Is Jesus considered to be God?

[Drew]

As you said Christ was not asked that question so your post is supposition at best and total speculation at worst. I prefer to believe a proper interpretation of scripture and a conclusion that works within the plan of God and his nature and character.

No. I am not speculating. I have the general shape of argument in mind that will show that Jesus saw himself as embodying - incarnating, if you will - the promised return of YHWH to Zion. If that argument succeeds, and I suggest that is very strong indeed, it is powerful evidence that Jesus sees himself as the embodiment of Israel's God. But details will probably need to wait until tomorrow.

 

[Yahoshea]

You know since I have heard some controversies concerning this statement. I believe that Jesus Christ God. Not just the Son of God but He is God that came in the flesh.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

As we continue to read on in that chapter we see that this scripture is talking about Jesus Christ..

What do you think?

The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God (cf. John 8:58, 10:38, 14:10; Col. 2:9). And yes, Jesus DID say he was God. In John 8:58, when quizzed about how he has special knowledge of Abraham, Jesus replies, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am"—invoking and applying to himself the personal name of God—"I Am" (Ex. 3:14). His audience understood exactly what he was claiming about himself. "So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple" (John 8:59). In John 5:18 we are told that Jesus’ opponents sought to kill him because he "called God his Father, making himself equal with God."


In John 20:28, Thomas falls at Jesus’ feet, exclaiming, "My Lord and my God!" (Greek: Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mou—literally, "The Lord of me and the God of me!")


Philippians 2:6 says that Jesus "who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped" (New International Version). So Jesus chose to be born in humble, human form though he could have simply remained in equal glory with the Father for he was "in very nature God."


Also significant are passages that apply the title "the First and the Last" to Jesus (Rev. 1:17). This is one of the Old Testament titles of Yahweh: "Thus says Yahweh, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, Yahweh of armies: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no god’" (Is. 44:6; cf. 41:4, 48:12).


This title is directly applied to Jesus three times in the book of Revelation: "When I saw him [Christ], I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, ‘Fear not, I am the First and the Last’" (Rev. 1:17). "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the First and the Last, who died and came to life’" (Rev. 2:8). "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end" (Rev. 22:12–13).


This last quote is especially significant since it applies to Jesus the parallel title "the Alpha and the Omega," which Revelation earlier applied to the Lord God: "‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty" (Rev. 1:8).


But did the early Christians believe this? YES! Here are some quotes:


Ignatius of Antioch: "Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).


Aristides: "[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (Apology 16 [A.D. 140]).


Clement of Alexandria: "The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning—for he was in God—and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things" (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1 [A.D. 190]).

John 8:58
You fail one of the most prudent aspects of proper interpretation. You fail to consider context. Chapter 8 is a dialog between Jesus and the pharisees. They were justifying their actions by their father Abraham. Jesus points out that before Abraham was the great I AM and they should be justifying themselves by God rather then their ancestry.
John 10:38
Again you ignore context. For example Jesus says to the Jews
“Ye are Godsâ€. It is spoken very clearly. Does that make us literally Gods? Of course not. Jesus is using a tactic called a Remez common among Hebrew Rabbis. In a remez a scripture is quoted in part and the learned listeners would understand it in it’s entire context. In this case Jesus is quoting Psalm 82 in which YHWH is rebuking the leaders of Israel for not taking care of the orphans and widows and allowing injustice to continue. He tells them they are to function as God would toward the people. Jesus is telling the leaders of his time the same thing. That is why they set to kill him. They were angered by his pointing out their failures to function as God toward the people.
The context also includes the verse “The Father and I are one. Jesus clearifies this verse later in John by praying that even as he is one with his father may we become one with them. Do we become part of the Trinity?
Col 2:9
If this verse proves Christ is God then we are too according to –
Ephesians 3:19?and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.

John 20:28
What’s your point. Thomas looked at Christ and saw his lord or master/teacher and also saw his God that dwelled in him. This was the revelation doubting Thomas needed to believe.
I could easily go on to point out your errors in interpretation but I believe I have shown your insistence to interpret scripture dishonestly.

AND if Clement of Alexandria is your support you should hide in the hills. He was Gnostic and Greek philosopher who constantly belittled the orthodoxy of the church.

