Is Jesus FULLY God & Praying

[Brother Mike]

Not only is that statement un-Scriptural and un-provable, but it REMAINS blasphemous.

Grace, Satan was called god of this World. Other false gods received the same name by the Holy Spirit that we call our Father (God) by. God referred to Humans, angels, or things that did not even exist. You shall have no other gods 'ĕlôhı̂ym before me.

That is a class of gods, possibly make believe ones, but still a class that is not suppose to be before Our God. 'ĕlôhı̂ym (God) is refereed to our God. In Hebrew it would have to be defined somewhere or assumed to be our God.

The Greek did not have a proper noun for our God. It was denoted in the title of the Article, or the Article itself. That makes it a class of something unless given the Title, or found in the article, or as you (Copied and pasted) an expression given by the Neutral prediction (Which is a more fancy way of saying what I have been trying to get across!!!!)

oikos (house) is a specific house, it's a male noun.
oikia (House) is any inhabited place, or dwelling. Female noun

God denotes One of something defined in the article (by equation with neutral predication) or given the Title such as Father God.

I think you just like to argue, I don't know what is up with you. You give me the same blasted thing I had been saying all along. If not, then God is God, is God and Satan and every other Theos or ĕlôhı̂ym everywhere mentioned must also be "YOUR" god also. Which is creepy if that is the case.

No, I think you know who God is, I just think you like to be combative. Scripture wars can help us learn and reaffirm our learning, just try to get better at it.

I am not trying to battle here, we are way off the topic. Who was Jesus praying to?

Mike.

 

[reba]

slow down guys

 

[JohnD]

[MENTION=96720]JohnD[/MENTION] cool avatar. nice to meet you.

Thank you, nice to meet you!

 

[Free]

But it's not what Paul said. You can not substitute nature for form, or say equality with God is not a thing that can be held fast, and then turn it into 'not something that he should hold on to at all cost'. The KJV and the RSV both agree equality with God is not a thing to be grasped or taken or grabbed in a robbery sense. No one can take his power and authority. Only the Son has it and that is because the Father gave it to him. The fact is the Son humbled himself and became obedient unto death; an example of selflessness and obedience. Therefore God exalted him.

He was the light in the form of God. John came for testimony to bear witness to the light. He was not the light but he came to bear witness to the light. John 1:7,8 God formed the light in his image. But being in the form of God and being God are two different things.

What Paul is saying is that even though he was in the form of God, he was not the true God nor did he count equality with the true God a thing to be grasped. It shows he did not think he was equal in that he became obedient to the Father. He emptied himself of everything he had with God, the power and the glory, even the knowledge of who he was until the time when he was found in human form. Incidentally that's what happens to us. We are found in human form.

Firstly, precisely what does it mean to be "found in human form"? Secondly, as for the KJV and RSV agreeing on the use of robbery, so? There are many other versions that say something else, including the NIV, HCSB, NRSV, AMP, NASB, and ESV. So simply saying that two or more versions are in agreement is pointless.

Php 2:6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, (NIV)

Php 2:6 who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage. (HCSB)

Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, (NRSV)

Php 2:6 Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained, (AMP)

Php 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, (NASB)

Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, (ESV)

The NIV, HCSB, NRSV, and AMP capture the essence of what Paul is saying, rather than the more literal translation found in the NASB and ESV. There really is a lot going on with the language Paul is using in this passage that you are failing to address, even if just sticking to an English translation. Suffice to say that your position simply does not work well at all.

Looking at what the Bible says (all ESV):

Exo 20:1 And God spoke all these words, saying,
Exo 20:2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
Exo 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before me.
Exo 20:4 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Exo 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,
Exo 20:6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Deu 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Isa 43:10-11, 10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. 11 I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior.

Isa 44:6-8, 6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. 7 Who is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and set it before me, since I appointed an ancient people. Let them declare what is to come, and what will happen. 8 Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any."

Isa 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): "I am the LORD, and there is no other."

Isa 45:21 Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.

Isaiah 46:9 remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,


These passages all show that if, as you claim, Jesus is the God of Israel but not the one true God, then Jesus was a liar because clearly, as the God of Israel, he was claiming to be the one true God, the Creator. In fact, he makes it abundantly clear that there never has been nor ever will be another God.

There is absolutely no biblical support for saying that Jesus is the God of Israel but the Father is the true God. In fact, the Bible is very much against such a position and the passages I have given completely do away with your position. The God of Israel very much is the one true, creator God.

Not to mention what you have stated above goes against what you stated earlier:

Jesus' function was basically to act as a temple for the living God. Jesus was fully a man. Can we say that? Yes. Otherwise how could we hope to be like him. I would not dispute Jesus was God's way of teaching us, in effect, God's way of communicating with man, but the basic truth of Christianity is Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. To say Jesus was God or he was making himself God or equal to God dismisses what he said about himself with respect to the Father.

