Is Jesus really God ?

[savedbygrace57]

emj

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

Thats my point, The Spirit goes back to God ecc 12:7

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

I am sure Stephen knew the scriptures..

 

[savedbygrace57]

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

These verses merely prove Jesus to have been a Man, I never denied that..

 

[savedbygrace57]

Christ is the omnipotent God because:

He has the Authority of God over the elements, when the winds a waves are at rage, He rebuked them mk 4:


39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

Is this not a reminder of what the psamists writes of the AlMighty ? ps 89:

8 O LORD God of hosts, who is a strong LORD like unto thee? or to thy faithfulness round about thee?

9Thou rulest the raging of the sea: when the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them.

 

[Asyncritus]

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.

Acts 3.6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.
7 And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.
8 And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God.

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..

Let's not be silly here, shall we?

 

[Asyncritus]

Thank you Emjae.

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

In Christ
Wings

It should.

 

[Asyncritus]

Christ is the omnipotent God because:

He has the Authority of God over the elements, when the winds a waves are at rage, He rebuked them mk 4:


39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

Is this not a reminder of what the psamists writes of the AlMighty ? ps 89:

8 O LORD God of hosts, who is a strong LORD like unto thee? or to thy faithfulness round about thee?

9Thou rulest the raging of the sea: when the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them.

Ex 14.21 ¶ And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.

22 And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.

Let's not be silly, shall we?

 

[Asyncritus]

These verses merely prove Jesus to have been a Man, I never denied that..

You have.

1Sa 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

 

[mcgyver]

Who did Jesus think He was?

He forgave sins (only God has that prerogative)

He started a new organization called the "church" in English...and said that the very gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

He made a new covenant with man which supersedes and places in abeyance the old covenant made by God on Sinai.

He declared that He and the Father were one.

He told Philip that if he (Philip) had seen Him (Jesus) then Philip had seen the Father.

And on it goes....Jesus certainly believed that He was God.

So the question arises...Was Jesus insane and a usurper, or did He prove His claims early on a Sunday morning when He walked out of a tomb after being stone-cold-as-a doornail dead?

 

[Asyncritus]

emj

Thats my point, The Spirit goes back to God ecc 12:7

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

I am sure Stephen knew the scriptures..

Probably a bit better than you seem to do.

Lu 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

 

[Asyncritus]

[

Who did Jesus think He was?

He forgave sins (only God has that prerogative)

You're putting yourself on the side of the Pharisees, Mc.

Joh 5:19 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.

He started a new organization called the "church" in English...and said that the very gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

You misunderstand the word hell. The expression He uses comes from
Isa. 38: 10 I said in the cutting off of my days, I shall go to the gates of the grave:

The grave is sheol, which is often translated 'hell'.

Jesus is saying that the grave will not be able to prevail against His church: because He went into those gates and returned: and so will His servants:

Rev 1.18 : 18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Notice how this idea is proved to be correct by the context of Mt 16:

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

[...]

21 ¶ From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

He made a new covenant with man which supersedes and places in abeyance the old covenant made by God on Sinai.

Sorry. It is God who makes the New Covenant with men:

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Confirmed by Hebrews:

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Jesus is the Mediator of the New Covenant, not the maker of it:

Heb 12.24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

He declared that He and the Father were one.

Yes, and that His disciples were one with them:

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

He told Philip that if he (Philip) had seen Him (Jesus) then Philip had seen the Father.

And you really think that Jesus was the Father? No, Hebrews tells us that:

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,

and Col 1.15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

So Philip had seen the express image of the Father. If Jesus was the image of the Father, then He really can't be the Father, can He?

And on it goes....Jesus certainly believed that He was God.

He most certainly did not. I have counted at least 70 times in the gospel of John where He says He is dependent on, or obedient to, or been sent by the Father. I can post the list if you wish, but it would be beneficial if you made the list for yourself. It'd stop an awful lot of this argy-bargying.

So the question arises...Was Jesus insane and a usurper, or did He prove His claims early on a Sunday morning when He walked out of a tomb after being stone-cold-as-a doornail dead?

He claimed to be the Son of God, and proved it (according to Paul) when He walked out of that tomb on a Sunday morning.

Rom 1.3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

 

[mcgyver]

So then, when Thomas saw Jesus and declared "My Lord and my God" [Lit. "The Lord of me and the God of me"]...if Jesus is/was not God then Thomas committed the most rank blasphemy a Jew could commit....and Jesus blessed him for it!