 

[TheCatholic]

.......John 20:28
What’s your point. Thomas looked at Christ and saw his lord or master/teacher and also saw his God that dwelled in him........

This time it is YOU who failed one of the most prudent aspects of proper interpretation: DON'T MAKE UP STUFF THAT ISN'T THERE.

Thomas did not look at Christ and say, "My lord and also the God that dwells in you". LOL. Thomas said "M y Lord and my God."

Very simple. You are just reading stuff into the text that isn't there to suit your own purpose.

Jesus is God. The scriptures prove it time and again, and he says it from his own mouth

 

[Yahoshea]

.......John 20:28
What’s your point. Thomas looked at Christ and saw his lord or master/teacher and also saw his God that dwelled in him........

This time it is YOU who failed one of the most prudent aspects of proper interpretation: DON'T MAKE UP STUFF THAT ISN'T THERE.

Thomas did not look at Christ and say, "My lord and also the God that dwells in you". LOL. Thomas said "M y Lord and my God."

Very simple. You are just reading stuff into the text that isn't there to suit your own purpose.

Jesus is God. The scriptures prove it time and again, and he says it from his own mouth

OK then --- let's follow your logic. Thomas says Christ is God and therefore you believe he is. How about if Jesus said that the pharasees were God that should carry even more weight. He does that clearly in John 10. now there is the trinity plus all the pharasees that Christ was speaking to as Gods. And let's not forget that in Psalms 82 YHWH says to the leaders of Israel "Ye are God's and the sons of the most high." so they are God and sons of God. The trinity better squeeze together it is going to get crowded in there. LOL

 

[Yahoshea]

.......John 20:28
What’s your point. Thomas looked at Christ and saw his lord or master/teacher and also saw his God that dwelled in him........

This time it is YOU who failed one of the most prudent aspects of proper interpretation: DON'T MAKE UP STUFF THAT ISN'T THERE.

Thomas did not look at Christ and say, "My lord and also the God that dwells in you". LOL. Thomas said "M y Lord and my God."

Very simple. You are just reading stuff into the text that isn't there to suit your own purpose.

Jesus is God. The scriptures prove it time and again, and he says it from his own mouth

I just noticed your screen name. I assume you are catholic. that explains why you believe what you do. Here is a little actual history of your church's doctrine.
In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief."

Alexander Hislop, in his TWO BABYLONS, seems to trace the various ideas of the trinity back to a common heritage. Hislop pointed out the antiquity of the theological concept of the Trinity by giving examples of pagan trinities in Siberia, Japan, and India. He noted that the recognition of the Trinity was “universal in all the ancient nations of the worldâ€. He went so far as to say that “the supreme divinity in almost all heathen nations was triuneâ€. While Hislop was attempting to prove that mankind has always believed in a “trinityâ€, he also unwittingly shows the pagan origins of the idea of a “trinityâ€

The trinity is noted in connection with the construction of the Tower of Babel. Diodorus Siculus, in his Bibliotheca, states that in the topmost completed story of the Tower was placed the images of three gods.

Trinitarians today may argue that the pagan trinities were completely different from the model of the Christian Trinity. But some pagan triads have structures which are surprisingly familiar. For example, the Hindu Trinity:

The conception most closely linked with Vedism and Brahmanism is that of the Hindu Trinity, the Trimurti. ‘The Absolute manifests himself in three persons, Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva the Destroyer’.

-Asiatic Mythology

The Egyptian triad of the sun god was “one god expressed in three personsâ€. He was known as the “noonday sun†(Ra), “the evening sun†(Tum), and “the dawning sun†(Khepera). The sun god reportedly said, “Lo! I am Khepera at dawn, Ra at high noon, and Tum at eventideâ€. He was one god in three distinct persons.

Clearly it is not correct to say that the structure of pagan trinities do not resemble the Christian Trinity.

Other ancient cultures also had Trinities to describe their Gods. In Phoenicia the trinity of gods were Ulomus, Ulosuros, and Eliun. In Greece they were Zeus, Poseidon, and Aidoneus. In Rome they were Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto. In Babylonia and Assyria they were Anos, lllinos, and Aos. Among Celtic nations they were called Kriosan, Biosena, and Siva, and in Germanic nations they were called Thor, Wodan, and Fricco.