Was he fully a man and that's it? If I say that Jesus was God am I actually dismissing "what he said about himself with respect to the Father"? Your position is contradictory. You cannot rationally hold to a position which states that Jesus is only a man and that we cannot say he is God, and yet states that he is God, much less the God of Israel but not the one true God.

Jesus said the Father is greater than I, and you say they are co-equal. I follow the Lord and only Him.

You completely dodged my point. Please clear up this contradiction in your beliefs. This alone completely does your position in.

Yes, of course there is much to be said about his humility in regards to going to the cross, but the very force of Paul's argument is made by the fact that Jesus, as God, "emptied himself" and took on the form of a man in order to go to the cross. That is ultimate in humility--Creator become creature for the sake of redemption.

The Father didn't exalt the Son because he emptied himself. The Father exalted the Son because he did the Father's will.

Isn't Jesus' emptying himself also very much a part of doing the Father's will? I clearly stated that Paul's point is made all the stronger because "Jesus, as God, 'emptied himself'." But of course one must first believe that Jesus actually emptied himself of something.

 

[MarkT]

Free

Your interpretation of the apostle's writing is not equal to the word of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Father is greater than I. My Father is greater than all.

Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ. Mt. 23:10 I have one master. I follow the Lord.

 

[Free]

Free

Your interpretation of the apostle's writing is not equal to the word of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Father is greater than I. My Father is greater than all.

Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ. Mt. 23:10 I have one master. I follow the Lord.

You mean that my interpretation is not equal to your interpretation, but that goes without saying. You're still dodging the clear contradiction in your position.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[MarkT]

Every power and authority on earth can come up against me. I can not be moved.

 

[Free]

Every power and authority on earth can come up against me. I can not be moved.

What does that have to do with the discussion and the, so far, unsupported irrationality of your position?


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[MarkT]

Every power and authority on earth can come up against me. I can not be moved.

What does that have to do with the discussion and the, so far, unsupported irrationality of your position?


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

I live in those words and by those words. The wind and the rain beat against my house but it is not shaken. He is my fortress, my rock, my shield, and the horn of my salvation.

Psalm 18:2
The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.

Psalm 71:3
Be thou to me a rock of refuge, a strong fortress, to save me, for thou art my rock and my fortress.

Psalm 144:2
my rock and my fortress, my stronghold and my deliverer, my shield and he in whom I take refuge, who subdues the peoples under him.

 

[Free]

Every power and authority on earth can come up against me. I can not be moved.

What does that have to do with the discussion and the, so far, unsupported irrationality of your position?


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

I live in those words and by those words. The wind and the rain beat against my house but it is not shaken. He is my fortress, my rock, my shield, and the horn of my salvation.

Psalm 18:2
The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.

Psalm 71:3
Be thou to me a rock of refuge, a strong fortress, to save me, for thou art my rock and my fortress.

Psalm 144:2
my rock and my fortress, my stronghold and my deliverer, my shield and he in whom I take refuge, who subdues the peoples under him.

Invoking Scripture as though that somehow gets you a free pass for holding to irrational beliefs and being completely unreasonable in debating and discussing that very Scripture?

 

[EJJ]

Iesous means many things to many people. To some he was just a holy man, to others a prophet and healer. He is 100% God, perfect and without sin, King of kings and Lord of lords. To me he is God and my God, the only one that I worship, the only Redeemer, and the Holy One of Israel. Jesus says, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, Beginning and Ultimate, says the Lord, which from being, and which to being, and which coming, The Almighty." Revelation 1:8.

 

[By Grace]

That is a class of gods, possibly make believe ones, but still a class that is not suppose to be before Our God.

Since other gods do not exist, why do you post as if they do exist?

The Greek did not have a proper noun for our God. It was denoted in the title of the Article, or the Article itself. That makes it a class of something unless given the Title, or found in the article, or as you (Copied and pasted) an expression given by the Neutral prediction (Which is a more fancy way of saying what I have been trying to get across!!!!) oikos (house) is a specific house, it's a male noun. oikia (House) is any inhabited place, or dwelling. Female noun

Whenever you post something about Greek, you have a tendency to state things that are not true. This is no exception.

I think you just like to argue, I don't know what is up with you. You give me the same blasted thing I had been saying all along. If not, then God is God, is God and Satan and every other Theos or ĕlôhı̂ym everywhere mentioned must also be "YOUR" god also. Which is creepy if that is the case.

No, what is truly sad is the fact that you are posting nonsense, and that you get upset when I correct nonsense. This is not a personal matter as you seem to want it to become. For me, it is a matter of balderdash versus fact.

