Is Jesus really God ?

[Drew]

As I and perhaps others have been arguing, the case for the divinity of Jesus is exceedingly powerful when you take the Biblical narrative seriously. I have already argued in detail that Jesus (as represented in the gospel of Luke) clearly sees Himself as fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies about the return of YHWH to Zion. To be frank, opponents of the "Jesus is God" position have simply refused to engage those arguments. That silence is indeed telling.

I politely suggest that those who see Jesus as "non-divine" have everything to lose in drawing attention to the Old Testament. Why? Because the Old Testament contains prophecies about "God" which Jesus clearly is described as fulfilling.

Here is yet another. Consider this text from Isaiah 35:

Say to those with anxious heart,
"Take courage, fear not
Behold, your God will come with vengeance;
The recompense of God will come,
But He will save you."
5Then the eyes of the blind will be opened
And the ears of the deaf will be unstopped.
6Then the lame will leap like a deer,
And the tongue of the mute will shout for joy

Who is it that opened the eyes of the blind? And unstopped the ears of the deaf? And healed the lame.

I suggest it was a young Jew, born in the time of Augustus, who saw Himself as the agent who embodied the promised return of, yes, God, to His people.

 

[MarkT]

As I and perhaps others have been arguing, the case for the divinity of Jesus is exceedingly powerful when you take the Biblical narrative seriously. I have already argued in detail that Jesus (as represented in the gospel of Luke) clearly sees Himself as fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies about the return of YHWH to Zion. To be frank, opponents of the "Jesus is God" position have simply refused to engage those arguments. That silence is indeed telling.

I politely suggest that those who see Jesus as "non-divine" have everything to lose in drawing attention to the Old Testament. Why? Because the Old Testament contains prophecies about "God" which Jesus clearly is described as fulfilling.

Here is yet another. Consider this text from Isaiah 35:

Say to those with anxious heart,
"Take courage, fear not
Behold, your God will come with vengeance;
The recompense of God will come,
But He will save you."
5Then the eyes of the blind will be opened
And the ears of the deaf will be unstopped.
6Then the lame will leap like a deer,
And the tongue of the mute will shout for joy

Who is it that opened the eyes of the blind? And unstopped the ears of the deaf? And healed the lame.

I suggest it was a young Jew, born in the time of Augustus, who saw Himself as the agent who embodied the promised return of, yes, God, to His people.

The LORD said, "I am God, and also henceforth I am He; there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work and who can hinder it?" Isaiah 43:13 RSV

The Word of God was manifested in Jesus Christ. He was the light. God didn't become a man. His Word, AKA The LORD, became a man. In a sense Jesus was God - he was God's Word. God spoke in his name - the LORD. But God didn't become a man. God is not a man.

As to the question of his divinity - everything about God is divine. The word 'divine' is basically used to speak of God. But the LORD emptied himself to become mortal - one of us. Note I didn't say God emptied himself. Essentially 'Jesus' was divine as he came from God and God's name is divine, but he was mortal.

 

[Free]

The LORD said, "I am God, and also henceforth I am He; there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work and who can hinder it?" Isaiah 43:13 RSV

The Word of God was manifested in Jesus Christ. God didn't become a man. His Word, AKA The LORD, became a man. In a sense Jesus was God - he was God's Word. God spoke in his name - the LORD. But God didn't become a man.

Have any Scripture to support that assertion?

 

[MarkT]

To address the link:

The author is right that the context is being humble, just as Christ was:

Php 2:3 Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.
Php 2:4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
......
Php 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,
Php 2:13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
Php 2:14 Do all things without grumbling or questioning, (ESV)

However, the author clearly misses the thrust of Paul's argument: it is precisely because Jesus was, in nature, God, that we see his humility in becoming human. It is impossible to show more humility than that. That is what we are to consider so that we become humble.

Begging the question, which then filters down some subsequent arguments which I will not address.

Incorrect. Being in "the form of a servant" is equivalent to "being born in the likeness of men," meaning that he had a human nature. And so it is with being "in the form of God."

Remember, Paul is contrasting the two to show just how humble Christ was. If being "in the form of a servant" means he had a human nature, so "being in the form of God" means he had a divine nature, in some way (see below).

