Bible Study Did Jesus Replace God?

[th1b.taylor]

Did Jesus Replace God?




Stupid question? Only if we lack the ability to reason a logical end. There are ?Christian? Movements today led by some well known and some not so well known teachers that have, in the near past called down fire and brimstone rain to exterminate the homosexual from our presence. Then we have, in recent history, teachers making poison kool-aid, and all sort of heresy being taught because we have lost our first love!


There is an uncanny movement with two, prominent, fingers. This movement ignores the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount where we find a paragraph telling us that the Law and the words of the Prophets will not pass away until heaven and earth do. (Matt. 5:17-20) The two fingers are the New Testament Christian and the newer, New Covenant Christian. Both of these are misnomers at the very best because without the Bible Jesus taught from there can be no Christianity.


When I went into the Army I went through Basic Training where they laid a foundation to build a soldier on. When I owned my construction company we had to put a classic foundation down before we could begin to build the kitchen, bed-room or bath room. When I worked for Western Electric we placed the foundations on the floor before we could build the racks, bays and supports to hold the switch bays to operate the phones and switch-board. Nothing can stand without a foundation and the foundation of Christianity is the Bible Jesus and the first and second century saints taught from.


This is not a sermon, it's a conversation starter.

 

[Sinthesis]

I'm always interested in imagery that helps us understand what it is that we believe.

 

[Tri Unity]

Nothing can stand without a foundation and the foundation of Christianity is the Bible Jesus and the first and second century saints taught from.

I agree with this. The second century saints elaborated on what the Apostles taught to put the scriptures about the deity of Christ into a context. Not just the divinity, but all (or most) teachings of the Apostles. This is very useful to establish and align your Christian foundations to be the same as what was taught and understood. We seemed to go off track fairly early in the history, and continued to go more and more off track as time went on. It began with loosing our first love and it ended with being neither hot nor cold. One of the earliest theologians of the Church was Tertullian (in the 2nd century). His books are very useful to know what the Apostles taught so that we are not found to be teaching "another gospel".

 

[elijah23]

I believe Jesus was God in flesh. God decided to come to earth as a human being, so he did so as Jesus Christ.

 

[Tri Unity]

I believe Jesus was God in flesh. God decided to come to earth as a human being, so he did so as Jesus Christ.

Jesus was God the Son in the flesh. He was not God the Father in the flesh. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (the Father), and the Word was God" (in unity). God the Father is distinct from God the Son. They are not the same person, as in Modalism. This distinction and unity drove the first fathers mad! The debate is still going on amongst theologians today.

 

[reba]

A forum for Bible study discussions.

Remember guys this is the Bible Study Forum.. Discussion is acceptable debate is NOT. We have pleanty of debate forums .....reba

 

[Asyncritus]

Jesus was God the Son in the flesh.

I don't know what you mean by this, and where you get it from.

[...]The debate is still going on amongst theologians today.

And you know my opinion of theologians!

 

[Tri Unity]

I don't know what you mean by this, and where you get it from.

This is the conventional confession of faith used by Christians since Nicaea in the 4th century. The church had already debated Sabellianism in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, which had confused the distinction between the Father and the Son.

And you know my opinion of theologians!

I was not referring to you, Asyncritus. For an indepth study of theologians debating this subject, see Jesus and His Father, by Kevin Giles. I would be happy to discuss this further, but this thread might not be the right place to do so.

 

[GraceAbounds]

I don't know what you mean by this, and where you get it from.



Jesus is referred to as the Word in John 1:1-4. The Word has always been. But the Man Jesus had a beginning, this was when the Word became the Only Begotten Son of God (John 1:14; Psalms 2:7; John 3:16). So than Jesus the Word of God is Eternal, Jesus the Only Begotten Son of God had a beginning in that He became flesh, for the Man Jesus has not always been, but as the Word of God, Jesus has always been.