 

[Randy]

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. Notice it says made him known, meaning the characters that make up the Father. The Holy Spirit. Exodus 33:20 But,†he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.†This is why he sends the Holy Spirit, because his Glory is that powerful. Cheers.

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son,[a] who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.

[a]Other ancient authorities read It is an only Son, God, or It is the only Son
Gk bosom

Hebrews (The testimony of the Father about the SON)
But of the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, is[c] forever and ever,
and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your[d] kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.â€

Jesus is called both God and Son. But God has a God and God had to receive authority from God?

Or Jesus has always been a firstborn Son (before the world began) and God was pleased to have all HIS fullness dwell in Jesus making Jesus the One and Only who is the image of the invisible God and a exact representation of Gods being. (all that the Father is) but still Gods Son and the Father is His God and our God. One God; One Lord ;One Spirit

Randy

 

[MarkT]

Isn't Jesus' emptying himself also very much a part of doing the Father's will? I clearly stated that Paul's point is made all the stronger because "Jesus, as God, 'emptied himself'." But of course one must first believe that Jesus actually emptied himself of something.

He doesn't say Jesus as God. Paul contrasts being in the form of God with God himself, the two things not being equal.

But using your own argument then Jesus was not equal because he emptied himself of equality. Is that your position?

 

[Guest]

[MENTION=90622]Randy[/MENTION] Well said, good sir.

 

[reba]

Isn't Jesus' emptying himself also very much a part of doing the Father's will? I clearly stated that Paul's point is made all the stronger because "Jesus, as God, 'emptied himself'." But of course one must first believe that Jesus actually emptied himself of something.

He doesn't say Jesus as God. Paul contrasts being in the form of God with God himself, the two things not being equal.

But using your own argument then Jesus was not equal because he emptied himself of equality. Is that your position?

Section 2: Specific Rules and Guidelines (the 'meat' of the ToS)

2.1: This is a Christian site, therefore, any attempt to put down Christianity (or declare that it is false) and the basic tenets of our Faith will be considered a hostile act. Please read: Statement of Faith

We believe that there is only one God, who is eternal and immutable, and manifests Himself in three distinct Persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

We believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah, born of a virgin, totally without sin, God in human flesh, the One Who died on the cross for our sins, was buried, rose again from the dead on the third day, and ascended to the right hand of the Father in heaven, where He now intercedes for us who believe in Him.

 

[Free]

Isn't Jesus' emptying himself also very much a part of doing the Father's will? I clearly stated that Paul's point is made all the stronger because "Jesus, as God, 'emptied himself'." But of course one must first believe that Jesus actually emptied himself of something.

He doesn't say Jesus as God. Paul contrasts being in the form of God with God himself, the two things not being equal.

Paul does not contrast "being in the form of God with God himself." Not at all. Rather he clearly contrasts being "in the form of God" with "taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" and "being found in human form." This is why I have asked you to define what is meant by "human form."

But using your own argument then Jesus was not equal because he emptied himself of equality. Is that your position?

Yes and no. It's a matter of what is meant by "emptied." Can God not be God? Of course not. Paul is speaking of a change of state, a change of form, not a change of nature. The eternally preexistent Son is equal to the Father because they are both God in nature. Jesus was the Son incarnate, the God-man, who submitted himself to the Father. So in one sense is not equal to the Father but yet because he still retains his divine nature, he is equal.

From Vincent's Word Studies:

"Made Himself of no reputation (ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν).

Lit., emptied Himself. The general sense is that He divested Himself of that peculiar mode of existence which was proper and peculiar to Him as one with God. He laid aside the form of God. In so doing, He did not divest Himself of His divine nature. The change was a change of state: the form of a servant for the form of God. His personality continued the same. His self-emptying was not self-extinction, nor was the divine Being changed into a mere man. In His humanity He retained the consciousness of deity, and in His incarnate state carried out the mind which animated Him before His incarnation. He was not unable to assert equality with God. He was able not to assert it."

 

[MarkT]

Isn't Jesus' emptying himself also very much a part of doing the Father's will? I clearly stated that Paul's point is made all the stronger because "Jesus, as God, 'emptied himself'." But of course one must first believe that Jesus actually emptied himself of something.

He doesn't say Jesus as God. Paul contrasts being in the form of God with God himself, the two things not being equal.

Paul does not contrast "being in the form of God with God himself." Not at all. Rather he clearly contrasts being "in the form of God" with "taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" and "being found in human form." This is why I have asked you to define what is meant by "human form."

Paul said, 'though he was in the form of God, he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.' This was before he took our form. So he is not contrasting our form and his form. He is comparing Christ, who was in the form of God before he took our form, with God himself. That's what the word equal suggests. I would define human form as having the appearance of a human.

