Is Jesus considered to be God?

[Yahoshea]

That does not prove Jesus is God.

There is no question in the Bible that Jesus is God. I have given you some of the verses. One is spoken directly from God the Father about Jesus being God.So there is and has never been anything to "prove". In the Bible it is never a question, its a very clear fact and clearly so stated.

You can be willfully ignorant of this, but that is simply a choice on your behalf.
blessings
C

None of the versus are conclusive. the only reason I have not explained them is that I have done so many times. You are late in this debate. I am not going to deal with the same junk time and again.
There are more clear scriptures that say he is a man. And to say that he is human and God is an irrational statement. One being cannot be temptable and mortal while at the same time non temptable and immortal. This is not possible in a functioning being.
AND PLEASE DO NOT THOW UP THE OLD MYSTERY CARD!!!!!

 

[Yahoshea]

1 Cor 15
20But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.
(who are those who are asleep? Gods? Or are they humans. Jesus is the first fruits of humanity. You do not say that an ear of corn is the first fruit of the wheat crop.

21For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
(what kind of being brought resurrection of the dead? A God? No a man.)

22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
(Another direct comparison between the human Adam and the Human Christ)

23But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming,
24then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.
25For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.

(Christ hands the kingdom over to God. DOES HE HAND IT OVER TO HIMSELF?
26The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
27For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.
28When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.
(CHRIST IN SUBJECTION TO GOD? DOES NOT SOUND LIKE A CO-EQUAL PERSON OF GOD.)

Matt 13
54He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?
55"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
Does a God have brothers?

 

[Free]

(what kind of being brought resurrection of the dead? A God? No a man.)

Not an argument against the deity of Jesus.

(Christ hands the kingdom over to God. DOES HE HAND IT OVER TO HIMSELF?

That's an argument against modalism, not trinitarianism.

(CHRIST IN SUBJECTION TO GOD? DOES NOT SOUND LIKE A CO-EQUAL PERSON OF GOD.)

The Economic Trinity is in view, not the Ontological Trinity.

Does a God have brothers?

:gah

 

[Yahoshea]

Hebrews 1: 8 but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom

Did you bother to read the context?
But of the Son He says,
"YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,
AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
9"YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS;
THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU
WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS

According to you verse 8 proves that Jesus is God, but then verse 9 says that Jesus has a God. Is there now a major and a minor God in the world? that is what the JW's believe.

 

[Yahoshea]

(what kind of being brought resurrection of the dead? A God? No a man.)

Not an argument against the deity of Jesus.

Reply ---
You claim that it took a God to die for humanity. What is the benefit of salvation if not the resurection from the dead? Which was brought by a man and not a God.

(Christ hands the kingdom over to God. DOES HE HAND IT OVER TO HIMSELF?

That's an argument against modalism, not trinitarianism.

(CHRIST IN SUBJECTION TO GOD? DOES NOT SOUND LIKE A CO-EQUAL PERSON OF GOD.)

The Economic Trinity is in view, not the Ontological Trinity.

reply ---
show me the scripture that say that in that context? You just make up stuff as you go along.

Does a God have brothers?

:gah

 

[Yahoshea]

(what kind of being brought resurrection of the dead? A God? No a man.)

Not an argument against the deity of Jesus.

(Christ hands the kingdom over to God. DOES HE HAND IT OVER TO HIMSELF?

That's an argument against modalism, not trinitarianism.

(CHRIST IN SUBJECTION TO GOD? DOES NOT SOUND LIKE A CO-EQUAL PERSON OF GOD.)

The Economic Trinity is in view, not the Ontological Trinity.

Does a God have brothers?

:gah

You say -

The Economic Trinity is in view, not the Ontological Trinity.

Reply –
Every time a Trinitarian comes across a scripture that disproves his theory they make up another philosophy to confuse the issue. Can I try?

The beyslebob Trinity is in view, not the gobligook Trinity.
There, I can be a Trinitarian too!!!

You use the matter in question to prove the matter in question. Circular reasoning.
You cannot use the trinity to prove the deity of Christ. You are using supposed facts not in evidence.

 

[Free]

Every time a Trinitarian comes across a scripture that disproves his theory they make up another philosophy to confuse the issue. Can I try?

The beyslebob Trinity is in view, not the gobligook Trinity.
There, I can be a Trinitarian too!!!

