Christian Beliefs

[Aero_Hudson]

Personally, I don't understand where all of the confusion is. The Trinity is really quite simple. Three parts = one God...

The Father that created all things / God

His Holy Spirit which comes to dwell with humanity and inspires us to create God's kingdom on Earth

The Son which is God incarnate created to be the perfect Son of Man, sinless and holy

You cannot have one of these without the other two. It is what Christianity is based upon IMHO. It really is quite simple. Heck, don't call it the Trinity if that is the hang up. If someone believes in the 3 concepts above you are all set. No need to nit pick at come of the details.

 

[seekandlisten]

How about what I do believe? I would like to know what people view the term 'Jesus as the firstborn of creation' to mean. Jesus being the firstborn is in the bible so this is not simply a belief of mine. I would like to understand what this means. So here is what I do believe and lets see if we can move on to this discussion please.

I believe in God the Father, Creator of all and from Whom everything comes.

I believe in Jesus, the firstborn of creation, and through who all are saved that believe, the Saviour of the World.

I believe God guides us through the Holy Spirit.

I believe the ONLY way to the Father is through Jesus.

Without adding anything to, or taking away anything this is what all my beliefs stem from. Does this help clarify?

 

[Aero_Hudson]

Sounds like you are good to go from a Christian belief standpoint. I know many that have challenges with trying to combine all of these things as a Triune God. Let's be honest, the way we are wired it is hard to think of something as distinct yet unified. Very hard to do. It really is alright if you and others have challenges with it. I know I do at times.

You believe in the core tenants that make you a believer based on what you posted in my mind.

 

[seekandlisten]

Sounds like you are good to go from a Christian belief standpoint. I know many that have challenges with trying to combine all of these things as a Triune God. Let's be honest, the way we are wired it is hard to think of something as distinct yet unified. Very hard to do. It really is alright if you and others have challenges with it. I know I do at times.

You believe in the core tenants that make you a believer based on what you posted in my mind.

If you have the time, do you have any insight on what you believe Jesus being the firstborn of creation means?

 

[Drew]

Since the question of the divinity of Jesus is clearly at issue here, I want to offer this (part 1 of 2), even though I will make this very same post in another thread:

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.

From Malachi:

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:

25And 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 plan to argue in detail in a later post, 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.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

Sounds like you are good to go from a Christian belief standpoint. I know many that have challenges with trying to combine all of these things as a Triune God. Let's be honest, the way we are wired it is hard to think of something as distinct yet unified. Very hard to do. It really is alright if you and others have challenges with it. I know I do at times.

You believe in the core tenants that make you a believer based on what you posted in my mind.

If you have the time, do you have any insight on what you believe Jesus being the firstborn of creation means?

Sure...I would be open to discuss it. Personally, I think it is a reference to his direct relation to Adam as another of God's creation.

 

[toddm]

How about what I do believe? I would like to know what people view the term 'Jesus as the firstborn of creation' to mean. Jesus being the firstborn is in the bible so this is not simply a belief of mine. I would like to understand what this means. So here is what I do believe and lets see if we can move on to this discussion please.

I believe in God the Father, Creator of all and from Whom everything comes.

I believe in Jesus, the firstborn of creation, and through who all are saved that believe, the Saviour of the World.

I believe God guides us through the Holy Spirit.

I believe the ONLY way to the Father is through Jesus.

Without adding anything to, or taking away anything this is what all my beliefs stem from. Does this help clarify?

This ALMOST sounds like you have it right. Except for the fact that you follow after a different Jesus than I do. You see, the Jesus I follow is God. The one that you follow isn't. Therefore, your Jesus is false and can no more save you than the computer I'm typing on can. Sorry if that sounds rough, but it's truth. You offended me the moment you lowered my Savior.

 

[seekandlisten]

[quote="Aero_Hudson":kzhjb70b]Sounds like you are good to go from a Christian belief standpoint. I know many that have challenges with trying to combine all of these things as a Triune God. Let's be honest, the way we are wired it is hard to think of something as distinct yet unified. Very hard to do. It really is alright if you and others have challenges with it. I know I do at times.

You believe in the core tenants that make you a believer based on what you posted in my mind.

If you have the time, do you have any insight on what you believe Jesus being the firstborn of creation means?

Sure...I would be open to discuss it. Personally, I think it is a reference to his direct relation to Adam as another of God's creation.[/quote:kzhjb70b]

Can you explain this? I kind of follow your line of thinking but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

Can you explain this? I kind of follow your line of thinking but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

I think we have to be careful taking one sentence from Colossians, ignorning the rest of Scripture, and interpretting that Jesus might somehow be a result of creation / created and in so not being divine. We also have to see how this specific passage is translated to determine what the original Greek words actually meant and how they are typically used in grammatical context.