So once again we come to that dilemma, if Jesus is not God...then we can add blasphemy to the charges. ;)

You know...we've got to be careful not to confuse position with essence. Jesus was certainly subordinate to the Father in His (Jesus') incarnation...how else could Jesus have possibly related to us otherwise?

However, that Jesus willingly chose to operate within the limitations of being a human being does not in any way abrogate His deity.

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Phil 2:5-8

Who then is equal to God? (None but God)

And yes, by His actions Jesus certainly understood His own divinity...

 

[Asyncritus]

So then, when Thomas saw Jesus and declared "My Lord and my God" [Lit. "The Lord of me and the God of me"]...if Jesus is/was not God then Thomas committed the most rank blasphemy a Jew could commit....and Jesus blessed him for it!

So once again we come to that dilemma, if Jesus is not God...then we can add blasphemy to the charges. ;)

I think you are making a serious mistake if you think that this was an inspired utterance by Thomas. It is entirely possible that he said: "My Lord" to Jesus and "My God" as a prayer of thankfulness to God Himself.

If that is a correct view of the matter, then it is in perfect harmony with Paul's statement : To us, there is but one God, the Father... and one Lord, Jesus Christ...

Don't you think it a bit strange that not one other person in the whole New Testament says anything of the sort? Why don't they?

You know...we've got to be careful not to confuse position with essence. Jesus was certainly subordinate to the Father in His (Jesus') incarnation...how else could Jesus have possibly related to us otherwise?

I'm not a theologian, as I've said: so I'm not too clear as to what you mean about 'position and essence'. Can you clarify for me please?

However, that Jesus willingly chose to operate within the limitations of being a human being does not in any way abrogate His deity.

I was composing a reply to Free with a proper exposition of Phil.2 but I stayed on for too long, and the blessed thing jumped out and I lost the whole reply. I'll try again shortly.

In the meantime, apologies to you both for not dealing with Php 2 properly. But I'm coming. You'll see the correct meaning of the passage and it's proper relation to the OT.

But what do you make of my points in reply to sbg67 and your own comments?

 

[mcgyver]

I think you are making a serious mistake if you think that this was an inspired utterance by Thomas. It is entirely possible that he said: "My Lord" to Jesus and "My God" as a prayer of thankfulness to God Himself.

Textually and contextually, that is simply not the case...for he very definitely identifies Jesus as "The Lord of me and the God of me" (ο κυριος μου και ο θεος μου)...and again, Jesus blesses him for that observation.

If that is a correct view of the matter, then it is in perfect harmony with Paul's statement : To us, there is but one God, the Father... and one Lord, Jesus Christ...

Don't you think it a bit strange that not one other person in the whole New Testament says anything of the sort? Why don't they?

If one understands the Jewish concept of Messiah and who they believed Messiah to be...if one understands the subtleties of the titles: "Son of man" and "son of God"...then at least one person (Peter) confesses Him: "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God..."

How many times did the Pharisees and the people pick up rocks to stone Jesus because He made Himself equal with God? Certainly they clearly understood who Jesus was claiming to be. ;)

I'm not a theologian, as I've said: so I'm not too clear as to what you mean about 'position and essence'. Can you clarify for me please?

I'd be quite happy to...but as intricate as that discussion will get (it's only been discussed for two millenia)...perhaps a new thread?

I was composing a reply to Free with a proper exposition of Phil.2 but I stayed on for too long, and the blessed thing jumped out and I lost the whole reply. I'll try again shortly.

In the meantime, apologies to you both for not dealing with Php 2 properly. But I'm coming. You'll see the correct meaning of the passage and it's proper relation to the OT.

But what do you make of my points in reply to sbg67 and your own comments?

I look forward to your exegesis...and I'll have to go back and look at your points in reply to sbg67.

 

[Drew]

I think you are making a serious mistake if you think that this was an inspired utterance by Thomas. It is entirely possible that he said: "My Lord" to Jesus and "My God" as a prayer of thankfulness to God Himself.

If that is a correct view of the matter, then it is in perfect harmony with Paul's statement : To us, there is but one God, the Father... and one Lord, Jesus Christ...

As has already been argued - and I think you never really engaged my argument - this saying of Paul actually is a strong affirmation of the "Jesus is God" position. I post the argument below (I actually think I never posted this particular argument in this particular thread - either way, here it is):

In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul takes that central Old Testament declaration "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one" (this statement is referred to as the “Shemaâ€), and further clarifies it placing the Father in the God role and the Son in the Lord role. A careful analysis of the 1 Corinthians passage shows that Paul is indeed suggesting that both “God the Father†and “God the Son†are distinct persons with a single “godheadâ€.