If you haven't studied the Trinity then you shouldn't be arguing against it. If you don't know what is meant by the Economic Trinity and Ontological Trinity, look them up so you can contribute something mature and intelligent to the discussion.

You use the matter in question to prove the matter in question. Circular reasoning.
You cannot use the trinity to prove the deity of Christ.

Actually, no, I did no such thing.

 

[Drew]

There are more clear scriptures that say he is a man. And to say that he is human and God is an irrational statement. One being cannot be temptable and mortal while at the same time non temptable and immortal.

Once again, I think you are looking at this in entirely the wrong way:

1. You deeply beg the question by bringing entirely innapropriate categorical distinctions to the discussion. Here you appeal to the mortal / immortal distinction as if this were disproof of the doctrine of the Trinity. With all due respect, by thinking that this settles the issue, you are implicitly saying that millions of Trinitarians through the generations are too dumb to understand that one cannot both be mortal and immortal at the same time. Please, give us more credit than this. As I have argued in earlier posts, you are drawing on distinctions that are ultimately grounded in ideas about the boundary between the concepts of divinity and personhood that are grounded in the vague "deist" model of God that has been transmitted to us in our general cultural setting. As point number 2 will show, this is not the proper reference framework where Jesus is concerned;

2. When we turn to the scriptures of the Old Testament we see a picture of God that is more concrete, rich, and subtle than the standard "Deist" model with its broad, highly general, and highly abstract boundaries. So, for example, and has been extensively argued in this thread, one of the identifying markers for "who God is and what He is like" is that He is represented as promising to return "personally" to dwell with his people. So when Jesus acts in a way that clearly shows that He believes that He is personally enacting that very promised return, we should see this as a claim on the part of Jesus that He sees Himself as the embodiment of Israel's God. Now at the risk of presuming to know how you think, I am quite confident that your rejoinder will be "well that's impossible, we cannot predicate divinity of a human being". Now, when I ask you where you get that idea from, what would you say? (assuming of course, that I have correctly anticipated the kind of response you would give to my assertion about Jesus embodying the return of God to ZIon.

 

[wavy]

You say -

The Economic Trinity is in view, not the Ontological Trinity.

Reply –
Every time a Trinitarian comes across a scripture that disproves his theory they make up another philosophy to confuse the issue. Can I try?

The beyslebob Trinity is in view, not the gobligook Trinity.
There, I can be a Trinitarian too!!!

You use the matter in question to prove the matter in question. Circular reasoning.
You cannot use the trinity to prove the deity of Christ. You are using supposed facts not in evidence.

No, Free's point is that the verse can be interpreted another way that is compatible with the Trinitarian view, so your prooftext against the Trinity fails.

Finis,
Eric

 

[wavy]

A few of Yahoshea's points that I wanted to address.

Firstly, his explanation of Jn viii.58 was practically nonexistent. Here the author is letting us know that Jesus is claiming to be God using the 'I AM' self-declarations of God found in the LXX. (e.g. Isa xli.4; xlviii.12; lii.6, et al, read as 'ego eimi') The reason why the Jews wanted to kill him is obvious.

In fact, all three times the Jews make an attempt on Jesus' life in the gospel of John, it is because his claims were ostensibly claims to divinity (Jn v.18; viii.58; x.30) This is no coincidence. It is obviously material the author selected because he was trying to stress this very thing.

This brings me to Jn x.30 and Jesus' reply in the following verses where he quotes Psalm lxxxii. Yahoshea has entirely missed the point of the quote. The point is not that God called men 'gods' and therefore Jesus, as a mere man, is no more a 'god' than they are. The quote simply rebuts the charge of blasphemy. They accused him of being God as man. (verse 33) Jesus appeals to the scriptures to prove there's nothing technically 'blasphemous' about the claim they could charge him legally with. How Jesus is 'God/divine' is irrelevant to his use of the psalm.

Additionally, that God could not incarnate and become man is the very heresy the author of this gospel condemns in the epistles. (see 1Jn iv.2f.) The Jews denied Jesus could claim to be God as a man. The author says in the epistles that those who deny this very act of God assuming flesh are antichrists. He claimed that Jesus could be felt, etc. (1Jn i.1), so he as the Logos who was God (Jn i.1) was indeed a flesh and blood human being. When Thomas felt Jesus himself after his Resurrection (as proof that he was real) he immediately exclaims 'My Lord and my God!' And now the association is clear. There is nothing about this verse that suggests Thomas is only acknowledging 'God's presence' within Jesus. 'My Lord and My God' is pretty self-explanatory and only those trying to escape the doctrinal implications of this exclamation read things like 'God's presence' into the text which aren't there.


