Is Jesus considered to be God?

[Drew]

It is true my stand takes into account that Jesus came in part to be an example for us. That is clear in scripture. As clear as your stand is. the fact that you do not accept that truth makes our discussion useless.

Please do not misrepresent me. I never, repeat never, have stated or implied that we should not see Jesus as an example. I have been arguing that He is much more than this.

That coupled with the unfathomable stand that an immortal God can die makes your argument silly.

Incorrect. It your model of divinity that denies the possibility that God can be incarnated in human form and then die.

You deny two of the very truths that make Christianity, Christianity. If you do not want to be Christian and use the Bible for your own twist then Go ahead but you will never convince me that you are right. Your stand is untenable.

Of course, this is untrue. You have made no case at all that I have, in any sense, misrepresented the truths of Christianity.

 

[Yahoshea]

One of the lines of argument in this thread against the divinity of Jesus is the assertion that a divine Jesus is not a "good example for us to follow". Well, perhaps a fully human Jesus would fulfill that "role model" expectation better.

But that whole line of thinking is based on an incorrect understanding of why Jesus came and what He accomplished. He did not come to "set an example", He came to solve the Adamic sin problem and initiate a project of reclamation of the entire cosmos. Consider this from Isaiah:

11So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth;
It will not return to Me empty,
Without accomplishing what I desire,
And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.
12"For you will go out with joy
And be led forth with peace;
The mountains and the hills will break forth into shouts of joy before you,
And all the trees of the field will clap their hands.
13"Instead of the thorn bush the (AK)cypress will come up,
And instead of the nettle the myrtle will come up,
And it will be a memorial to the LORD,
For an everlasting sign which will not be cut off

This is a picture of new creation - of God reversing the Adamic fall with its taint on all the universe. God did not send Jesus simply to "set an example", but to be the agent by which this new creation project is initiated. And Paul understands this big picture as here in Romans 8, he looks forward to its ultimate consummation:

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

so what ---- I have no problem with God's plan to redeem the creation. This in no way proves that christ need be a God to go it. All power in heaven and Earth were given him to do so. That power was given him. He did not have it from some preexistent state or because he was a God.

 

[Drew]

so what ---- I have no problem with God's plan to redeem the creation. This in no way proves that christ need be a God to go it. All power in heaven and Earth were given him to do so. That power was given him. He did not have it from some preexistent state or because he was a God.

Did I ever say that Jesus had to be divine for this to be accomplished? Not yet, but I plan to make that case later. I was only challenging the view that focuses solely on Jesus' function as a role model.

 

[Yahoshea]

It is true my stand takes into account that Jesus came in part to be an example for us. That is clear in scripture. As clear as your stand is. the fact that you do not accept that truth makes our discussion useless.

Please do not misrepresent me. I never, repeat never, have stated or implied that we should not see Jesus as an example. I have been arguing that He is much more than this.

That coupled with the unfathomable stand that an immortal God can die makes your argument silly.

Incorrect. It your model of divinity that denies the possibility that God can be incarnated in human form and then die.

You deny two of the very truths that make Christianity, Christianity. If you do not want to be Christian and use the Bible for your own twist then Go ahead but you will never convince me that you are right. Your stand is untenable.

Of course, this is untrue. You have made no case at all that I have, in any sense, misrepresented the truths of Christianity.

You claim that you believe that Christ is our example yet promote a doctrine that makes that virtually impossible.
Christ must be fully human to be our exact example. This means he can have no advantage as might occur from being a God/Man or have a preexistence to guide him.
One thing God cannot do is change His character. For him to become a man He must change his character from one who cannot be tempted to one who can. This is not possible for the Judeo-Christian God.If you want a fuller explanation I suggest you read my post called "Can God do anything".
You are still promoting a God that does not exist in the Christian Faith.
Using made up words like incarnation does not lend credence to your cause. That word is not found in scripture. Paul confronted the Greeks for their insistence that he was a God come down from heaven. The concept was abhorent to him because it lessened the divinity of YHWH.

 

[Yahoshea]

Exerpt from Let us Reason ministries.