From Vincent's Word Studies:

Being. Not the simple είναι to be, but stronger, denoting being which is from the beginning. See on Jam_2:15. It has a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present. Here appropriate to the preincarnate being of Christ, to which the sentence refers. In itself it does not imply eternal, but only prior existence. Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character. Thus it is distinguished from σχῆμα fashion, comprising that which appeals to the senses and which is changeable. Μορφή form is identified with the essence of a person or thing: σχῆμα fashion is an accident which may change without affecting the form. For the manner in which this difference is developed in the kindred verbs, see on Mat_17:2.
As applied here to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself. We have no word which can convey this meaning, nor is it possible for us to formulate the reality. Form inevitably carries with it to us the idea of shape. It is conceivable that the essential personality of God may express itself in a mode apprehensible by the perception of pure spiritual intelligences; but the mode itself is neither apprehensible nor conceivable by human minds.
This mode of expression, this setting of the divine essence, is not identical with the essence itself, but is identified with it, as its natural and appropriate expression, answering to it in every particular. It is the perfect expression of a perfect essence. It is not something imposed from without, but something which proceeds from the very depth of the perfect being, and into which that being perfectly unfolds, as light from fire. To say, then, that Christ was in the form of God, is to say that He existed as essentially one with God. The expression of deity through human nature (Phi_2:7) thus has its background in the expression of deity as deity in the eternal ages of God's being. Whatever the mode of this expression, it marked the being of Christ in the eternity before creation. As the form of God was identified with the being of God, so Christ, being in the form of God, was identified with the being, nature, and personality of God.
This form, not being identical with the divine essence, but dependent upon it, and necessarily implying it, can be parted with or laid aside. Since Christ is one with God, and therefore pure being, absolute existence, He can exist without the form. This form of God Christ laid aside in His incarnation.

Clearly, one cannot say that if Paul meant "this" he would have used such-and-such a word. That is an exegetical error on the part of the author.

The word 'form' strongly suggests shape and appearance and that is consistent with what Jesus said when the disciples asked him to, 'show us the Father' John 14:8 RSV - the appeal to sight.

Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? John 14:9 RSV Again the appeal to sight.

God is spirit, but seeing the Son was seeing the Father.

There is nothing about form which suggests nature. Indeed if we consider his nature, Jesus denied he was good - saying, 'God alone is good'. And so we need to understand, the Word of God is a two edged sword - a terror to all evil men and the promise of destruction to the wicked, and salvation and eternal life to those who believe in him.

 

[Asyncritus]

John ch 5 gives the non-trinitarians a mighty lot of ammunition. If you are a trinitarian, then you might like try to account for what the Lord says there. Here are some of my difficulties:

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

The Son is claiming to copy His Father – implying that the Father is His teacher, model or example, and as He said before, the disciple is not above his Master/ Teacher.

20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these…
Same again.
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

The ‘even so’ again implies the Teacher/pupil relationship

22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

I’ve looked up the word ‘honour’, and it comes directly from the 10 commandments: Honour thy father and thy mother.
Now that in no way implies that the child/son is in any way equal to the parent, but rather the opposite.

It basically means ‘respect’ – just as an ambassador is entitled to the respect that his sovereign is entitled to. Look it up and you’ll see what I mean.

26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

The number of times that Jesus claims dependency on His Father in John’s gospel is amazing. I think I counted up about 79 of them – try it for yourself and you’ll soon see.

I’ve noticed a complete and curious absence in the gospels: indeed, everywhere in scripture. It’s this: very often, as above, we have the Father sending, instructing, leading the Son. NEVER ONCE do we find the opposite ie the Son leading, sending, instructing the Father.

If it’s there, then I’ve missed it, and would be grateful if someone could point it out to me.

If it isn't, then an explanation of that fact is due.

Asyncritus

 

[Drew]

The number of times that Jesus claims dependency on His Father in John’s gospel is amazing. I think I counted up about 79 of them – try it for yourself and you’ll soon see.

I’ve noticed a complete and curious absence in the gospels: indeed, everywhere in scripture. It’s this: very often, as above, we have the Father sending, instructing, leading the Son. NEVER ONCE do we find the opposite ie the Son leading, sending, instructing the Father.