Finis,
Eric

 

[Vic C.]

... Can I try?

The beyslebob Trinity is in view, not the gobligook Trinity.
There, I can be a Trinitarian too!!!

You use the matter in question to prove the matter in question. Circular reasoning.
You cannot use the trinity to prove the deity of Christ. You are using supposed facts not in evidence.

Whether or not you consider our belief invalid doesn't give you or anyone else the right to discuss things in a demeaning, condescending or patronizing manner. The fact that you will dismiss any rebuttal a trinitarian will post makes any discussion on this issue moot. Over and above all that, it is a core and basic tenant of our Faith. So please keep in mind the first rule of this site's ToS:

1 - This is a Christian site, therefore, any attempt to put down Christianity and the basic tenets of our Faith will be considered a hostile act.


Thanks.

 

[Yahoshea]

There are more clear scriptures that say he is a man. And to say that he is human and God is an irrational statement. One being cannot be temptable and mortal while at the same time non temptable and immortal.

Once again, I think you are looking at this in entirely the wrong way:

1. You deeply beg the question by bringing entirely innapropriate categorical distinctions to the discussion. Here you appeal to the mortal / immortal distinction as if this were disproof of the doctrine of the Trinity. With all due respect, by thinking that this settles the issue, you are implicitly saying that millions of Trinitarians through the generations are too dumb to understand that one cannot both be mortal and immortal at the same time. Please, give us more credit than this. As I have argued in earlier posts, you are drawing on distinctions that are ultimately grounded in ideas about the boundary between the concepts of divinity and personhood that are grounded in the vague "deist" model of God that has been transmitted to us in our general cultural setting. As point number 2 will show, this is not the proper reference framework where Jesus is concerned;

2. When we turn to the scriptures of the Old Testament we see a picture of God that is more concrete, rich, and subtle than the standard "Deist" model with its broad, highly general, and highly abstract boundaries. So, for example, and has been extensively argued in this thread, one of the identifying markers for "who God is and what He is like" is that He is represented as promising to return "personally" to dwell with his people. So when Jesus acts in a way that clearly shows that He believes that He is personally enacting that very promised return, we should see this as a claim on the part of Jesus that He sees Himself as the embodiment of Israel's God. Now at the risk of presuming to know how you think, I am quite confident that your rejoinder will be "well that's impossible, we cannot predicate divinity of a human being". Now, when I ask you where you get that idea from, what would you say? (assuming of course, that I have correctly anticipated the kind of response you would give to my assertion about Jesus embodying the return of God to ZIon.

I have already agreed that YHWH will and IMO has returned to his people. the question then becomes does YHWH coming in Christ demand that Christ Be God? sripture states that in Christ dwelled the fullness of God. This is also said of us in Hebrews or Eph. I do not remember which.
Jesus claims to be the Temple and we are also called the temples.YHWH promises to return to his temple. this does not mean the temple cannot be human. In fact Christ equates the temple with his body. I have no problem with Christ claiming that God has returned in respect to him. Christ had the fullness of God dwelling in him. This still does not demand that Christ be a God. On the other hand Christ as our example does demand a human Christ. Your stand does not demand that christ be deity but my stand does demand that Christ be human.

You say ---
you are drawing on distinctions that are ultimately grounded in ideas about the boundary between the concepts of divinity and personhood that are grounded in the vague "deist" model of God that has been transmitted to us in our general cultural setting

Reply -
I am not drawing on any deist dialog but rather on the truths that are clear in scripture and on rules of reason. If any vagueness exists it is in the model of 3 in 1 or immortality and mortality existing in one being. You may attempt to philosophise it away but you cannot get away from the point.

On another thread you stated ---



Re: Can God do Anything?
by Free on Tue Nov 10, 2009 11:08 am
No, God cannot sin.

Yet in order for Christ to be tempted he must be capable of sin. Jesus is capable of sin. Jesus can sin. Jesus has to be capable of sin or he is not temptable in all ways like us.
If Jesus can sin and God cannot sin then Jesus cannot be God.
This is a clear rational statement. You cannot just run out some vague philosophy to negate this.