(my comments in capitols --
3.Can God stop being God or stop existing?
GOD CANNOT DIE
The nature of God is infinite meaning no end. God's unchanging moral character is a moral absolute. This includes holiness, justice, love, mercy and truth. God is who He is forever and is the only constant thing (being) in the universe. Only created things subject to time and space which are of a non eternal substance can change. God could not change if he wanted to (which he would not ) Because he is the highest and ultimate state of perfection. Words fail to describe at this point the state God is in.
4. He is not free to act contrary to his nature that is permanent. Does this mean he is not all powerful? No- it means that as a perfect and unchangeable being His commands and actions are rooted in the ultimate good which flow from his nature. God's moral character does not change. "I the Lord change not "Mal.3:6. There is no shadow of change with God (Jm.1:17).
His nature is eternal. He cannot say tomorrow I’ll act like the devil for a while or sin as man does. What God has been, He will always be, (the I Am). He is completely self sufficient within himself.
IN ORDER TO BE TEMPTED TO SIN THERE MUST BE THE ABILITY TO SIN.
5.God cannot sin, Holiness is part of his intrinsic nature, He cannot do otherwise.

YHWH CANNOT BE TEMPTED TO SIN OR CHANGE HIS CHARACTER TO DO SO.
THESE TRUTHS ARE PART OF THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. TO PROMOTE A DOCTRINE THAT DENIES THESE TRUTHS IS TO PROMOTE A GOD OUTSIDE OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.
I COULD POST DOZENS OF SCRIPTURES TO BACK UP WHAT I SAY BUT IF YOU ARE A BIBLE STUDENT YOU SHOULD HAVE A TOPICAL BIBLE HANDY. LOOK UP GOD AND THE SUBTITLE OF PERFECTION OR IMMORTALITY.

 

[Drew]

Christ must be fully human to be our exact example.

Can you actually defend this assertion? Why, exactly, would Jesus being divine make it impossible to see Him as a role model?

One thing God cannot do is change His character. For him to become a man He must change his character from one who cannot be tempted to one who can.

Your arguments are essentially begging the question. Here you simply assume that God cannot have three persons. With that assumption "slipped in un-noticed", you claim that Jesus' divinity is incoherent. Well, no kidding. If I did not believe in the notion of three persons within the Godhead, then I would be right behind you, claiming that it would not make sense to talk about a God who cannot be tempted being embodied in a form where He can.

But, of course, I do not believe in a "single person" God. My position is only problematic under your assumptions.

 

[Drew]

In an earlier post, I made a case that the Old Testament promises the Jews that YHWH will return to them, after having abandoned them in the exile. In this post, I argue that Jesus sees Himself as embodying that return. That shows that Jesus sees Himself as the embodiment of Israel's God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Yahoshea]

Christ must be fully human to be our exact example.

Can you actually defend this assertion? Why, exactly, would Jesus being divine make it impossible to see Him as a role model?

If Christ is in any part God then it brings everything into question. Did he do it via his humanity or via his divinity. It makes the clear example of human to human muddled. There is no guide in scripture that says he did this because he is divine and this because he is human. It leaves it all up to speculation. How can a people follow speculation. One thing about God is His functionality. He does not support doctrines that do not function to promote his desire to bring about the perfecting of the saints. Your doctrine brings that all into question.

But, of course, I do not believe in a "single person" God. My position is only problematic under your assumptions.

As is my position. Your assumptions of a triune God color what you believe. You interpret scripture based on your doctrine and dogma rather then write doctrine based on CLEAR scripture.
the entire theory of the Trinity is based on an amalgamation of Greek philosophy, gnosticism and dualism. It was forced on the Church by the sun worshipper Constantine in order to unify his empire. This Non-Christian suggested the formula of Christ and the father being of the same substance. He made sure his version of the Godhead was accepted by placing armed guards around the chambers at Nicea. Those who would not comply to his style of Christianity were threatened with banishment or death. Those bishops from the western empire which included Israel were not even invited to the council. Instead the bishops were from the Eastern Empire which was strongly influenced by the Greek states. It was all a set up and a scam that has been perpetrated on the church since then. Generations of following this myth has led people to just accept it as truth without so much as a critical examination of it functionality within the plan of God.

 

[Yahoshea]

In an earlier post, I made a case that the Old Testament promises the Jews that YHWH will return to them, after having abandoned them in the exile. In this post, I argue that Jesus sees Himself as embodying that return. That shows that Jesus sees Himself as the embodiment of Israel's God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here you take clear parable and say it cannot mean what it says cause that messes up my proof of my doctrine. Blah Blah Blah
There is not one scripture that states that God is triune. It is all hidden in speculation and preconceived ideas.
There is no doubt you are intelegent and can write an interesting story but deep down you are promoting a doctrine that does nothing to help the plan of God and is pure speculation.

