Is Christ equal to God?

[Soma-Sight]

I and my Father are one.
John 10:30
(Christ equal to God)


Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
John 14:28
(Christ less than God)

 

[Gary]

Boring Soma.... you REALLY need to do more research before you post.

Did you say you were a Christian?
What does the SDA church say about these so-called contradictions?


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Anway, read and learn what Christians say about these two verses:

John 10:30 Jesus was one with the Father in nature, but distinct from Him in person. The triune Godhead has one essence, but three distinct persons. So, Jesus was both the same in substance and yet was a different individual from the Father.

John 14:28 The Father is greater than the Son by office, but not by nature, since both are God. Just as an earthly father is equally human with, but holds a higher office than, his son, even so the Father and the Son in the Trinity are equal in essence, but different in function. In like manner, we speak of the president of the USA as being a greater man, not by virtue of his character, but by virtue of his position. Therefore, Jesus cannot ever be said to say that He considered Himself anything less than God by nature. The following summary helps to crystalize the differences:

• JESUS IS EQUAL TO THE FATHER
  In essence
  In nature
  In character
  
  THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN JESUS
  In function
  In office
  In position

Source: Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. (1992). When critics ask : A popular handbook on Bible difficulties (Page 420). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

Remember, RESEARCH before you post!

Soma did not study the Bible to find this so-called contradictions. He copy-n-pasted from a site! He is acting more and more like a Muslim or an atheist.... posting ANYTHING as long as it is against Christianity.

 

[Lyric's Dad]

Phillipians 2:5-7

5Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

 

[Quath]

You make it work by adding in additional words that are not in the Bible.

By making Jesus say "The father is greater than I in office," you are changing the Bible to support the beliefs you want.

So with the ability to add new words to the Bible, you can change any part of the Bible.

So look at the stuff that supports the trinity. For example:

"He who has seen Me has seen the Father because we look alike.." (John 14:9)

"He who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me because God is everywhere. I see Him in you too." (John 12:45)

Jesus said: "I and the Father are one union out of many." (John 10:30)

Adding words that are not there can lead to all sorts of beliefs.

Quath

 

[Soma-Sight]

Boring Soma.... you REALLY need to do more research before you post.

Did you say you were a Christian?
What does the SDA church say about these so-called contradictions?

You really cant see beyond labels to Truth can you?

Research? So by looking only at biased, fundamentalist websites that is considered research?

I think if you have TRUE FAITH you can look beyond the propaganda you like to throw around this site so readily Gary!

Think as an individual!

 

[Soma-Sight]

Gary,

You are a very intelligient person and I DO RESPECT your views!

Just dont hop on the hellfire - tossing wagon when people spur intelligient critiques!

 

[bibleberean]

Remember when Christ came to earth He gave up something.

Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Philippians 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Philippians 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Philippians 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

To those who deny that Jesus is God read what the Father says to the Son.

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Jesus and the Father are one and Christians do not have to twist scripture to "make it say" what we want it.

John 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

Thomas finally understood who Jesus really was...

John 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

There are blind people in this forum. There are atheists who are in a total state of denial and there are skeptics and hereticks.

2 Corinthians 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

 

[KnarfKS]

You make it work by adding in additional words that are not in the Bible.

By making Jesus say "The father is greater than I in office," you are changing the Bible to support the beliefs you want.

So with the ability to add new words to the Bible, you can change any part of the Bible.

So look at the stuff that supports the trinity. For example:

"He who has seen Me has seen the Father because we look alike.." (John 14:9)

"He who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me because God is everywhere. I see Him in you too." (John 12:45)

Jesus said: "I and the Father are one union out of many." (John 10:30)

Adding words that are not there can lead to all sorts of beliefs.

Quath

What cracked out translation of the bible are you using. These are not the actual verses at all. I can handle most things from you quath and I respect your position and ideas no matter how wrong I think you are, but do not bring some sort of counterfeit scripture into this forum again. :x

 

[Quath]

What cracked out translation of the bible are you using. These are not the actual verses at all. I can handle most things from you quath and I respect your position and ideas no matter how wrong I think you are, but do not bring some sort of counterfeit scripture into this forum again. :x

I had bolded the additions that I made up. I was just showing that if you add words to qualify what was just said, you can easily change any verse to mean whatever belief you want. I am sorry I did not make that clearer.

Quath

 

[Rick W]

I've heard...
"We are saved by grace" with the addition... "after all we can do."
That comes out of mormonism.
Another favorite of the LDS teaching is:
"I and my father are one" with the addition... "in purpose"

The Jehovah Witnesses have an edited version of the bible that reads:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God.