The Writer of Hebrews refers to this in Hebrews 10:5-10. The Word of God, stated that the Father gave Him a body, that we might be sanctified and brought to the Father, as adopted children (John 1:12; Romans 8:14-16; Galatians 4:5-7). But by doing this Jesus is the beginning of the Creation of God (Revelation 3:14), as He is the Firstfruit of though of us who will follow Him after His Resurrection, for since Christ rose we will all be resurrected at His Second Coming:
I Corinthians 15:20-23
20) But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21) For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22) For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23) But every man in his own order: Christ the Firstfruit; afterward they that are Christ's at His Coming.
In other words when Jesus rose from the dead, He was the First of a New Creature--a Resurrected Man. When He returns He will complete the change in us all, by making us New Creatures changing our vile bodies into one like His (Philippians 3:20-21).

 

[Tri Unity]

Jesusthe Word of God is Eternal, Jesus the Only Begotten Son of God had a beginningin that He became flesh...

Just a small point of clarification: the reference to the "only-begotten son" is not referring to Jesus in the flesh; it speaks of "the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father" who alone has seen and declared the father. (John 1:18) This means Jesus was begotten in His pre-flesh. This reference to Jesus as “begotten of the Father before all worlds" is what makes Jesus distinct to His father. Jesus is begotten; whereas the father is unbegotten. The distinction is emphasized in the First Council of Constantinople (381):

“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons),
Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made…”

Now compare the words of the First Council of Nicea (325) where this distinction is less obvious:

“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord JesusChrist, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God],
Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]…”

This wording caused a lot of problems and debating. Eunomius of Cyzicus gave probably the best refutation of this doctrine based on the meaning of “begotten”. His Apology was said to have caused Basil the Great to have a heart attack and die after reading it.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eunomius_apology01.htm

Tri

 

[John 8:32]

I believe Jesus was God in flesh. God decided to come to earth as a human being, so he did so as Jesus Christ.

To Whom did Christ pray to?

Mat 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

To Whom does He give the Kingdom over to?

1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Subject to Himself? or the Father? See above verses.

 

[Tri Unity]

To Whom did Christ pray to?

I love the subject of the Trinity; but I admit it is a very complex subject. There are very good arguments to go either way. Lucian and Origen appear to have been the pioneers of "there was a time when He was not" doctrine, which was later taken up by Arius, Artius, Eusebius and Eunomius. The debate became so hot that Christians killed each other and burnt churches down etc. Shocking!

 

[farouk]

The Lord Jesus IS God. John's Gospel, especially chapters 13 to 17, is full of references to Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as is John's First Epistle. The Baptismal formula at the end of Matt. 28 is also very significant.

 

[Tri Unity]

The Lord Jesus IS God. John's Gospel, especially chapters 13 to 17, is full of references to Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as is John's First Epistle. The Baptismal formula at the end of Matt. 28 is also very significant.

These quotations gloss over the surface of a deep subject. Read the above link/book written by Eunomius to realize the depth of this subject. Emperor Constantine, who sanctioned the doctrine of the trinity, recanted on his death bed and was baptised as an Arian. His son, Constantius, was an Arian, as were successive emperors. The original proponent of the "consubstantial" doctrine, Alexander of Alexandria, also recanted. You can't just wave a couple of scriptures around like fairy dust and think it solves everything. This is a complex issue.

Grace

 

[farouk]

These quotations gloss over the surface of a deep subject. Read the above link/book written by Eunomius to realize the depth of this subject. Emperor Constantine, who sanctioned the doctrine of the trinity, recanted on his death bed and was baptised as an Arian. His son, Constantius, was an Arian, as were successive emperors. The original proponent of the "consubstantial" doctrine, Alexander of Alexandria, also recanted. You can't just wave a couple of scriptures around like fairy dust and think it solves everything. This is a complex issue.

Grace

Tri Unity:

My previous post was simply a civil attempt at a response to the question: 'Did Jesus Replace God'.

Blessings.