 

[Drew]

Your assumptions of a triune God color what you believe. You interpret scripture based on your doctrine and dogma rather then write doctrine based on CLEAR scripture.

Simply untrue. I am the one making scriptural arguments. Did YHWH not abandon His people and promise to return? I have defended position scripturally. Did Jesus not ride into Jerusalem, representing Himself as embodying the return of YHWH to Zion? I have just made that case.

Does Ezekiel 1 and Daniel 7 not allow for a "human figure" to appear seated next to God.

I suggest that the scriptural arguments, at least as presented in this thread, support Jesus' divinity.

Another argument. Jesus calls the 12 disciples. Why 12? Obviously, this choice is deeply symbolic - Jesus is asserting that He is constituting a new Israel, choosing 12 disciples to represent the 12 tribes of Israel. Who has the right to constitute Israel in the Old Testament. That is YHWH's job. For Jesus to call 12 disciples, and do so many other things that imply that He is re-constituting Israel, sends a clear message - Jesus sees Himself as the incarnation of Israel's God - the one who has the right to call Israel into existence.

 

[Drew]

YHWH CANNOT BE TEMPTED TO SIN OR CHANGE HIS CHARACTER TO DO SO.
THESE TRUTHS ARE PART OF THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. TO PROMOTE A DOCTRINE THAT DENIES THESE TRUTHS IS TO PROMOTE A GOD OUTSIDE OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.

Even though my words may have been less than ideally precise, I am not saying that "God becomes Jesus". If I were, then, perhaps, the problem you raise would have some traction. But if the Godhead contains three persons "from the beginning", then there is no issue of God the Father "changing his character".

I grant that the issues here are tricky, but I suggest that we need to look to the Scriptures for guidance as to whether divinity can be predicated of Jesus. And what do we find when we do so?" We find a promised return of YHWH to Zion and a young Jew named Jesus who clearly believes that He is embodying and enacting that return.

Unless Jesus is incorrect in His self-understanding, He sees Himself as the incarnation of Israel's God.

 

[Drew]

Here you take clear parable and say it cannot mean what it says cause that messes up my proof of my doctrine. Blah Blah Blah
There is not one scripture that states that God is triune. It is all hidden in speculation and preconceived ideas.
There is no doubt you are intelegent and can write an interesting story but deep down you are promoting a doctrine that does nothing to help the plan of God and is pure speculation.

Are not even going to try to critique my argument? My argument is what it is. If you are right, then my argument must be wrong.

So please tell us, where is my argument wrong?

Was there not a promised return of YHWH to Zion?

Did Jesus not ride into Jerusalem and tell a parable of a returning King?

Did Jesus not lament that Jersusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation? What could that visitiation be, if not the promised return iof YHWH to Zion?

Did Jesus not go the temple in judgement, evoking the image of YHWH returning to the temple in judgement, as per Malachi 3?

I apppeciate that you think I am intelligent. But I politely suggest that is easy to make a case when the Scriptures support it. I really do recognize and appreciate the seeming conflicts in claiming that Jesus is divine. But those concerns arise from conceptual considerations that are not really relevant. What is relevant is the Jewish view of God, not the conceptual boundaries. And, as Ezekiel 1 and Daniel 7 show, the Jewish model of God does allow for the possibility that God the Father shares the divine throne with a "human figure".

 

[mutzrein]

Yahoshea

I'm sorry if I haven't picked it up from this thread somewhere but can you please tell me who you believe Jesus was/is, if he was/is not the son of God.

Thanks

 

[Yahoshea]

Yahoshea

I'm sorry if I haven't picked it up from this thread somewhere but can you please tell me who you believe Jesus was/is, if he was/is not the son of God.

Thanks

I believe that Christ is the son of God, but is a completely human son just like us.

 

[Yahoshea]

Here you take clear parable and say it cannot mean what it says cause that messes up my proof of my doctrine. Blah Blah Blah
There is not one scripture that states that God is triune. It is all hidden in speculation and preconceived ideas.
There is no doubt you are intelegent and can write an interesting story but deep down you are promoting a doctrine that does nothing to help the plan of God and is pure speculation.