One of the sources of the doctrine of the Trinity in Christianity is Gnosticism and Dualism.

A one-sentence description of Gnosticism is; A religion that differentiates the evil god of this world (who is identified with the God of the Old Testament) from a higher more abstract God revealed by Jesus Christ, a religion that regards this world as the creation of a series of evil archons/powers who wish to keep the human soul trapped in an evil physical body. Gnostics conjured up the idea that Christ was a spiritual being in a physical shell in order to avoid the concept of him having an "Evil Physical Body of the “Evil physical realm".

Dualism is a Greek Philosophy that takes gnosticim even farther. It teaches there are two realms, one evil and one holy. Dualists believe that only the transcendental spiritual realm of God like forces is holy. The lower natural earthly realm was considered evil and nothing good could be of that world.

When Christianity spread to the Greek thinking world it was heavily influenced by their philosophies. Many students of Greek philosophy were being saved and as such brought their concepts into the church. As is often the case some so called “scholarsâ€, from this period forward, began to interpret scripture with preconceived ideas of a gnostic or dualistic world. From gnosticim came the concept of Jesus being a separate God from the God of the Old Testament. From Dualism came the concept that Jesus could never be fully of the natural realm or fully human. His humanity needed to be augmented in some way to avoid him being of the evil natural realm.

Dualism was contrary to Hebrew belief and culture. Hebrews thought of all creation as part of the kingdom of God. Because God was infinite they believed that God was an integral part of the physical realm and, in fact, revealed himself thru the natural world. To the Hebrews everything in the natural realm was in the presence of God and He overshadowed everyhing there.

Many early Christian leaders were influenced by Greek thinking.

Clement of Alexandria (150-213 AD), head of one of the early Christian schools, which was heavily influenced by philosophy and gnosticism, admitted that he was opposed by those who still considered philosophy “evilâ€. He made light of their opposition and said that they were light and “ignorantâ€. He denounced the “so-called orthodoxy who, like beasts which work from fear, do good works without knowing what they are doingâ€. But Clement, of course, knew what he was doing. He had a special gnosis (knowledge) that the ignorant “orthodox†did not possess.

Friedrich Ueberweg says that “Gnosticism was the first comprehensive attempt to construct a philosophy of Christianityâ€. The more flagrant gnostics, such as Cerdo, Cerinthus, Saturninus, and even Marcion, had been expelled from the church. These more flambuoyant gnostics were only the “tip of the icebergâ€. There was still a large remnant in the churches, who obviously began developing some philosophical system of Christianity that would compete, so they thought, in the Gentile world.

The apostle Paul was troubled with gnostics, and spoke against those who clung to “falsely-named science†(knowledge or gnosis) (1 Timothy 6.20).
20) Oh Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called knowledge (gnosis)
21) which some have professed and gone astray from the faith.
Paul says that gnosis/gnosticism causes a falling away from the faith.


Gnosticism and dualism had a foot in the door in the early church. Many founding fathers fought against it's beliefs and dogmas.
In the third century gnostics and their philosophy would get their greatest boost from the Emperor of Rome himself.

Constantine emperor of Rome had a problem. His kingdom was in turmoil because of strife between different religious factions. He had christians, gnostics, pagans, druids and many more. Constantine solved this problem by merging all these various factions together and forming The Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Following the example of his father and earlier 3rd-century emperors, Constantine throughout His life was a solar henotheist, believing that the Roman sun god, Sol, was the visible "manifestation" of an invisible “Highest God†{a plural God?} (summus deus), who was the principle behind the universe. Does this sound familiar? This god was thought to be the companion of the Roman emperor.

Constantine's adherence to this faith is evident from his claim of having had a vision of the sun god in 310 while in a grove of Apollo in Gaul.

In 325 AD - Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the Church and therefore his empire. The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that "the Father and the Son are of the same substance" (homoousios). Let me point out that the substance of God is spirit therefor if Jesus is of the same substance then he was spirit and did not live in the flesh and therefor did not really die or be physically raised from the dead.

Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:
"Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, `of one substance with the Father'."