If it’s there, then I’ve missed it, and would be grateful if someone could point it out to me.

If it isn't, then an explanation of that fact is due.

Asyncritus

I do not understand how this "deference" of the Son to the Father implies a problem with the Trinity concept. One can imagine that, in former times anyway, a wife might generally defer to her husband. Does this mean that the wife is not "human" as much as the husband is? Of course not.

I have not studied the technicalities of the Trinity issue - I have argued for Jesus' divinity from the narrative perspective:

1. In the Old Testament, there is a recurring theme of YHWH promising to return to His people;

2. Jesus fulfills these promises;

3. Therefore, to the person who takes the narrative seriously, Jesus has to be seen as the very embodiment of Israel's God.

I think that the narrative perspective is the right one. The Bible is a long story, it is not a concept manual where dictionary definitions of precisely how a "Father" and a "Son" can both be God.

 

[Free]

The word 'form' strongly suggests shape and appearance and that is consistent with what Jesus said when the disciples asked him to, 'show us the Father' John 14:8 RSV - the appeal to sight.

Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? John 14:9 RSV Again the appeal to sight.

God is spirit, but seeing the Son was seeing the Father.

There is nothing about form which suggests nature. Indeed if we consider his nature, Jesus denied he was good - saying, 'God alone is good'. And so we need to understand, the Word of God is a two edged sword - a terror to all evil men and the promise of destruction to the wicked, and salvation and eternal life to those who believe in him.

Looking at the immediate context:

Phil 2:5-8, 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)

This shows that there is a problem with your argument. The passage in question clearly states that he no longer was in the form of God but was in the form of man. So we cannot appeal to verses such as John 14:8-9 as support for a reading of morphe to mean "shape and appearance" in this instance. Not to mention that God is spirit, which does not have a shape or appearance.

Then we must also consider the larger context of the entire chapter. It is all about humility. I have stated this earlier in the thread but will do so again here. Believers are being exhorted to have a mind which Christ had. The whole point of verses 5-11 are to show just how humble Christ was. He was in the "form of God" but "made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant."

How can we say that there is any humility shown in being in the "[shape and appearance] of God" and then being found in the "shape and appearance" of man? Since God is a spirit, we don't even know what it means to be in the shape and appearance of God. So how can we compare that to the shape and appearance of man? It really makes the passage confusing and it's purpose of showing humility becomes rather meaningless.

We also have to consider that his "taking the form of a servant" is preceded by his making "himself nothing." So not only do we not know what would be meant by being in the shape and appearance of God, we now have to consider that his making himself nothing somehow causes him to be in the shape and appearance of man.

To make sense of this passage, it is best to read morphe as "nature" or "being." This would clearly underscore the point Paul is making. How can more humility be shown than Christ, who being in very nature God, took on human nature, the nature of a servant, the nature of a creature? This also makes sense of him emptying himself. It truly was the ultimate display of humility that Christ showed.

There is more that can be said about this passage which I will likely post below.

 

[Asyncritus]

[...]
I have not studied the technicalities of the Trinity issue - I have argued for Jesus' divinity from the narrative perspective:

1. In the Old Testament, there is a recurring theme of YHWH promising to return to His people;

2. Jesus fulfills these promises;

3. Therefore, to the person who takes the narrative seriously, Jesus has to be seen as the very embodiment of Israel's God.

I think that the narrative perspective is the right one. The Bible is a long story, it is not a concept manual where dictionary definitions of precisely how a "Father" and a "Son" can both be God.

I'm not yet convinced of your 'narrative concept' idea.

Suppose we go back to Adam and Eve in the Garden. That's nearly the beginning of the biblical 'narrative' (apart from ch 1).

What trinitarian concept do you think they could have had there? And where would they get it from?

But I would like to ask you to comment in a bit more detail on your idea where you said:

'Aren't they both human?' That's a question about 'nature'. Is that what we're discussing in your view?

I am more concerned, I think, with the protocol issues of heaven.

In Israel's history, we have: God (no.1) ------>High Priest (no.2) ---> People (no 3).