Are not even going to try to critique my argument? My argument is what it is. If you are right, then my argument must be wrong.

So please tell us, where is my argument wrong?

Was there not a promised return of YHWH to Zion?

Did Jesus not ride into Jerusalem and tell a parable of a returning King?

Did Jesus not lament that Jersusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation? What could that visitiation be, if not the promised return iof YHWH to Zion?

Did Jesus not go the temple in judgement, evoking the image of YHWH returning to the temple in judgement, as per Malachi 3?

I apppeciate that you think I am intelligent. But I politely suggest that is easy to make a case when the Scriptures support it. I really do recognize and appreciate the seeming conflicts in claiming that Jesus is divine. But those concerns arise from conceptual considerations that are not really relevant. What is relevant is the Jewish view of God, not the conceptual boundaries. And, as Ezekiel 1 and Daniel 7 show, the Jewish model of God does allow for the possibility that God the Father shares the divine throne with a "human figure".

It is possible that your confusion arises from a misunderstanding of Hebrew culture and how they wrote scripture.
From The Ancient Hebrew Research Center –

Appearance vs. Functional Description
Greek thought describes objects in relation to its appearance. Hebrew thought describes objects in relation to its function.
A deer and an oak are two very different objects and we would never describe them in the same way with our Greek form of descriptions. The Hebrew word for both of these objects is ??? (ayil) because the functional description of these two objects are identical to the ancient Hebrews, therefore, the same Hebrew word is used for both. The Hebraic definition of ??? is "a strong leader".
A deer stag is one of the most powerful animals of the forest and is seen as "a strong leader" among the other animals of the forest. Also the oak tree's wood is very hard compared to other trees such as the pine which is soft and is seen as a "strong leader" among the trees of the forest.
Notice the two different translations of the Hebrew word ??? in Psalms 29.9. The NASB and KJV translates it as "The voice of the LORD makes the deer to calve" while the NIV translates it as "The voice of the LORD twists the oaks". The literal translation of this verse in Hebrew thought would be; "The voice of the LORD makes the strong leaders turn".
When translating the Hebrew into English, the translator must give a Greek description to this word which is why we have two different ways of translating this verse. This same word is also translated as a "ruler" in 2 Kings 24.15, who is a man who is a strong leader.
Another example of Greek thought would be the following description of a common pencil: "it is yellow and about 8 inches long". A Hebrew description of the pencil would be related to its function such as "I write words with it". Notice that the Hebrew description uses the verb "write" while the Greek description uses the adjectives "yellow" and "long". Because of Hebrew's form of functional descriptions, verbs are used much more frequently then adjectives.

End quote -----

A perfect example of this concept is in Psalms 82 and John 10.
In Psalms YHWH says that the leaders of Israel should be Gods. Is he serious? Does he expect those leaders to really become Gods? Certainly not, but He does expect them as leaders to function as God to the people.
In John 10 Jesus quotes this verse to the leaders of his time pointing out to them that they to have failed to function as Gods toward the people. This is why the leaders hated him so. In everything Jesus did He functioned as God would have functioned. He manifested his character, grace and mercy at every opportunity.
In Isa 9:6
6For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
7There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,
On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
From then on and forevermore
The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.

The term “name†in verse 6 is the Hebrew word “shem†and literally means character or character trait.
With the proper translation the verse reads
And His character (name) will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
7There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,

Now this is no longer a Trinitarian proof text but instead a description of the character of Christ. Because of having the character of YHWH all power could be entrusted in the human that God appointed.

On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
From then on and forevermore

This is clearly speaking of a human calling (the thrown of David) and it begins when? The context is when Jesus sits on David’s thrown. This is not a preexistent position.

The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.

This shows clearly that it is the power of YHWH that does this work in Christ. It is not of his own divine power.

Look at the way in which God is described in his many names. All of them display a function of God.
1. God (Heb. Elohim): often regarded the plural of majesty for God in the OT, the name signifies speaks of his role as the transcendent Creator of all that exists (Gen. 1:2). One key understanding of the Hebrew language is that a plural noun does not mean literally plural but is used to show an over abundance of the function of the noun in question. The majesty of God is then emphasized.