If you do not believe that God is immortal or non temptable (no mater the philosophical excuses) then you do not believe in the God of the Bible.
I am not impressed in the millions of Christians that believe in the trinity. As I stated before millions believe that Baptism consists of sprinkling babies. Most Christians are far too busy with their own lives to really research the matter. This is coupled with the deplorable lack of critical thinking that is rampant in todays society.

Let me ask you a question ---
Can your God die?
Can your God be tempted or sin?
Can your God give up his immortality and become mortal?
Can your God change his character? (to become temptable)

 

[Yahoshea]

... Can I try?

The beyslebob Trinity is in view, not the gobligook Trinity.
There, I can be a Trinitarian too!!!

You use the matter in question to prove the matter in question. Circular reasoning.
You cannot use the trinity to prove the deity of Christ. You are using supposed facts not in evidence.

Whether or not you consider our belief invalid doesn't give you or anyone else the right to discuss things in a demeaning, condescending or patronizing manner. The fact that you will dismiss any rebuttal a trinitarian will post makes any discussion on this issue moot. Over and above all that, it is a core and basic tenant of our Faith. So please keep in mind the first rule of this site's ToS:

1 - This is a Christian site, therefore, any attempt to put down Christianity and the basic tenets of our Faith will be considered a hostile act.


Thanks.

Yet you have dismissed the basic tennants of an immortal God A non temptable God and Christ as our example.

 

[Yahoshea]

A few of Yahoshea's points that I wanted to address.

Firstly, his explanation of Jn viii.58 was practically nonexistent. Here the author is letting us know that Jesus is claiming to be God using the 'I AM' self-declarations of God found in the LXX. (e.g. Isa xli.4; xlviii.12; lii.6, et al, read as 'ego eimi') The reason why the Jews wanted to kill him is obvious.

In fact, all three times the Jews make an attempt on Jesus' life in the gospel of John, it is because his claims were ostensibly claims to divinity (Jn v.18; viii.58; x.30) This is no coincidence. It is obviously material the author selected because he was trying to stress this very thing.

This brings me to Jn x.30 and Jesus' reply in the following verses where he quotes Psalm lxxxii. Yahoshea has entirely missed the point of the quote. The point is not that God called men 'gods' and therefore Jesus, as a mere man, is no more a 'god' than they are. The quote simply rebuts the charge of blasphemy. They accused him of being God as man. (verse 33) Jesus appeals to the scriptures to prove there's nothing technically 'blasphemous' about the claim they could charge him legally with. How Jesus is 'God/divine' is irrelevant to his use of the psalm.

Additionally, that God could not incarnate and become man is the very heresy the author of this gospel condemns in the epistles. (see 1Jn iv.2f.) The Jews denied Jesus could claim to be God as a man. The author says in the epistles that those who deny this very act of God assuming flesh are antichrists. He claimed that Jesus could be felt, etc. (1Jn i.1), so he as the Logos who was God (Jn i.1) was indeed a flesh and blood human being. When Thomas felt Jesus himself after his Resurrection (as proof that he was real) he immediately exclaims 'My Lord and my God!' And now the association is clear. There is nothing about this verse that suggests Thomas is only acknowledging 'God's presence' within Jesus. 'My Lord and My God' is pretty self-explanatory and only those trying to escape the doctrinal implications of this exclamation read things like 'God's presence' into the text which aren't there.


Finis,
Eric

'ego eimi' is Greek and reading the text of the OT in greek does not mean that they are the same. The LXX was strongly influenced by the trinitarians and was therefor assumed to be the same words. EYEH cannot be fairly equated with the Greek in John.
secondly you ignore the use of a remez by Christ. A remez is a common way in which Rabbis talked about scripture. One could quote an OT verse in part and the learned readers would understand it within it's entire context. the quote from psalms 82 is about the leaders of Israel not functioning as Gods toward the people. this is what Jesus was intimating. this was his ebke of the leaders of his time.

You say -
There is nothing about this verse that suggests Thomas is only acknowledging 'God's presence' within Jesus.

Reply -
You are right. If all of scripture we posesed was that verse then it would imply Christ is God. Fortunately we have the rest of the Bible to consider. you cannot take a verse out of the general context and put a meaning to it.
Jesus is filled with the Holy spirit - that means God is dwelling in him.
Christ says that God is in him.
It is said that he is filled with the fullness of God. God in him.