The American Academic Encyclopedia states: "Although this was not Constantine's first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement." It is known that many of His former beliefs followed Him into Christianity and that those beliefs strongly influenced the Nicaea council. It is also clear that part of his motives for forming the Holy Roman Catholic Church were to unify his kingdom. It is therefor clear that the council of Nicaea had been called in part to find a way to unify the Roman Empire under a statement of Faith. This council is known for it's Nicaean Creed detailing the doctrine of the Trinity which is the first time God is officially described, in any church document or biblical manuscript, as separated into three, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. It was there at Nicaea that the doctrine of the Trinity was rammed through in a Council that was overseen by the Emperor Constantine who, ironically enough, thought of himself as God-incarnate. (Constantine the Sun Worshiper only made an official conversion to "Christianity" on his death bed).

One of the early problems encountered by the followers of the Trinity doctrine was that of the nature of Christ. There are very clear scriptures that state that Jesus was a man. This was a problem because this was contrary to the original Trinity Doctrine that Jesus was a co-equal person of God and of the same substance. Jesus as a man also contradicted dualist who could never accept Jesus as fully human of the lower earthly realm. Future councils had the impossible task of defending the Trinity while at the same time dealing with these contradictions. Since no biblical proof could be found, their answer was to contrive the Dual Nature Doctrine, or 100% God and 100% man concept. This doctrine concludes that Jesus is fully man and Fully God at the same time.

There are no such words as Dual Nature or 100% man and 100% God in scripture. In fact the concept is conspicuously absent in any scriptural form whatsoever. Again we must ask ourslves, Where does this concept come from? Simply put these councils were hard pressed to find an answer to the contradictions found in the Trinity. With this in mind they formulated a doctrine with no scriptural proof and just applied it as truth. They went to the scriptures with this doctrine and applied scriptures out of context. By using unclear scriptures they could twist them to seem to validate their doctrine.

Since there are no clear scriptures to define this dual nature of Christ we must look elsewhere to determine it’s origin and history. This doctrine did not happen overnight, but took years to develop. The result was a cocktail of Irational and illogical thought leading to meaningless rhetoric. Let’s look at some of the history, by which this doctrine entered the teaching of the church.

Most of the primary tenants of the dual nature doctrine stem from several councils starting in 325 A. D. These councils were formed for the purpose of denouncing what was believed to be false doctrine and for instituting some central statements defining the faith. Unfortunately, as stated before, Christianity had been corrupted by Paganism and Greek philosophy and the councils reflected this influence. The Nicene council stated that Jesus was fully God in response to the Aryans who believed that Jesus was not God.

The Apollianarians Did not believe that Jesus was fully human, therefore the council of Constantinople (381 U.S.) declared he was fully human.

The Nestorianism group denied that Mary could be called the mother of God. They believed that Mary was only the mother of the human part of Jesus. The resulting belief dictated that there exists two Christ's, one divine and one human. In response to this the council of Effuses (431 A. D.) decreed That the two natures of Jesus are one and cannot be separated.


Many of those present at the Council Of Nicaea were opposed the doctrine of the Trinity. Even after the Nicene Creed, the Trinity was still hotly debated for decades and centuries. As the years passed and the power of the Catholic Church increased, no one dared argue against the established doctrines of the Church. Before long a multitude of non - scriptural practices began to emerge resulting in the dark ages and the inquisition.

If Nicaea just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then why all the conflicts? If it were the established teaching of the church, then you would expect people to either accept it, or not be Christians. It was not the established teaching, and when some factions, of the church, influenced by Constantine, tried to make it official, the result was major conflict. Constantine stopped the conflict by banishing those who appeased him and used his power to coerce others into adopting the doctrine. In fact Constantine had the chambers wherein the counsel met surrounded by solders to insure no one left or apposed him.

Constantine the Great unified a tottering empire, reorganized the Roman state, and set the stage for the final victory of his version of Christianity at the end of the 4th century. In one historic moment, under this ruler of non-Judeo-Christian background and with the influence of paganism and gnosticism, the traditional doctrine of the Trinity is formed.

Since the time of Constantine several councils have had the dubious task of defending the Trinity without any clear scripture evidence for support. Unfortunately, the same holds true today. The explanations of the Trinity and the dual nature have become even more confusing and less logical.