My understanding is that Jehovah's Witness followers take Colossians 1:15 and use it to question the deity of Jesus. However, it is clear that Paul is not questioning this throughout any of his letters in the New Testament. Based on what I have read, this statement is being used to illustrate Jesus's superiority to all of creation not that he was a product of it.

Sorry for my unclear post earlier. Wasn't quite sure what was being asked until I went back and reviewed the thread fully.

 

[seekandlisten]

Can you explain this? I kind of follow your line of thinking but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

I think we have to be careful taking one sentence from Colossians, ignorning the rest of Scripture, and interpretting that Jesus might somehow be a result of creation / created and in so not being divine. We also have to see how this specific passage is translated to determine what the original Greek words actually meant and how they are typically used in grammatical context.

My understanding is that Jehovah's Witness followers take Colossians 1:15 and use it to question the deity of Jesus. However, it is clear that Paul is not questioning this throughout any of his letters in the New Testament. Based on what I have read, this statement is being used to illustrate Jesus's superiority to all of creation not that he was a product of it.

Sorry for my unclear post earlier. Wasn't quite sure what was being asked until I went back and reviewed the thread fully.

Jesus being the firstborn wasn't entirely in reference to Colossians. My earlier reference to Colossians was simply to show that by presenting a passage based on merely one's interpretation isn't argument against another person's point unless you are able to do it in an effective way that brings some logic to the table. This goes for me too. That is why I don't like verse picking. My understanding of different sections of the bible comes from my understanding of the bible as a whole, so it's hard for me to reduce it down to one passage without explaining how I understand the entire bible. If you look back I made a post regarding the firstborn topic but got dragged back to the Jesus is God thing. Sorry when I get some time I'll start a new thread on the topic and leave this one to the Jesus is/is not God.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

Cool.

Just for the record....I do believe that Jesus is God. Thought I would share a more definitive viewpoint vs beating around the bush.

 

[seekandlisten]

I have come to the realization through this thread that one's definition of Who or What God, in reference to the Father, is plays a big role in this Jesus is/is not God. I may have been wrong in the way I approached this thread as I had a different point at the start of this thread. I make no stand as to the level of divinity of Jesus and I'm pretty sure that's been stated already. I simply will not equal him to the Father the Creator of the world from Who all things come. I will not go as far as to use terms(God, Christ, Jesus, Lord, etc.)interchangeably. One's logic confuses me when they say Jesus created the world or Jesus and God are the same person. A god didn't die for my sins plain and simple. If you believe otherwise that is fine, I however do not. I come to this understanding from what I have read and been shown in scriptures, that is all. Simply stating a verse that to someone is proof that Jesus is God is not proof to me because I already read that passage and got a totally different meaning so really no point of argument to me against what I'm saying. If you want to provide some logic to go along with your verse references like some have well you might get me interested in your point. Any point I put forward to go towards Jesus being a man are simply looked over and I get the return of John 1 which supposedly means Jesus must be God yet I've read that passage numerous times and don't come to that understanding. If anyone wishes to discuss this any further I will answer your questions if they have a point. I will not ask questions that I already answered or comment on a verse quoted that simply states Jesus is God. I don't hold the canonized bible infallible so a simple it says so doesn't hold that much weight. My point wasn't to debate this topic. If you believe Jesus is God that is also fine with me I'm not here to change your mind. I'm here for learning more than anything. I am quite alright with my own beliefs.

 

[seekandlisten]

Cool.

Just for the record....I do believe that Jesus is God. Thought I would share a more definitive viewpoint vs beating around the bush.

Right on, I'll look forward to hearing your comments. I'll try and start that thread tonight on Jesus as the firstborn. My post earlier in this thread on this topic will probably be the opening post if you wanted to check that out.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

I do think the only way to come to the correct conclusion as to whether or not Jesus was / is God is through the Bible. My advice would be to read the 4 gospels thoroughly specifically John to see was Jesus says himself about his own divinity. I think these words are probably the most reliable.

Let me know your thoughts...

 

[seekandlisten]

I do think the only way to come to the correct conclusion as to whether or not Jesus was / is God is through the Bible. My advice would be to read the 4 gospels thoroughly specifically John to see was Jesus says himself about his own divinity. I think these words are probably the most reliable.

Let me know your thoughts...