2. God Most High (Heb. El-Elyon): This name indicates Gods’ superior position above all the other gods of the nations (Gen. 14:18-20).

3. LORD (Heb. YHWH or Yahweh or Jehovah): The “I AM†God of the burning bush episode in Moses’ call to deliver Israel from slavery in Egypt (Exod. 3:14-15). The name signified God would be an inexhaustible resource for accomplishing all that he had charged Moses to do. The name is also associated with God’s covenant with Israel and speaks to the personal and relational nature of his character.

4. Lord (Heb. Adonai): Revealed God as owner and master of all his creation (Josh. 3:11).

5. God Almighty (Heb. El-Shaddai): The name recalls God’s power in creating and sustaining all life (Gen. 17:1). The name literally means “God of the mountains†and later it became associated with the awesome display of divine might at Mt. Sinai (Exod. 19).

6. God Everlasting (Heb. El-Olam): This name emphasizes God’s immensity and eternality (Gen. 21:33).

7. God, the One Who Sees (Heb. El-Roeh): The name reveals God’s beneficent omniscience, a God who sees the needs of his people and cares enough to respond with help and deliverance (Gen. 16:13).

8. God of the Covenant (Heb. El-Berith): A reminder of God’s immanence as a covenant maker with humanity, his faithfulness as a covenant keeper, and the security found in relationship with God (Judg. 9:46).

9. God, the God of Israel (Heb. El-Elohe-Israel): The names attests God’s sovereignty and providential watch and care over Israel as his elect people (Gen. 33:19-20).

10. The LORD our Provision (Heb. YHWH/Yahweh-Yireh or Jehovah Jireh): A name that witnesses God’s ability to sustain the faithful in trial and testing (Gen. 22:13-14).

11. The LORD Heals (Heb. YHWH/Yahweh-Rapha): A name revealing God’s potent curative powers to overcome sin and disease in the fallen creation (Exod. 15:26).

12. The LORD our Banner (Heb. YWWH/Yahweh-Nissi): A reminder that God himself goes before his people in battle and in all of life (Exod. 17:15).

13. The LORD is Peace (Heb. YHWH/Yahweh-Shalom): The righteous may rest secure in God (Judg. 6:24).

14. The LORD our Shepherd (Heb. YHWH/Yahweh-Ra’ah): The most poignant of all the divine names—God tends to his people like a shepherd for his sheep (Ps. 23:1).

15. The LORD our Righteousness (Heb. YHWH/Yahweh-Tsidkenu): The name exalts the perfection and impeccable character of God (Jer. 23:6).

16. The LORD is Present (Heb. YHWH/Yahweh-Shammah): The name affirms the omnipresence of God as the personal Creator and Redeemer of the world and all people (Ezek. 48:35).

17. The LORD of Hosts (Heb. YHWH/Yahweh-Sabaoth): The name designates God as the creator and leader of the angel armies of heaven (1 Sam. 17:45).

It is important to always remember that to the Hebrew mind an object is named for it’s function rather then appearance or abstraction. How would the character of God appear in a human being? What would a person be like that dwells within the confines of the cosmos God created and still is a perfect example of the character of God.

Jesus functioned as God but is not literally God. We too are to function as God. We are to have His character and motives. For this reason we have the completely human example of Christ to follow.

I am finished for the evening.

 

[mutzrein]

Yahoshea

I'm sorry if I haven't picked it up from this thread somewhere but can you please tell me who you believe Jesus was/is, if he was/is not the son of God.

Thanks

I believe that Christ is the son of God, but is a completely human son just like us.

So if he is the son of God, do you accept that he came FROM God - but IS NOT God himself?

 

[Drew]

the entire theory of the Trinity is based on an amalgamation of Greek philosophy, gnosticism and dualism.

I suggest that this is not correct. There is evidence that Trinitarian theology is deeply rooted in the Jewish worldview. The Old Testament manifests several ways of expressing the activity of God in the world. One of these is the doctrine of the "word", as in this text from Isaiah:

For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
And do not return there without watering the earth
And making it bear and sprout,
And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater;
11So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth;
It will not return to Me empty,
Without accomplishing what I desire,
And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.

Despite the claim you make, this distinctly Jewish theme, not to mention the distinctly Jewish theme of the glory of God making its home in the temple, are picked up by John and applied to Jesus:

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

What is the point? It is that the ascription of divinity to Jesus picks up specifically Jewish themes, not pagan ones, as you suggest.