 

[aiki]

I thoroughly agree with Gary's comments. They very much echo what is written in the book "That's Just Your Interpretation" by Paul Copan (chptr. 13). Certainly, what Gary has shared makes better sense of what Scripture tells us about the equality between Christ and God than alot of the stuff I've seen posted on this topic in this forum.

In Christ, Aiki.

 

[Rick W]

To clarify
I'm not opposing Gary but agreeing with Quath in that some will add to or subtract from scripture verses to make it say what they want. What Gary is doing is the results of research that aligns with the Word of God. Each claim must and is checked against scripture.

 

[McQuacks]

Great post Gary!

I think to clearly understand what Jesus meant and to see that it is not a direct contradiction, you have to look at the whole of the verse and understand better the situation that Jesus was in. Take a look at the first couple verses that bibleberean posted. When Jesus came here He was lowering Himself...Bringing Himself down from His throne in Heaven to earth, taking Himself from His glorified home and humbling Himself to become a human being. He was "made for a little while lower than the angels." (Heb. 2:9). What He was saying to His disciples is that they should be happy for Him, because He is now going back to His glorified position at the right hand of His Father in heaven.
Good link: http://www.carm.net/questions/father_greater.htm
-McQ 8-)

 

[Vice]

I and my Father are one.
John 10:30
(Christ equal to God)


Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
John 14:28
(Christ less than God)

If you're struggling with this, thanks for bringing it up. It's good to re-hash theology from time to time.

As people have pointed out with good Bible verses, Jesus was equal to the Father as God. The contention, however, is with John 14:28, in which Jesus seems to indicate that the Father is greater than him.

If you read John 14:28 in context, Jesus is speaking with the disciples about his death. They're sad and they know something is amiss, so he comforts them by saying that he's going to the Father, who is greater than him. The Father being greater than him is in some way related to Jesus' humanity.

Jesus is equal to God because he is true God, but Jesus is also true man, which makes his Father greater than him.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Jesus is equal to God because he is true God, but Jesus is also true man, which makes his Father greater than him.

So is Jesus, the ONE PERSON, equal to God or not? If this one person is also "true man", making the Father greater than Him in that regard, how can Jesus, the ONE WHOLE PERSON, be equal to his Father who is NOT, intrinsically, "also man"?

Secondly, how can one person be "true man", when being a TRUE man would of course have to mean that you were not anything else BUT a true man? IOW - even if a hybrid creature between a human being and an anteater were possible, that creature would not be a "true" man NOR a "true" anteater. How much less a hybrid between GOD and man, an infinite being and a finite being. How can one person be truly infinite and truly finite? He would be neither - which makes the whole proposition an ABSURDITY.

 

[Free]

So is Jesus, the ONE PERSON, equal to God or not? If this one person is also "true man", making the Father greater than Him in that regard, how can Jesus, the ONE WHOLE PERSON, be equal to his Father who is NOT, intrinsically, "also man"?

Of course Jesus is equal to God. Your questions are touching on the complexity of God which is precisely why we have the doctrine of the Trinity. The Bible affirms the full deity of Christ, that he is God yet distinct from the Father, which is why he is said to be equal to God.

The Bible also affirms that Christ is God in human flesh, that God became the man Jesus. It was in this humanity, as Vice pointed out, that Christ was "less than," or rather "subject to," the Father as Phil. 2:5-8 states.

To say that Jesus is not equal to God is to ignore an abundance of Scripture. To say that Jesus was not man is to also ignore an abundance of Scripture.

A proper and thorough view of Jesus must take into account all of these verses. One cannot, as was initially done, take one or even several verses that point to the humanity of Jesus and say that Jesus was just a man or someone less than God. Similarly, one cannot take all the references to Jesus as being equal with God and say that he was only God and not man.

That Jesus was both God and man is clear from the Bible. How it all works together isn't so clear, but needn't be.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

So is Jesus, the ONE PERSON, equal to God or not? If this one person is also "true man", making the Father greater than Him in that regard, how can Jesus, the ONE WHOLE PERSON, be equal to his Father who is NOT, intrinsically, "also man"?

Of course Jesus is equal to God. Your questions are touching on the complexity of God which is precisely why we have the doctrine of the Trinity. The Bible affirms the full deity of Christ, that he is God yet distinct from the Father, which is why he is said to be equal to God.

The Bible also affirms that Christ is God in human flesh, that God became the man Jesus. It was in this humanity, as Vice pointed out, that Christ was "less than," or rather "subject to," the Father as Phil. 2:5-8 states.

To say that Jesus is not equal to God is to ignore an abundance of Scripture. To say that Jesus was not man is to also ignore an abundance of Scripture.

A proper and thorough view of Jesus must take into account all of these verses. One cannot, as was initially done, take one or even several verses that point to the humanity of Jesus and say that Jesus was just a man or someone less than God. Similarly, one cannot take all the references to Jesus as being equal with God and say that he was only God and not man.