But using your own argument then Jesus was not equal because he emptied himself of equality. Is that your position?

Yes and no. It's a matter of what is meant by "emptied." Can God not be God? Of course not. Paul is speaking of a change of state, a change of form, not a change of nature. The eternally preexistent Son is equal to the Father because they are both God in nature. Jesus was the Son incarnate, the God-man, who submitted himself to the Father. So in one sense is not equal to the Father but yet because he still retains his divine nature, he is equal.

Paul said he emptied himself. The imagery is that of a cup. This imagery is used all throughout the Bible. For example, the vessels of wrath, the vessels of mercy. We are flesh and blood. That is our nature. He partook of our nature. Heb. 2:14

The cup is the form. What is inside the cup is God.

The word 'devine' means 'of God'. If that is what you mean, then I would agree. He was of God, the Son of God. But God dwelt in him. Jesus did not make himself God.

From Vincent's Word Studies:

"Made Himself of no reputation (ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν).

Lit., emptied Himself. The general sense is that He divested Himself of that peculiar mode of existence which was proper and peculiar to Him as one with God. He laid aside the form of God. In so doing, He did not divest Himself of His divine nature. The change was a change of state: the form of a servant for the form of God. His personality continued the same. His self-emptying was not self-extinction, nor was the divine Being changed into a mere man. In His humanity He retained the consciousness of deity, and in His incarnate state carried out the mind which animated Him before His incarnation. He was not unable to assert equality with God. He was able not to assert it."

It goes against what Jesus said. He said the Father was the true God. So God did not divest himself of anything. Also Jesus said he was sent, and not of his own accord. John 7:28. There is no equality with God. God has no equal. God the Father sent him. You make it sound like it was Jesus' decision to be sent.

 

[By Grace]

Paul said he emptied himself. The imagery is that of a cup. This imagery is used all throughout the Bible. For example, the vessels of wrath, the vessels of mercy. We are flesh and blood. That is our nature. He partook of our nature. Heb. 2:14

The problem you have is based upon the image you use, as well as the common misunderstanding of the Greek term κένωσις, usually taken to mean "self emptying". Since a cup is limited in its capacity to hold a certain volume, and no more it is no wonder why thee is so much confusion.

The better explanation comes from Colossians 2:9 where it essentially states that at no time was/is Jesus anything less than 100% God.

So if we take that into account with Philippians 2:7, it means that there HAS to be a better therm to describe the situation. Thatt term is "HYPOSTATIC UNION". The difference between the two terms is the difference between adding and subtracting. By using the cup image, there is a finite capacity of the attribute of deity, and therein lies the crux of the issue.

On the other hand, if we assume that there is no limit to the attribute of deity, then there is no problem with the understanding that Jesus added to Himself the full nature of being human without diminishing in any way hes being fully God at any time.

It goes against what Jesus said. He said the Father was the true God. So God did not divest himself of anything. Also Jesus said he was sent, and not of his own accord. John 7:28. There is no equality with God. God has no equal. God the Father sent him. You make it sound like it was Jesus' decision to be sent.

You forget that the three Divine Persons are all equally God. What they do in their capacity is unique, and sometimes overlaps. However, when the three get together, it is called a "Divine Counsel". Therefore in accordance to the duties of each Divine Persons, (aka their office) they create the ordus saludus aka the plan of salvation whereby each works His distinct part of the plan whereby some are saved.

Hope that helps

 

[MarkT]

The problem you have is based upon the image you use, as well as the common misunderstanding of the Greek term κένωσις, usually taken to mean "self emptying". Since a cup is limited in its capacity to hold a certain volume, and no more it is no wonder why thee is so much confusion.

Why do you have to torture Paul's words? Form doesn't mean form. 'Not a thing to be grasped' becomes 'not a thing he could hold on to'. Then 'not a thing he should hold on to'. Now 'emptied himself' doesn't mean 'emptied himself'.

The better explanation comes from Colossians 2:9 where it essentially states that at no time was/is Jesus anything less than 100% God.

In him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily. The fullness of deity dwells in him bodily. Jesus said the Father was in him. He also said the Father is the true God and the Father is greater than I. That crushes your empty philosophy.

So if we take that into account with Philippians 2:7, it means that there HAS to be a better therm to describe the situation. Thatt term is "HYPOSTATIC UNION". The difference between the two terms is the difference between adding and subtracting. By using the cup image, there is a finite capacity of the attribute of deity, and therein lies the crux of the issue.

On the other hand, if we assume that there is no limit to the attribute of deity, then there is no problem with the understanding that Jesus added to Himself the full nature of being human without diminishing in any way hes being fully God at any time.

So he didn't empty himself? He added to himself?

If you have issues with the words in the Bible, you need to take it up with the translators, not with me.