Is Jesus really God ?

[Asyncritus]

Christ is the omnipotent God because:

He is declared to be the absolute Head of all power ! col 2:

10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

The Head of All Power must be He who originates and exercises all power, and this can be none but the Almighty God..

See the above post which deals with the parallel passage in Ephesians 1.

 

[Asyncritus]

Yes John 17v 1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Um, were we there warhorse?

"...even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world..." Eph 1.4

and, was He slain before He came into the world?

''... the Lamb that hath been slain before the foundation of the world" Rev 13.8

 

[Asyncritus]

In view of much of what has been said previously, can we please have an explanation of the following verse?

"These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God" Rev 3.14

Does this indicate that Jesus was created or not?

 

[warhorse]

Um, were we there warhorse?

"...even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world..." Eph 1.4

and, was He slain before He came into the world?

''... the Lamb that hath been slain before the foundation of the world" Rev 13.8

I dont know, but Gods for-knowledge of us, does not equate to our pre-existance. We are of course his creation.

 

[Asyncritus]

I dont know, but Gods for-knowledge of us, does not equate to our pre-existance. We are of course his creation.

Would you say that the same holds true for Jesus?

If not, why not?

 

[Free]

In view of much of what has been said previously, can we please have an explanation of the following verse?

"These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God" Rev 3.14

Does this indicate that Jesus was created or not?

No, it does not.

 

[Drew]

Thank you Drew.

Now I am not a theologian, and never hope to be one. But as to the word 'divine', what do you mean exactly (as far as words can go)?

I'm thinking of "God only hath immortality."

Therefore, every other being possessing immortality derives it from God the Father.

So, did Jesus derive immortality from the Father?

I do not believe so, no. As I have argued in detail in respect to the 1 Corinthians 8 text (I forget if that argument was from this thread or not), Paul takes the phrase "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one", and opens it up placing "the Father in the God role and the Son in the Lord role. Paul is saying that Jesus is in the same "category" as the Father.

Let's go through the reasoning in detail:

1. Paul is quoting from the Shema - the essential Jewish declaration about God: Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Note the following important details: The terms "Lord" and "God" are both predicated of a single being - there is no sense, here at least, of any "plurality". In other words, the Jew would hear this statement and have no reason to believe anything other than that the term "Lord" and the term "God" have a single common referent. You may think I am arguing against the "Jesus is God" position, but you need to hang on for a bit;

2. Now we have Paul, reformulating the schema as follows: 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,.... As the cross-references will indicate in many Bibles, this is not an arbitrary statement - it is almost certainly a re-formulation of the shema. The reasons for this have to do with the fact that the "oneness" that is predicated of God in the shema was specifically a polemical reaction against the gods of the pagans. With all due respect, this is where many of the arguments against Jesus being God make a big mistake - they erroneously presume that the "oneness" of the Old Testament God is a definitive denial of inner plurarlity. But this is simply not what history, not to mention the rest of the Bible tells us. The Jew saying "our God is one" was always, in the Old Testament, a way of saying that the gods of the pagans are worthless idols - it was not a denial of plurality within a putative Godhead, even though it might seem that way on a casual reading.

So when Paul sets his statement (above) in the context of a rejection of other pagan gods - which he clearly does (read the full 1 Corinthians 8 passage) - this is powerful evidence that he is indeed re-expressing the schema with its "one-ness" statement.

3. This leads to a remarkable conclusion. Since we know Paul sees Jesus as fitting into the Israel story, his statement in 1 Corinthians 8 functions to say basically this: this God that is "one" in the sense of being a true god against hte false pagan gods, is actually, on closer analysis, constituted by two persons. More specifically, the "God" descriptor of the shema maps to the Father and the Lord descriptor of the shema maps to the Son. This is absolutely vital. I suspect that some will say I am taking the "structural connections" too far. Well, I doubt it, there are plenty of other examples in Paul where it is clear that he "re-defines" Old Testament concepts to let their real meaning shine through. His re-working of the term "Israel" to refer to the Jew + Gentile church is one example.