 

[Drew]

the entire theory of the Trinity is based on an amalgamation of Greek philosophy, gnosticism and dualism.

I would like to ask a question: Do you believe in the inspiration of both the Old and New Testaments? I can perhaps understand a statement like the above if you have doubts in these areas. But if you are willing to say that both Testaments are the word of God, I have no idea how your point works. We know that John uses the distinctly Jewish idea of God acting in the world through His "word" to describe Jesus. For John to say that Jesus is God's "word" is pretty close to a direct claim that what Jesus does in the world is to be understood as God acting in the world. I am not sure how you drive a wedge here between Jesus and God in respect to essential nature. To say that Jesus is the "word" is to equate His actions in the world with the actions of God in the world.

In any event, we also have this text from 1 Corinthians 8:

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

I really do not see how this text does not solidly root Jesus' divinity in a specifically Jewish worldview. Paul here is rather clearly alluding to the "shema" - the essential Jewish declaration of monotheism:

Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

Now Paul takes this distinctly Jewish concept and situates Jesus squarely in the middle of it, expressing only the slimmest distinctions between God the Father and Jesus. What does this distinction consist in? Well, we have the claim that the Father is the source of all things ("from whom are all things") and we have Jesus as the agency responsible for all things ("by whom are all things}. This is really a way of saying that God and Jesus are essentially the "same thing". If we say that "X is the source of A" and then say "Y is the agency for the creation of A", we are really driven to say that X equals Y. Why? Well, if this is not self-evident, I would ask how can a divine God be the source of all things and a "mere man" be the agent by which all things are created? To be the source of something means to be the agent by which that something comes to be realized. These are really two ways of saying the same thing. If I am the "source" of a fastball delivered to the plate at 90 mph, I am, of course, the agent responsible for delivering that ball to the plate.

I suggest that Paul is very cleverly making the case for Jesus' divinity in exactly the same way that John does when he refers to Jesus as the "word" of God. We have God as the "source" of the Word in Old Testament passages such as the one I posted from Isaiah: "My word goes forth from my mouth and accomplishes its purpose". And then we get John saying that Jesus is that very word - the actions of the man Jesus constitute, or embody, or incarnate that word - His actions are the concrete manifestation of what would otherwise be an abstraction in search of a realization - the notion of God's word acting in the world. God promises that His word will accomplish things in the world and Jesus This is precisely the same "source - agency" distinction that Paul draws here in 1 Corinthians 8:6.

 

[TheCatholic]

The Divinity of Christ:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Divinity_of_Christ.asp

The Eternal Sonship of Christ:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Eternal ... Christ.asp

 

[Yahoshea]

the entire theory of the Trinity is based on an amalgamation of Greek philosophy, gnosticism and dualism.

I would like to ask a question: Do you believe in the inspiration of both the Old and New Testaments? I can perhaps understand a statement like the above if you have doubts in these areas. But if you are willing to say that both Testaments are the word of God, I have no idea how your point works. We know that John uses the distinctly Jewish idea of God acting in the world through His "word" to describe Jesus. For John to say that Jesus is God's "word" is pretty close to a direct claim that what Jesus does in the world is to be understood as God acting in the world. I am not sure how you drive a wedge here between Jesus and God in respect to essential nature. To say that Jesus is the "word" is to equate His actions in the world with the actions of God in the world.

In any event, we also have this text from 1 Corinthians 8:

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

I really do not see how this text does not solidly root Jesus' divinity in a specifically Jewish worldview. Paul here is rather clearly alluding to the "shema" - the essential Jewish declaration of monotheism:

Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

Now Paul takes this distinctly Jewish concept and situates Jesus squarely in the middle of it, expressing only the slimmest distinctions between God the Father and Jesus. What does this distinction consist in? Well, we have the claim that the Father is the source of all things ("from whom are all things") and we have Jesus as the agency responsible for all things ("by whom are all things}. This is really a way of saying that God and Jesus are essentially the "same thing". If we say that "X is the source of A" and then say "Y is the agency for the creation of A", we are really driven to say that X equals Y. Why? Well, if this is not self-evident, I would ask how can a divine God be the source of all things and a "mere man" be the agent by which all things are created? To be the source of something means to be the agent by which that something comes to be realized. These are really two ways of saying the same thing. If I am the "source" of a fastball delivered to the plate at 90 mph, I am, of course, the agent responsible for delivering that ball to the plate.

