proper understanding of Jesus as LORD is through the doctrine of the Trinity. The only other position would be polytheism, which the Bible clearly speaks against.

No. It isn't. The Trinity doctrine will only leave you in the dark, and your whole body will be full of darkness.

In the O.T. we see the LORD and God together as 'the LORD God'. It's always 'the LORD God' - God and his name together, or 'the LORD' with God, as Paul said in Hebrews. Then at other times we see 'the LORD', apart from God, speaking to the prophets about God. But even so the LORD God is ONE. But what can we say about the LORD? Jesus said he was the light. So the LORD was the light of God. If Jesus was the light of God in the likeness of man, then it would follow that he not only had the appearance of God, he was the appearance of God.

In what sense can we say God's Word was God? We can say the Word was God only in the sense that God spoke the Word. The Word came from God. That is consistent with what Jesus said about himself. He came from God.

If Jesus was 'the LORD', you could say he was God's name. You always see God doing things for his name's sake. He's always refering to his name. Even David refers to his name, saying, 'God leads me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake'.

Psalm 23:3 RSV
he restores my soul. He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake.

Psalm 25:11 RSV
For thy name's sake, O LORD, pardon my guilt, for it is great.

Note - David doesn't say 'the LORD' here. He says O LORD refering to the Father.

Psalm 31:3 RSV
Yea, thou art my rock and my fortress; for thy name's sake lead me and guide me,

Psalm 109:21 RSV
But thou, O GOD my Lord, deal on my behalf for thy name's sake; because thy steadfast love is good, deliver me!

Psalm 143:11 RSV
For thy name's sake, O LORD, preserve my life! In thy righteousness bring me out of trouble!

Isaiah 48:9 RSV
"For my name's sake I defer my anger, for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you, that I may not cut you off.

So God sent his name in the likeness of man.

 

[Drew]

In the O.T. we see the LORD and God together as 'the LORD God'. It's always 'the LORD God' - God and his name together, or 'the LORD' with God, as Paul said in Hebrews. In what sense can we say God's Word was God?

You are begging the question making, I think, the same kind of faulty "naming argument others have made. Yes the Old Testament uses the term "God" and the term "Lord" to refer to the same "entity". No is denying this. But this does not mean that a new Testament writer is prohibited from using a different name to refer to that some "entity" - in this case the word "Word".

We can say the Word was God only in the sense God spoke the Word. The Word came from God. That is consistent with what Jesus said about himself. He came from God. But God's name is Holy. That means he is set apart.

Again, you beg the very question at issue - you seem to be arguing that if Jesus is "the word", which we all agree to, that because "words come from the speaker" that this means the term "word" cannot, in any sense, entail a reference to the essence of the speaker. The problem is that you cannot assume that the writer is not using the term "word" to capture "that which is the expression of God, but also is God in essence". I realize these are tricky issues, but it is "over-literal" to argue as you seem to be doing - that because the "word" comes out from God's mouth, that it cannot therefore be an "embodiment" of the nature of God.

So if Jesus was 'the LORD', he would be God's name. You always see God doing things for his name's sake......

Not sure what your point is. In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul calls Jesus "Lord" and does so specifically as a re-formulation of the OT shema "The Lord your God is one". In doing so, Paul is implicitly saying that, in being "Lord", Jesus is to be understood as, in some sense, "part of" the OT formulation of the divine - in terms of "God" and "Lord".

 

[Eventide]

Christ in you.. our hope of glory !

However, in saying all this, we should not, of course, be saying that we believe ourselves to be fully divine - I can imagine those "on the other side" might see this as a problem.

No, of course not.. it's Christ in me.. it's the Father in me.. it's the Holy Spirit in me.. the divine nature within these frail earthen vessels. I don't think that a person could ever understand it without it miraculously happening to them..

 

[MarkT]

We will indeed be changed, but not from having physical bodies into a disembodied state. Instead we will be changed from our present "fallen" physical bodies into bodies like the very "physical" one Jesus had after His resurrection.

Do you not believe in the creedal statement: I believe in the resurrection of the body?


Indeed, but, again, this is not a statement that we will not have bodies in the final Kingdom, but rather that they will be transformed bodies. So while these bodies might not be properly described as "flesh and blood", they will nevertheless be physical.

This point is absolutely vital, but many Christians do not believe it - the final state of the redeemed person is in a body - one with arms, legs, head, stomach, etc.

I do not see how this can be Biblically denied: Jesus' resurrection body was "physical" and we are promised the exact same kind of bodies in the future.

The spiritual body is not a dissembled body. Structurally it can take on any form. When Jesus appeared to the disciples, they didn't recognize him.

 

[Drew]

The spiritual body is not a dissembled body. Structurally it can take on any form. When Jesus appeared to the disciples, they didn't recognize him.

Not sure I understand your point. Do you, or do you not believe that the final state of the redeemed saint will be in a body that is physical in the specific sense that it will, like Jesus' body, be an "object" in space with arms, legs, hands, a head, hair etc?

I agree that Jesus' body was "different", but let's remember why we are talking about this in the first place. You argued that the very notion of "God" taking physical form was incoherent, and you grounded your argument in a "physical" vs "spirit" distinction. And yet, as per 1 Corinthians 15, we have Paul using the word "spiritual" to describe an object with spatial extension.

This shows that Paul believes that the notions of "physicality" and "spirit" are combinable. Therefore I am not sure how this particular argument of yours - that it is a contradiction in terms for "God as spirit" to take on human physicality.

 

[Eventide]

I AM they exceeding and great reward...

When God spoke to Abraham, He told Abraham to fear not, for He said.. "I am thy exceeding and great reward".. and Isaac is seen as a type of this.. the son of promise, who was born miraculously after Sarah was past her natural child bearing age..

And there is nothing more precious to the Christian than this.. Christ in you, our hope of glory..

He certainly is our exceeding and great reward.. just as God promised.

 

[Who Says]

No. It isn't. The Trinity doctrine will only leave you in the dark, and your whole body will be full of darkness.

There is an earthly hope and a heavenly hope. They are the same insofar as destination is concerned but different insofar as appointment of headship responsibilities are concerned.


The heavenly hope is heavenly in that it is about governmental rule over this earth. Hebrews 3:1; Matthew 25:34


The earthly hope is earthly in that it is about being a citizen under that kingdom government upon this earth. Matthew 5:5


They are both inheritances but the heavenly corresponds to the promises given to Isarel whereas the earthly corresponds to the promise that in the seed of Abraham all the nations of this earth would find blessing. Genesis 17:6,16; 18:18;22:18


The more one sees the correct picture the more of the picture they become able to see.


The more one sees incorrectly the more blind they become.


And this is tied up with how we see the relationship of Christ to the Father. It is true that the Trinitarian doctrine will keep men blind.


But that will only prevent them from being a part of the heavenly ruling hope lest they act wickedly and persue hate because of it. Sadly though that is the common direction it pushes men. And the problem with that hate is that it can take many forms, even to the unwitting acceptance of the mark of the beast and assisting the beast to defy Christ's kingdom.