4. The argument is done, but I want to make an observation about "method": The careful reader will note that, yes, I am indeed saying that Paul is adding nuance and clarity to Old Testament concepts that were, at the time of their articulation, somewhat "under-specified" or "fuzzy". Indeed I am saying this. I know that some will be uncomfortable with this and will object that this places the inspiration of scripture at risk - after all, if Paul is allowed to re-define Old Testament notions like "God" and "Israel", how is that Old Testament to be seen as "inerrant scripture". Well, I do not have room to get into that now. For the present, I will suggest that there is plenty of evidence of "ambiguity" and "incompleteness" in the Old Testament. After all, and I know a lot of reader will implicitly think otherwise, the Bible is not primarily a set of propositional truths, it is an evolving narrative. And by their nature, some things in a narrative are never fully understood till the end. I suggest that this is precisely what is going on with the Biblical treatment of the composition of "God".

On a related note, I will re-iterate: arguments against Jesus being God that appeal to "concepts", such as "how can Jesus be God if he defers to God the Father" miss the point. What matters is the narrative, not the concepts. And as per another argument I have made, the narrative of Jesus' journey to Jerusalem, as described in the book of Luke, sets Jesus rather clearly in the role of God returning to His people - a theme woven through the Old Testament. This, and not tinkering with the boundaries of concepts, is what matters in establishing, Biblically, that Jesus is God.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Christ is the omnipotent God because:

Because not only has He been shown to be the Creator of all things, but also too the upholder of all Things, without any effort, but by His Word of His Power heb 1:

3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding or maintaining all things by the word of his power,

What more sublime description of Jehovah, for He is called the Mighty God Isa 9:6, now who is this Being that upholds and maintains millions of worlds with all their grandeur by His Powerful Word. Is it a dependent creature, or is it the Only True God ?

 

[montanaviking]

In view of much of what has been said previously, can we please have an explanation of the following verse?

"These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God" Rev 3.14

Does this indicate that Jesus was created or not?

I do not believe so. The word beginning here does not necessarily mean "the start." The word here in the greek is arch. Which has several functionary meanings and is often defined by the context an not by a singular word. One of the meanings of the word is "chief" meaning ruler or authority. Or it can be used as "source" such as Paul uses it it Col.1:18. If you take this verse incontext with itself and the entire book of Revelation, it is fairly obvious that it is referring to Christs authority over creation and not his "beginning." He is the Amen, a reference to Yahweh and the final authority. He is the witness, and truth. Which references Christs witness of himself and the father and He of course is true as he claims to be the truth the way and the life. Revelation is more than a look of things to come, but a revelation of Jesus Christ as Lord and ruler over all things in heaven and earth. I hope this helps.

 

[Asyncritus]

No, it does not.

Then what does it indicate? In your opinion, of course.

 

[Free]

Then what does it indicate? In your opinion, of course.

Setting aside the implication that anything that disagrees with your correct interpretation and understanding is just my opinion, it could simply mean that he is the point of origin of Creation, as montanaviking has already stated. Actually, his post says it very well.

To say that that one verse means that Christ was literally the first created thing contradicts many Scriptures, many of which have been posted and have either received no response or have receieved less than satisfactory replies.

 

[Asyncritus]

Setting aside the implication that anything that disagrees with your correct interpretation and understanding is just my opinion, it could simply mean that he is the point of origin of Creation, as montanaviking has already stated. Actually, his post says it very well.

To say that that one verse means that Christ was literally the first created thing contradicts many Scriptures, many of which have been posted and have either received no response or have receieved less than satisfactory replies.

You're being hypersensitive Free. I intended no such thing, and am sorry if it set your hackles up. Forgive my clumsiness.

As to the passages which have been quoted: I've quoted a few, and the responses, notably from sbg67 have been less that satisfactory, as I hope that you, being a fairminded person have recognised.

Some of the passages quoted have not been thought about by the posters. You may have noticed Eph 1.21 previously, and my comment thereon: and the great silence from sbg67.

If I may remind you of Col 1: :the Firstborn of all creation.

If He is the firstborn, then this implies, doesn't it, that He was somehow born?

And Hebrews 1: the image of his person

tells us, doesn't it, that He isn't God? An image can't be the very thing itself.

 

[Free]

You're being hypersensitive Free. I intended no such thing, and am sorry if it set your hackles up. Forgive my clumsiness.

Perhaps. Sometimes this medium isn't the best at getting the tone across. No worries. My apologies for accusing you of something you didn't mean.

As to the passages which have been quoted: I've quoted a few, and the responses, notably from sbg67 have been less that satisfactory, as I hope that you, being a fairminded person have recognised.