That Jesus was both God and man is clear from the Bible. How it all works together isn't so clear, but needn't be.

You are limited by your bias in considering what the most likely explanation of all this is (your bias being that you are a scriptural inerrantist) namely, that the scriptures DO contradict one another in points and evidence of this is that some verses, which are used as a prooftexts of the deity of Christ, are KNOWN to have been tampered with by scribes over the first few centuries. The "deity of Christ" EVOLVED, and the NT was adjusted in instances to reflect that evolving doctrine.

"This is exactly what the scribes did: they occasionally altered the words of the text by putting them 'in other words'. To this extent, they were textual interpretors. At the same time, by physically altering the words, they did something quite different from other exegetes, and this difference is by no means to be minimized. Whereas all readers change a text when they construe it to their minds, the scribes actually CHANGED THE TEXT ON THE PAGE. As a result, they created a new text, a new concatention of words over which future interpreters would dispute, no longer having access to the original text, the words produced by the author" ("The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture", Bart D. Ehrman, pg. 280)

 

[Free]

are KNOWN to have been tampered with by scribes over the first few centuries. The "deity of Christ" EVOLVED, and the NT was adjusted in instances to reflect that evolving doctrine.

No, they are not known to "have been tampered with by scribes over the first few centuries." That is wishful thinking by liberal scholars who are very biased against Christianity.

Give me one proof from primary sources that shows this to be true.

("The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture", Bart D. Ehrman, pg. 280)

And here you give one liberal scholars views of the "corruption of Scripture." This type of liberal "scholarship" is actually quite fringe and not accepted by the majority of scholars, for one reason, it is false.

The deity of Christ can be seen from very early in Christian history, from non-canonical sources which just happen to agree with those that are canonical.

If you're going to stick with this argument, you are going to have to do way better than that; quoting from fringe scholarship doesn't cut it. It's funny how the Muslims make the same argument yet each time I ask for proof, they can give none.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Free,

Apparently you think that all those so-called "liberal" scholars took an oath before they began their studies, that they for some reason pledged to attack the veracity of the scriptures? Did you ever think that maybe they came to their views on these matters AS A RESULT OF HONEST INVESTIGATION?

Do you believe the bible never contradicts itself and/or that the manuscripts we have today are identical to the originals because you have spent years of exhaustive, non-biased research on the subject - or do you hold to the evangelical viewpoint because you accepted at the outset of your faith that the bible was perfect in these regards, believing that to question the scriptures at all is to be a liberal scoundrel?

 

[Free]

Too many assumptions.

Apparently you think that all those so-called "liberal" scholars took an oath before they began their studies, that they for some reason pledged to attack the veracity of the scriptures?

I don't know, maybe they do take an oath, but that is not what I am saying. They are just biased against Christianity which is proven by the very focus of their scholarship. No one spends years of scholarly study to prove something true that they didn't initially believe to be true.

Did you ever think that maybe they came to their views on these matters AS A RESULT OF HONEST INVESTIGATION?

Yeah, I thought about it, but then saw that for the most part, this is not the case. There is very little to no foundation to the arguments that these liberal scholars use to justify their beliefs in "lost gospels" and such. Often their justifications become very unscholarly.

Do you believe the bible never contradicts itself and/or that the manuscripts we have today are identical to the originals because you have spent years of exhaustive, non-biased research on the subject

Why do you assume so much? Where have I stated that I believe that the manuscripts we have today are identical to the originals? Doctrinally speaking, I don't believe the Bible contradicts itself. There are some copyists errors in it, but nothing of the sort that results in changes as monumental as Christ's deity and such.

The originals alone are inerrant. But the thousands of manuscript evidence we do have show that the modern Bible is very accurate.

- or do you hold to the evangelical viewpoint because you accepted at the outset of your faith that the bible was perfect in these regards,

What is the "Evangelical viewpoint"? Is there just one view?

believing that to question the scriptures at all is to be a liberal scoundrel?

Another assumption. Where have I stated that anyone who questions the Scriptures at all is a liberal scoundrel? The Bible itself commands us to study it and know it which would include questioning it. Liberal scoundrels are those who go beyond mere questions and answers to making outright false claims about the Scriptures, Christianity, and Christ.

I'm curious: does Ehrman even provide any evidence to support his claim?

So let me ask you: did you come to believe that the Bible contradicts itself and that scribes changed the text of the Bible in the early centuries on your own "because you have spent years of exhaustive, non-biased research on the subject," or do follow only the "scholarship" of those who are biased against Christianity?


Anyway, this is all off topic and I am interested to see what Vice has to say to your previous post before I jumped in.