Well we run into a few more problems with the 4 gospels that I disagree with, but I've been meaning to review them, so I'll tell you what. Seeing as John is the main point of interest for this discussion as to Jesus divinity I'll check that one out over the next couple of days and I'll post my thoughts back in this thread when i'm done. I'm not a scholar so it may not be presented as well as it could but I will do my best. I'm also interested in the 2nd part of what was put forth earlier by drew.

 

[Free]

First things first:

From another topic:

When I see threads like this I just wonder why people spend so much time looking for irrelevant errors instead of reading what they are looking at and looking for Truth. Kind of absurd to me.

Yet:

Remember this is just my understanding of what this passage of scripture is referring to. I am not trying to make anyone believe what I say, it is merely my opinion.

If you believe Jesus is God that is also fine with me I'm not here to change your mind. I'm here for learning more than anything. I am quite alright with my own beliefs.

Do you see the problem with your statements that I highlighted?

I will admit to not nearly being scholarly enough to break down every little part of the bible, or do I think its all that important.

I am far from being a scholar and nothing that I have posted requires any scholarly knowledge. It is very important to look at everything the Bible says on a given subject or one will never have the full truth.

This is, to me anyways, what the beginnings of a logical post would be rather than just this verse says this or that.

I've given you a very logical argument as to why your understanding of Col 1:16-17 is wrong, yet you do not reply. You keep arguing to reason but have yet to give a reasonable answer.

How does this passage say in any way that Jesus is equal to God the Father, the Creator? I think it in fact states the opposite. By giving me a different passage that says Jesus is God does not constitute as a counter-argument.

Firstly, I have used logic to show how the only reasonable conclusion of this passage is that Jesus has existed for eternity past. That is an attribute of God alone. The only rational conclusion then, is that Jesus is God, equal to the Father. Secondly, I have not once used a different passage to counter your argument. I have referred to John 1:3 because it says exactly the same thing that Col 1:16. Thirdly, you have not even attempted to address my argument, so I'll go through it all again.

He(Jesus) is the image of the invisible God(image of the invisible God = us, Gen. 1:27)(simply put here Jesus is a man),

There is nothing to suggest that "image" here is equivalent to saying that "Jesus is a man". The better understanding would be from what Jesus himself said: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." (John 14:9). We cannot say that of ourselves or each other, only Jesus.

the firstborn over all creation(this is what I would like to continue on to).

It means that he is pre-eminent over Creation, not that he is the first creature.

For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities;(reference to of how through Jesus we are brought back to creation, before the fall) all things were created by him(mankind being brought back to God through Jesus) and for him.(Creation was for mankind)

You are putting your own meaning into the text, a meaning which simply isn't there. No where is there even a hint that this somehow brings us back to creation through Jesus (whatever that means).

The clear and plain meaning, and the main point I have been making, is that all things were created by Jesus. If "all things" doesn't literally mean "everything that has ever been created," then this verse is false. However, since "all things" does literally mean "everything," then the only logical conclusion is that Jesus was not created.

Paul even emphasizes this point by stating by being very specific--"things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities." Paul clearly believes that absolutely everything that has been created was created by and through Jesus. Again, the only logical conclusion is that Jesus cannot be created.

(I believe it is said that 'through' is said to be a better word to use here instead of 'by' but I don't have the time to reference it right now though, so take this as you will)

It doesn't matter which word you use the meaning of the text is still the same. The ESV even has: "For by him all things were created...--all things were created through him and for him." Some versions say "in him". But it doesn't matter which words you choose since the outcome is the same.

He(Jesus) is before all things(us), and in him all things hold together(referring to the Body of Christ).

Again, there is absolutely no reason from the text itself to think that "all things" refers to "us"; "all things" means everything that has ever been created.

Simply stating a verse that to someone is proof that Jesus is God is not proof to me because I already read that passage and got a totally different meaning so really no point of argument to me against what I'm saying.

This is actually a mind-numbing statement and clearly contradicts this statement you made: "I'm here for learning more than anything."

If you want to provide some logic to go along with your verse references like some have well you might get me interested in your point.

I have used nothing but logic! Yet you just shrug it off and don't even attempt to respond.

 

[seekandlisten]

First things first:

From another topic:

When I see threads like this I just wonder why people spend so much time looking for irrelevant errors instead of reading what they are looking at and looking for Truth. Kind of absurd to me.

Yet:

Remember this is just my understanding of what this passage of scripture is referring to. I am not trying to make anyone believe what I say, it is merely my opinion.

If you believe Jesus is God that is also fine with me I'm not here to change your mind. I'm here for learning more than anything. I am quite alright with my own beliefs.

Do you see the problem with your statements that I highlighted? No.