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 (YHWH) - 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. So, to recap: we have the writer here saying that YHWH is both “Lord†and “Godâ€.

2. Now we have Paul, reformulating the Shema 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 plurality. 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 of 1 Corinthians 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 Shema with its "one-ness" statement.

3. This leads to a remarkable conclusion. Since we know Paul sees Jesus as fitting into the Israel story (this will not be shown here but the case for this is very strong), 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 the 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. In case this is not clear, here is what is basically going on:

(a) Old Testament (Deuteronomy): YHWH is characterized in terms of two descriptors: “God†and “Lordâ€;

(b) New Testament (1 Corinthians 8): We have the Father as “God†and the Son as “Lord†(note: same two descriptors);

(c) Paul has analyzed the concept of YHWH and discerned that the two descriptors of YHWH (“God†and “Lordâ€) can be “teased apart†– and one predicated of a “Father†and other of a “Sonâ€. But since Paul is arguably committed to the Old Testament – he would never deny the truth of the Shema – we have only one choice left in order to reconcile the Shema and the 1 Corinthians 8 text.

YHWH (Lord and God) = Father (God) + Lord (Jesus)

Any other choice has us saying that Paul is denying the Shema. Remarkably, Paul is re-formulating the Shema instead.

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-formulates" 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".

 

[mcgyver]

That reminds me of the Benjamin Warfield quote:

"The Old Testament may be likened to a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted. The introduction of light brings into it nothing which was not in it before but it brings out into clearer view much of what is in it but was only dimly or not at all perceived before." - Benjamin Warfield (Biblical Doctrines) pg 141-142

 

[Drew]

That reminds me of the Benjamin Warfield quote:

"The Old Testament may be likened to a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted. The introduction of light brings into it nothing which was not in it before but it brings out into clearer view much of what is in it but was only dimly or not at all perceived before." - Benjamin Warfield (Biblical Doctrines) pg 141-142

I think this is a superb quote and captures precisely one critical aspect of the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament.

 

[Free]

He most certainly did not. I have counted at least 70 times in the gospel of John where He says He is dependent on, or obedient to, or been sent by the Father. I can post the list if you wish, but it would be beneficial if you made the list for yourself. It'd stop an awful lot of this argy-bargying.

And the point has been made several times that such statements by Christ in no way prove that he isn't God.

 

[Asyncritus]

And the point has been made several times that such statements by Christ in no way prove that he isn't God.

The statement may have been made, but certainly not proved.

If Jesus says over 70 times that He is subservient to His Father, I find it difficult to reject that much evidence of His plain statements.

Can you give me good reason to reject His remarks?

 

[Free]

The statement may have been made, but certainly not proved.

If Jesus says over 70 times that He is subservient to His Father, I find it difficult to reject that much evidence of His plain statements.

Can you give me good reason to reject His remarks?

I never said we should reject his remarks. We need to understand them within the context of the entirety of Scripture. Your position rejects other portions of Scripture whereas mine attempts to take it all into account.

 

[Drew]

The statement may have been made, but certainly not proved.

If Jesus says over 70 times that He is subservient to His Father, I find it difficult to reject that much evidence of His plain statements.

Can you give me good reason to reject His remarks?

As Free has pointed out, no one is denying these remarks. You seem to think that, at a conceptual level, one cannot be a person in a "triune God" and be "subservient" to another person within that "triune God". I grant that the very concept of a triune God is tricky, but I suggest that given centuries of the existence of this doctrine, it really hard to believe that its proponents will all slap their foreheads and abandon the Trinity when they discover that they "over-looked" the implications of these 70 sayings.

Surely this is highly implausible - there may be valid reasons to challenge the Trinity on other grounds, but to suggest that the "subservience" issue undoes the Trinity is a real stretch, unless you have a really subtle argument that all these Christian scholars have overlooked.

Now to be fair, I have not read all your posts. But if your argument is "Jesus can't be "god" since He is subservient to the Father", I doubt very much that argument can work. It is "too obvious". Now, of course, you are free to suggest that the Christian church has "refused to see the obvious". This is possible, but it seems rather implausible to me.

Besides, as per arguments that I and others have put forward in this and other threads, it is pretty clear that Jesus saw Himself as the "embodiment" of the Father. I have argued at length from Luke's gospel that Jesus sees Himself as enacting and embodying the Old Testament promise that YHWH would return to His people.

I do not believe you (or anyone else for that matter) has taken that argument seriously and shown where it fails. I suggest you need to this for your position to stand. If you want me to repost, or point you to the argument, I will do so. And please also address my argument about 1 Corinthians 8 (posted earlier today).