 

[Drew]

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.

 

[Yahoshea]

I have no illusions about changing many minds on this board. I fear that most on here are like the man convinced against his own will. He will remain of the same opinion still.
I would however conclude that most on here do want to walk with God and become like Jesus in every way possible. That being the case, a question might be raised as to what everyone’s particular doctrine does to help them become like Christ.
For example, If I were to believe that Jesus was any sort of God while on this Earth, how does that make him a perfect example that I can really follow. When I say any sort of God I am including “God/man, 100% god 100% man, Totally God in an earthly flesh body ect. Any one of these places Jesus in a category unlike me or the rest of humanity. How can he then be anything but a very small partial example for me? These concepts draw everything that Christ did into question. It forces speculation on what kind of advantage Christ had over us and what things he did can we actually follow him in. These concepts muddy the waters of a functional gospel in which God gives us a clear and definite example to follow.
We can debate the theories and philosophies of interpretation all day long but if we do not consider the actual purpose of doctrine (the furtherance of the plan of God) then it is intellectual gobbledeegoop.
God’s plan is to raise sons and daughters with his character. For that purpose he gave us the perfect example of what it means to have the fullness of the character of God (tested even unto death) in a human being. God would not sanctify any doctrine that would deter, make unclear, or sidetrack from that simple plan.

I know there are those that could care less if there doctrine fits in the plan of God because they only seek the prideful thrill of proving (through any means possible) that they are right. I do hope there are a few that really care about fulfilling the plan of God for their own lives and will seriously consider if their present doctrines help or hinder that goal.

 

[TheCatholic]

All three branches of Christianity - Catholic / Protestant / Eastern Orthodox - believe in the Trinity, and therefore believe Jesus is God, the Second Person of the Trinity. It is plain in the Scriptures, it is recognized by all theologians, and it is the constant 2000 year teaching of Christianity.

For someone to stroll along with their Bible and think that their personal intepretation of some verses undoes all of that is just too ludicrous to even give any credence to.

 

[Yahoshea]

All three branches of Christianity - Catholic / Protestant / Eastern Orthodox - believe in the Trinity, and therefore believe Jesus is God, the Second Person of the Trinity. It is plain in the Scriptures, it is recognized by all theologians, and it is the constant 2000 year teaching of Christianity.

For someone to stroll along with their Bible and think that their personal intepretation of some verses undoes all of that is just too ludicrous to even give any credence to.

OK then, How does Christ as a God make him a clear example that I can follow? How does his life on Earth become an example? Which of the things that Christ did are because He was God and which are because he was a man and how do you know?
How can one being be capable of sin and not capable of sin at the same time?
How can God give up him immortality?
How can God change his character from a bering incapable of sin to one that is capable?
BTW for 4,000 years the Hebrews believed in a Messiah but missed him when he came.
And the theory of the Trinity was not accepted until around 325 AD and even then it was hotly contested. It took the threat of the sun worshipping Roman king Constantine to make it official doctrine of the church and for those remaining years the power of the church through inquisitions and death threats forced that doctrine down everyones throat.

The fact is that the doctrine of the trinity fails the general purpose of teaching. It does nothing to further the plan of God for man it actually sidetracks humanity into idle Greek philosophy. It confuses the clear example of Christ and makes it unclear as to how we are to follow him. I am talking about reality here instead of philosophy.

 

[TheCatholic]

All three branches of Christianity - Catholic / Protestant / Eastern Orthodox - believe in the Trinity, and therefore believe Jesus is God, the Second Person of the Trinity. It is plain in the Scriptures, it is recognized by all theologians, and it is the constant 2000 year teaching of Christianity.

For someone to stroll along with their Bible and think that their personal intepretation of some verses undoes all of that is just too ludicrous to even give any credence to.

OK then, How does Christ as a God make him a clear example that I can follow?........

....and if I were to answer, would you accept the answer? I have been in forums long enough to recognize a question which does not seek an answer but rather seeks further argument.

The are mountains and mountains of books and works on the Trinity and Christ's divinity from any sector of Christianity you like, Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox. Read some. My favorite is "Theology And Sanity" by author F. J. Sheed. I highly recommend it.