You do not consider the way in which the Hebrews of that time viewed their world. Hebrews do not name things by virtue of how they apear but rather by way of the way they function.
There is no word "is" in hebrew. the closest one could come is "functions as " or "relates to me as". The hebrew mind would not conceptualize Jesus is God. He would conceptualize that Jesus functions as God or that Jesus relates to me as God. the Hebrew Eastern culture would not allow the concepts to come to mind that you indorse. It was not the way they think.

 

[Yahoshea]

Let me explain in simple terms the difference between the way the Hebrews of the OT through Jesus time thinks and the way those of the Western Greek cultures think.
If you were to show the Western thinker a pencil they would describe it as yellow, nine inches long ect.
The Hebrew would simply say I write with it.
A western thinker says God is love.
A hebrew thinker says God loves me.
The western mind relates by appearance.
The hebrew mind relates according to function.
One of the primary rules of interpretation is to understand scripture within the culture it was written in.

 

[Yahoshea]

Every time a Trinitarian comes across a scripture that disproves his theory they make up another philosophy to confuse the issue. Can I try?

The beyslebob Trinity is in view, not the gobligook Trinity.
There, I can be a Trinitarian too!!!

If you haven't studied the Trinity then you shouldn't be arguing against it. If you don't know what is meant by the Economic Trinity and Ontological Trinity, look them up so you can contribute something mature and intelligent to the discussion.

You use the matter in question to prove the matter in question. Circular reasoning.
You cannot use the trinity to prove the deity of Christ.

Actually, no, I did no such thing.

I am going to quit for the evening but I would like to leave with one more question. Your position seems to centr around YHWH returning and by that returning pay the price for our sins. It seems you believe this is the plan of God for his creation.
I ask you -- what was God's original plan before the fall? Did he scrap that plan or did he augment it to include a savior to redeem us back to the original plan?

 

[Cornelius]

None of the versus are conclusive.

Yes they are conclusive. Even a child can understand them.

C

 

[francisdesales]

The LXX was strongly influenced by the trinitarians and was therefor assumed to be the same words.

Quite obviously, you have no clue what you are talking about, the Septuagint was written well before Jesus was born of the Virgin. I am presuming that everyone here will agree that there were no Jewish Trinitarians circa 100 BC... Thus, the idea that the Trinitarians "influenced" the Septaugint is ignorant.

You are right. If all of scripture we posesed was that verse then it would imply Christ is God.

There is sufficient evidence throughout the Scriptures that the Apostles began to realize that Jesus was subtly hinting that He was indeed God. He did things that the Jews considered only God could do, for example, forgive sins. He told the Apostles HE would send the Spirit of God upon them. He told them that HE would form a NEW Covenant with man. Clearly, the Scriptures support the idea of a gradual realization that Jesus Christ WAS INDEED God and was worshipped as so. The subsequent theological discussion was on how monotheism would not be violated while recognizing the revealed fact that Jesus was God and the Father was God, both distinct, but somehow, both One.

Jesus is filled with the Holy spirit - that means God is dwelling in him.
Christ says that God is in him.
It is said that he is filled with the fullness of God. God in him.

The context does not allow this interpretation, as Col 1 clearly has "Him" with divine powers, existing before all creation. It says "by Him, all things were created". GOD created all things. Is there someone else who created "all things"???

You do not consider the way in which the Hebrews of that time viewed their world.

Which is why this cognitive dissonance was so difficult for the first Jews...

Even on other subjects, they were subjected to a massive re-thinking of their approach to God.

Hebrews do not name things by virtue of how they apear but rather by way of the way they function.
There is no word "is" in hebrew. the closest one could come is "functions as " or "relates to me as". The hebrew mind would not conceptualize Jesus is God. He would conceptualize that Jesus functions as God or that Jesus relates to me as God. the Hebrew Eastern culture would not allow the concepts to come to mind that you indorse. It was not the way they think.

They certainly would have been familiar with "this chair IS a chair".... "It functions as a chair and I am not a chair". It seems you are making statements that the Jews had no common sense.

 

[francisdesales]

I ask you -- what was God's original plan before the fall? Did he scrap that plan or did he augment it to include a savior to redeem us back to the original plan?

This was His plan "Before" the Fall, as the Scriptures tell us. Even before the world was created, God had known, since God sees all time as one moment. There is no "chronology" for eternity.


But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you. 1 Peter 1:19-20

 

[Yahoshea]

The LXX was strongly influenced by the trinitarians and was therefor assumed to be the same words.

You are absolutely right. It was late and I was thinking about something else. sorry for the mistake.