I suggest that Paul is very cleverly making the case for Jesus' divinity in exactly the same way that John does when he refers to Jesus as the "word" of God. We have God as the "source" of the Word in Old Testament passages such as the one I posted from Isaiah: "My word goes forth from my mouth and accomplishes its purpose". And then we get John saying that Jesus is that very word - the actions of the man Jesus constitute, or embody, or incarnate that word - His actions are the concrete manifestation of what would otherwise be an abstraction in search of a realization - the notion of God's word acting in the world. God promises that His word will accomplish things in the world and Jesus This is precisely the same "source - agency" distinction that Paul draws here in 1 Corinthians 8:6.

There is no linguistic reason to interpret Logos in John 1 as Jesus. No literature of the time uses logos in that way or to denote a personage of any kind. In over 350 times logos is used in scripture it is only defined (by some) Jesus 6 or 8 times. The overwhelming evidence in both Greek literature of the time and the overwhelming evidence in scripture itself points to a definition as statement speech or idea.
There are sources that will attempt to validate a definition of Jesus but it is not based on sound linguistic evidence. It is based more on tradition then real evidence.
I admit that John 1 can be difficult to understand, but that is more due to our lack of thinking as the Hebrews did and not as the current Western cultures look at things. Even though John wrote in Greek he still thought and perceived his world and his God from a purely Hebrew way. John and the others had the unenviable task of expressing Hebrew concepts and understandings to a Greek thinking world. As I have posted many many times the Hebrews did not see God as “He is …………..†the saw God as “He functions as ……..â€
Moses bowed down before the burning bush and turned away because He was afraid to look at God. The bush (and the angel of the Lord in it) functioned as God to Moses and Moses reacted to it as if it were God Himself. To him it was God. This expression of God WAS God to Moses.
Psalms 82 YHWH rebukes the leaders of Israel for not being Gods to the people. Jesus quotes these scriptures in John 10 to rebuke the Pharisees for not being Gods to the people. Did YHWH and Jesus expect them to be literal Gods? Of course not! They did expect them to function as Gods to the people and to relate to them as God would.
This also ties in to the personal way in which the Hebrews saw things. The Hebrews did not understand an object (or person) by comparing it to itself but rather by comparing it to the Hebrew himself. We might say “God is love†A Hebrew would say †God loves meâ€. It was viewed personally. In fact there is no word for “is†in the Hebrew language. The closest one could get is “functions as†or “relates to me asâ€. In our modern English language one could also say be like God, in the form of God, expressed image of God, represent God ect. Heard these before? Now we may not be any of these things in a perfect manner, but there was one man who was. He opened the door and made a way for us to be continually developing that perfection in ourselves. With the wind/breath/spirit of God blowing on us we are transformed from glory to glory.
Back to John 1 ---
“In the beginning was the Logosâ€
In the beginning was a concept/idea.
“And the Logos was with Godâ€
and the idea reflected as in a mirror God
“And the logos was Godâ€
This idea expressed who God was and how He wanted to relate to and function toward His children. (Again Hebrew parallelism saying the same thing in two or more ways.)
“This was in beginning toward God†(actual Greek)
From the beginning this idea/expression was a mirror toward God reflecting who God was.
“All things come into being through him and apart from him nothings came into being that has come into being.†(actual Greek).
God created all things and nothing has existence outside of God.
“In Him was life and the life was the light of menâ€.
God is the source of Light and life.
5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

6There came a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him.
8He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.
9There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.
10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
11He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
12But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

All the previous verse are talking about God and not about Jesus. The next verses begin to speak of Jesus.

14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
God’s idea came to fruition. 1 Peter 1:20?For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you
15John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'"
The Greek does not use the word “existed†it says Jesus is before John, but in preeminence. Jesus being the forerunner and firstborn. Verse 16 and 17 explain why Jesus is preeminent over John.
16For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.
17For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.

18No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
Again Jesus is related to and spoken of as God because of the way He functioned. He fully represented and expressed God.

I appreciate that it is hard to think in the Hebrew way, but it is imperative that we do so in order to understand scripture from within the culture it was written.