 

[toddm]

.......John 20:28
What’s your point. Thomas looked at Christ and saw his lord or master/teacher and also saw his God that dwelled in him........

This time it is YOU who failed one of the most prudent aspects of proper interpretation: DON'T MAKE UP STUFF THAT ISN'T THERE.

Thomas did not look at Christ and say, "My lord and also the God that dwells in you". LOL. Thomas said "M y Lord and my God."

Very simple. You are just reading stuff into the text that isn't there to suit your own purpose.

Jesus is God. The scriptures prove it time and again, and he says it from his own mouth

OK then --- let's follow your logic. Thomas says Christ is God and therefore you believe he is. How about if Jesus said that the pharasees were God that should carry even more weight. He does that clearly in John 10. now there is the trinity plus all the pharasees that Christ was speaking to as Gods. And let's not forget that in Psalms 82 YHWH says to the leaders of Israel "Ye are God's and the sons of the most high." so they are God and sons of God. The trinity better squeeze together it is going to get crowded in there. LOL

By saying that Thomas was merely recognizing God indwelling Christ, then why can't we all (as regenerated, Holy Spirit dwelling Christians) accept worship?? We see Peter reject worship in Acts and we see an angel reject worship in Revelation. If Christ was not worthy of worship, he would have corrected Thomas. The fact that he didn't correct Thomas speaks volumes of who Jesus thought He was.

The heresy on this board is sickening. :bigfrown

 

[Drew]

I have no illusions about changing many minds on this board.

Are you open to the possibility that it is you who might be mistaken? Did YJWH not promise to return to his people and to the temple? Although I have not completed the argument yet, I think the case is compelling that Jesus' final journey, including his action in the temple, show that He saw Himself embodying, enacting, and incarnating the return of YHWH to Zion.

That does not make Him simply a "representative" or a "man filled with the spirit" - it makes him the living embodiment of Israel's God.

For example, If I were to believe that Jesus was any sort of God while on this Earth, how does that make him a perfect example that I can really follow. When I say any sort of God I am including “God/man, 100% god 100% man, Totally God in an earthly flesh body ect. Any one of these places Jesus in a category unlike me or the rest of humanity.

Hardly a good argument. God's first job is to solve the Adamic sin problem and rescues humanity from the exile of sin and death. If this means that He has to "pay the price Himself" on the cross, then I hardly think that He would hold back from doing so because people could not identify themselves entirely with Jesus (since Jesus would be divine on that view).

The important thing is solving mankind's problem, not sending a role model we can all identify with.

God’s plan is to raise sons and daughters with his character.

I think this is only a tiny part of God's plan. His plan is to undo the staining effects of Adam's fall and initiate a project of redeeming the entire cosmos. Yes, and that includes what you have said. But I suggest that God needed to "bare His holy arm" and fix the problem Himself in the form of the Son going to the cross. If that means we cannot see Jesus as a "role model" because He is divine, I am willing to live with that and gratefully accept that God has acted to fix the big problem, even if this means we cannot entirely identify with Jesus.

I know there are those that could care less if there doctrine fits in the plan of God because they only seek the prideful thrill of proving (through any means possible) that they are right. I do hope there are a few that really care about fulfilling the plan of God for their own lives and will seriously consider if their present doctrines help or hinder that goal.

The arguments are what they are, regardless of motivations. Let's say you think that I am "trying to prove I am right". Well, even if that's true, I still need to make an actual case. And if I am, in fact, wrong, you should be able to find the error in that case. I have already argued that YHWH promised to return to Zion. I plan to make another argument as to why Jesus saw Himself as embodying that return. If you cannot find an error in that argument, it would seem that your position is shaky, regardless of my motivations.

And, of course, the same "you are only trying to prove you are right" claim could be levelled at anyone. It is actually a red herring. What really matters are the relevant Biblical arguments.

 

[Yahoshea]

All three branches of Christianity - Catholic / Protestant / Eastern Orthodox - believe in the Trinity, and therefore believe Jesus is God, the Second Person of the Trinity. It is plain in the Scriptures, it is recognized by all theologians, and it is the constant 2000 year teaching of Christianity.

For someone to stroll along with their Bible and think that their personal intepretation of some verses undoes all of that is just too ludicrous to even give any credence to.