The current situation is:

God (No. 1)---> Jesus the H Pr (No.2)----> Believers (No.3)

Or is this too simplistic for you?

 

[Drew]

I'm not yet convinced of your 'narrative concept' idea.

Please read posts 121 and 122. No "non-Trinitarian" has even bothered to take that argument on. And I suggest that this is because it is a solid, Biblical argument, clearly demonstrating that Jesus sees Himself as the embodiment of Israel's God. One poster was repeatedly reminded to deal with that argument. And he simply refused. Very telling indeed. Now you need to be a given a chance to deal with that argument. Again, its in posts 121 and 122.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Christ as Judge !



Christ Himself declares Matt 25:


31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

This is for the purpose of Judging mankind, and the scripture forbids that any less than God should weigh all the motives of all actions, secrets and open of the human heart, only the omniscient God has this right..

 

[Asyncritus]

Drew

I'd like to examine what you said in 121 - 123.

The first problem I came across is this:

BibleMAN:

The Bible is clear:

"there is but one God, the Father"
- 1 Corinthians 8:6

Jesus said: "for the Father is greater than I" (1 John 14:28)

I suggest that these simple texts do not really make a case against the Trinity.

Unless I am misguided or I misunderstand what you are trying to say here, you aren’t attempting to answer the same point that Jesus and Paul and Bibleman seem to be making i.e. that there is a divine hierarchy. Which is the only way I can understand those passages.

So can I ask you: Is there a divine hierarchy? With one God, with the Father greater than Jesus?

I’d like to be clear on this point, because unless and until I am clear, then any further discussion is going to be buffeting the air.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Paul bears witness that Christ is Judge !



rom 14:


10But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

And God is the Judge, so Christ must be God !

Also 2 tim 4:

1I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

 

[savedbygrace57]

Jesus proves to Be God by being man's Judge !



Jesus confirms the Testimony of Paul by He Himself declaring Matt 16:


27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

But is not the Judge of all the earth God ? Gen 18:


25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

Then is My LORD Jesus Christ , God, for many passages is He represented as the Final Judge of the World, will there be Two final Judges ? It is very evident we all must stand before the Throne of God and of Christ; and render an account to God and to Christ; and to receive our reward from God and from Christ, The Judge is God alone; and Jesus is the Judge, therefore Jesus is God..


Jer 17:10

I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

Jesus says of Himself rev 2:23

And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he [That is God] which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

Jesus here is making a self affirmation that He is God..

 

[Asyncritus]

Paul bears witness that Christ is Judge !



rom 14:


10But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

And God is the Judge, so Christ must be God !

Also 2 tim 4:

1I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

Please, saved by grace. Take seriously what Jesus said:

The Father has committed all judgment to the son. John 5.22

Which part of this don't you understand?

The Father is Jesus's superior, and judgment was His to give/ commit.

This simple fact invalidates the proof that Jesus is God in your Revelation reference as well.

While we're waiting for Drew's response to the question I posed above, I wonder if I could ask you for your opinion on the matter?

Is there a divine hierarchy, with the Father at the top, and the Lord second?

 

[savedbygrace57]

The Bible Presents Jesus as God because He is that Almighty Being whose voice will raise the Dead per Jn 5:



28Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his [Christ] voice,

29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

 

[Asyncritus]

The Bible Presents Jesus as God because He is that Almighty Being whose voice will raise the Dead per Jn 5:



28Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his [Christ] voice,

29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Please, savedbygrace. Answer the question, huh?

 

[farouk]

'And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth' (John 1.14).

 

[Asyncritus]

'And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth' (John 1.14).

So true!

But how does this help us in this debate?

 

[farouk]

So true!

But how does this help us in this debate?

I don't want to argue whether the Bible teaches that the Lord Jesus is the Son of God.

If a person doesn't see it as self-evident from the Bible (which I believe is manifestly so), then arguing about it doesn't achieve much.

 

[Asyncritus]

I don't want to argue whether the Bible teaches that the Lord Jesus is the Son of God.

If a person doesn't see it as self-evident from the Bible (which I believe is manifestly so), then arguing about it doesn't achieve much.

I don't know who you're thinking about, but it's certainly not me. Do you mean Drew and savedbygrace?