I will admit to not nearly being scholarly enough to break down every little part of the bible, or do I think its all that important.

I am far from being a scholar and nothing that I have posted requires any scholarly knowledge. It is very important to look at everything the Bible says on a given subject or one will never have the full truth. I agree.

This is, to me anyways, what the beginnings of a logical post would be rather than just this verse says this or that.

I've given you a very logical argument as to why your understanding of Col 1:16-17 is wrong, yet you do not reply. You keep arguing to reason but have yet to give a reasonable answer. I have been taken all over with this thread and I will review to see if I missed something.

How does this passage say in any way that Jesus is equal to God the Father, the Creator? I think it in fact states the opposite. By giving me a different passage that says Jesus is God does not constitute as a counter-argument.

Firstly, I have used logic to show how the only reasonable conclusion of this passage is that Jesus has existed for eternity past. That is an attribute of God alone. The only rational conclusion then, is that Jesus is God, equal to the Father. Secondly, I have not once used a different passage to counter your argument. I have referred to John 1:3 because it says exactly the same thing that Col 1:16. Thirdly, you have not even attempted to address my argument, so I'll go through it all again. Again an error on my part as I let a generalization come into play.

He(Jesus) is the image of the invisible God(image of the invisible God = us, Gen. 1:27)(simply put here Jesus is a man),

There is nothing to suggest that "image" here is equivalent to saying that "Jesus is a man". The better understanding would be from what Jesus himself said: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." (John 14:9). We cannot say that of ourselves or each other, only Jesus. You make a good point here.

the firstborn over all creation(this is what I would like to continue on to).

It means that he is pre-eminent over Creation, not that he is the first creature. I agree.

For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities;(reference to of how through Jesus we are brought back to creation, before the fall) all things were created by him(mankind being brought back to God through Jesus) and for him.(Creation was for mankind)

You are putting your own meaning into the text, a meaning which simply isn't there. No where is there even a hint that this somehow brings us back to creation through Jesus (whatever that means).

The clear and plain meaning, and the main point I have been making, is that all things were created by Jesus. If "all things" doesn't literally mean "everything that has ever been created," then this verse is false. However, since "all things" does literally mean "everything," then the only logical conclusion is that Jesus was not created. I also agree with this.

Paul even emphasizes this point by stating by being very specific--"things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities." Paul clearly believes that absolutely everything that has been created was created by and through Jesus. Again, the only logical conclusion is that Jesus cannot be created.Also agree.

(I believe it is said that 'through' is said to be a better word to use here instead of 'by' but I don't have the time to reference it right now though, so take this as you will)

It doesn't matter which word you use the meaning of the text is still the same. The ESV even has: "For by him all things were created...--all things were created through him and for him." Some versions say "in him". But it doesn't matter which words you choose since the outcome is the same. I believe what it says so no argument here.

He(Jesus) is before all things(us), and in him all things hold together(referring to the Body of Christ).

Again, there is absolutely no reason from the text itself to think that "all things" refers to "us"; "all things" means everything that has ever been created.True.

Simply stating a verse that to someone is proof that Jesus is God is not proof to me because I already read that passage and got a totally different meaning so really no point of argument to me against what I'm saying.

This is actually a mind-numbing statement and clearly contradicts this statement you made: "I'm here for learning more than anything."I don't think I used the right wording here and now that I reading it it is not what I meant to say. I am by no means perfect.

If you want to provide some logic to go along with your verse references like some have well you might get me interested in your point.

I have used nothing but logic! Yet you just shrug it off and don't even attempt to respond.

This post has made some very good points for me to think about. Sorry if I missed what you were saying earlier.

 

[seekandlisten]

I have come to a realization that this thread causes nothing more than discord so I am going to politely step out of this conversation. Thanks for all the posts guys I picked up some good points along the way.

 

[TheCatholic]

The best thing people can do is read the Early Church Fathers. Of course, their writings are not inspired scripture, but they give us a window in to how they worshipped and what they believed. They were much closer to the time of Christ then we are.

 

[toddm]

Weird. I posted 2 replies in the last 48 hours that didn't show up on this thread w/ verses pointing to Jesus being fully God.

Any way, here are a few of the ones I posted

John 8:24 & 58 are clear references to Jesus not just stating that He is the Messiah, but that He is indeed God. This is why the Jewish leaders wanted to stone him in v. 59. Claiming to be God was a stonable offense.

Romans 9:5 is crystal clear! ..."the Christ who is God over all..."

2 Peter 1:1 - ...the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. Jesus is not only referred to as Savior, but also as God.