OK then, How does Christ as a God make him a clear example that I can follow?........

....and if I were to answer, would you accept the answer? I have been in forums long enough to recognize a question which does not seek an answer but rather seeks further argument.

The are mountains and mountains of books and works on the Trinity and Christ's divinity from any sector of Christianity you like, Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox. Read some. My favorite is "Theology And Sanity" by author F. J. Sheed. I highly recommend it.

COP OUT. IF YOU CANNOT ANSWER THE VERY BASIC QUESTION THEN JUST ADMIT IT.

 

[Yahoshea]

By saying that Thomas was merely recognizing God indwelling Christ, then why can't we all (as regenerated, Holy Spirit dwelling Christians) accept worship?? We see Peter reject worship in Acts and we see an angel reject worship in Revelation. If Christ was not worthy of worship, he would have corrected Thomas. The fact that he didn't correct Thomas speaks volumes of who Jesus thought He was.

The heresy on this board is sickening. :bigfrown[/quote]

And worship means what?
It means to prostrate oneself before another in respect. It is used toward man and God. Worshiping Jesus does not prove divinity.

 

[toddm]

And worship means what?
It means to prostrate oneself before another in respect. It is used toward man and God. Worshiping Jesus does not prove divinity.

Where in Scripture else do you see a man bowing to another man or angel and declaring "My God and My Lord!"?

 

[Yahoshea]

And, of course, the same "you are only trying to prove you are right" claim could be levelled at anyone. It is actually a red herring. What really matters are the relevant Biblical arguments.[/quote]

Actually relevant biblical arguments must pass the test of functionality in how they work to fulfill the plan of God. If they do not they are not doctrine but rather philosophy. They have a form of godliness but deny the power therein. The plan of God is not subject to ones scriptural interpretations. Biblical interpretation is subject to the plan of God.
To say that Christ role as our example is a minor part of his ministry is absolutely silly. Perhaps you say that because you do not believe it is necessary for us to work with God to become like Christ?

If your doctrine is correct then please tell me how your doctrine makes Christ a more viable example for me. How does it help me to become more like him? How does it give me hope?

 

[TheCatholic]

.....What really matters are the relevant Biblical arguments.....

Only if you subscribe to the hiddeous doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which is directly responsible for denominationalism.

God did not oradian all individuals as self-proclaimed teachers. He established His Church for that. You have no authority to formulate doctrine. Only the successors of the apostles have such Christ-given authority

 

[Yahoshea]

And worship means what?
It means to prostrate oneself before another in respect. It is used toward man and God. Worshiping Jesus does not prove divinity.

Where in Scripture else do you see a man bowing to another man or angel and declaring "My God and My Lord!"?

How about Abraham bowing before the angel of YHWH or Moses bowing and calling a burning bush God. BTW there was an angel in the bush.
How about sarah calling Abraham "lord".
How about YHWH calling the leaders of Israel Gods in Psalms 82
How about Christ calling the leaders of Israel Gods in John 10.

Again tell me how your doctrine helps me to be like Christ? If you cannot answer that question then why should anyone want to believe your doctrine except to have some idle philosophy to debate about. At best your doctrine sidetracks Christians from seeking to become like Christ. It denies them the possibility of seeing Christ as their brother who suffered and overcame in the same way they can overcome.

 

[Yahoshea]

.....What really matters are the relevant Biblical arguments.....

Only if you subscribe to the hiddeous doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which is directly responsible for denominationalism.

God did not oradian all individuals as self-proclaimed teachers. He established His Church for that. You have no authority to formulate doctrine. Only the successors of the apostles have such Christ-given authority

Are you serious? You deny that anyone can study to show themselves approved (sounds like a scripture)
And of course the successors of the apostles all teach what you claim to be true or what is taught by the Catholic church?
Who says I am not a successor of the apostles?
Who says I did not learn from a successor of the apostles?
Considering the history and reputation of the Catholic Church I would doubt it's capacity to teach any truth. Know them by their fruits.

AGAIN --- Tell me how your doctrine helps me to become like christ.

 

[Yahoshea]

I am outta here for a while --- Perhaps I will continue later or tomorrow.