I certainly have, yes.

Some of the passages quoted have not been thought about by the posters. You may have noticed Eph 1.21 previously, and my comment thereon: and the great silence from sbg67.

I don't know if I've seen it but yes, many that have been posted cannot be used for either proof or disproof of the deity of Christ.

If I may remind you of Col 1: :the Firstborn of all creation.

If He is the firstborn, then this implies, doesn't it, that He was somehow born?

I have addressed this somewhere but perhaps not in this thread. The word "firstborn" can mean one is who is literally the first one born in a family. However, it has other meanings, as used in other places in Scripture, which speak to the rights and place as of one who is firstborn but is not actually the first born or even literally born at all.

Col 1:15-17, 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

In this passage, "firstborn" refers to Christ's preeminence over Creation. Why? Not only is that a legitimate use of that word but the context demands it. I really don't think another understanding of this passage can be had other than it's clear statement that Christ has existed for eternity past and was involved somehow in Creation.

And Hebrews 1: the image of his person

tells us, doesn't it, that He isn't God? An image can't be the very thing itself.

It depends. We cannot just assume a definition for "image" when the Greek likely has several.

 

[MarkT]

The Trinity is an idea coming from the early church. It's O.K. But the church made it the last word. But it's not. It's not the last word. Can there be no further growth in the knowledge of God? Yes there can. There can be further growth. In fact we must continue to grow in the knowledge of God. But if some grow in the knowledge and understanding that comes from God, there are also those who can't stand it.

You have to understand how the birth of Jesus Christ relates to us - to all men. As he was created, we were created. As he was born, we were born. As he was raised, we will be raised. The whole thing has to have a relationship to us or it is meaningless. Jesus said, "I am the light." We go to Genesis; we see the light was the first thing God created. Then we see words like 'by', and 'through', as in everything was created by him, and through him, and we see he was the 'workman' in Proverbs 8:22 - 30 'then I was beside him, like a master workman.'

I can see faults in the Trinity. The problem is you can't see it through my eyes. But then again, I can't say it is wrong. It's O.K. But there is better and there's even better than better.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Christ is the omnipotent God because:

Because of His Divine Authority He assumed in healing the leper " I will;be thou clean Matt 8:

2And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

3And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.

This is the speech of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will eph 1:11..

 

[savedbygrace57]

Christ is the omnipotent God because:

Because of the Divine Majesty and Authority He spoke to the paralytic Matt 9:


6But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

7And he arose, and departed to his house.


Here we see that which God alone can do, Just as easy as saying, let there be Light..

 

[Wings]

Christ Deity as God is seen in scripture when we compare scripture with scripture, as eccles states in 12:

7Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

The Spirit of man [at death] returns unto God [elohim] who gave it ! Gen 1:1

Now compare that with stephens words at his death acts 7:

59And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

60And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Notice, that He specifically calls upon God and says, Lord Jesus receive my Spirit, this points to Jesus as being God, Elohim of ecc 12:7
​

Hi there Savedbygrace,

This is such a good comparison and proof of the Diety of Christ.

Thank you

In Christ Jesus
risen and glorified
Wings

 

[Emjae]

Hi Wings and savedbygrace57,

I just wanted to point out to you that in the Greek of the passage you quoted
(Acts 7:59) "God" is not in the text.

και ελιθοβολουν τον στεφανον επικαλουμενον και λεγοντα κυριε ιησου δεξαι το πνευμα μου

The literal translation of this verse reads:
And they stoned the Stephen invoking and saying Lord Jesus receive my spirit

 

[Wings]

Hi Wings and savedbygrace57,

I just wanted to point out to you that in the Greek of the passage you quoted
(Acts 7:59) "God" is not in the text.

και ελιθοβολουν τον στεφανον επικαλουμενον και λεγοντα κυριε ιησου δεξαι το πνευμα μου

The literal translation of this verse reads:
And they stoned the Stephen invoking and saying Lord Jesus receive my spirit

Thank you Emjae.

Although it does not alter things for me, the comparison is still very good don't you think?

In Christ
Wings

 

[Emjae]

Thank you Emjae.

Although it does not alter things for me, the comparison is still very good don't you think?

In Christ
Wings

Hi Wings,

Acts 2:36 explains the authority that God gave to Jesus:
“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.â€

as Jesus confirmed it in Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

1Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Emjae