Is Jesus really God ?

[Drew]

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.

Post 1 of 2 of an argument for the "divinity" of Jesus:

One Old Testament theme is often overlooked is the theme of the promised return of YHWH to Zion – that though God has abandoned His people through the exile, He will, one day, return to them. A wide range of Old Testament texts embody this hope. Here are just two:

Ezekiel 43:1-7:

Then he led me to the gate, the gate facing toward the east; 2and behold, the glory of the God of Israel was coming from the way of the east[ And His voice was like the sound of many waters; and the earth shone with His glory. 3And it was like the appearance of the vision which I saw, like the vision which I saw when He came to destroy the city And the visions were like the vision which I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell on my face. 4And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate facing toward the east. 5And the Spirit lifted me up and brought me into the inner court; and behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house. 6Then I heard one speaking to me from the house, while a man was standing beside me. 7He said to me, "Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell among the sons of Israel forever And the house of Israel will not again defile My holy name, neither they nor their kings, by their harlotry and by the corpses of their kings when they die,…

Remember the context. The Jews are in a state of exile. The temple had been abandoned by God and destroyed. This vision given to Ezekiel constitutes a promise that God will return to inhabit the “temple†once more.

Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the LORD of hosts. 2"But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.

This material, just like the Ezekiel text, was written during the time of exile. Once more we have a promised return of God to the temple.

These and other texts express a deep hope of the Jewish nation – the God that had abandoned them will one day return to them. When we forget such expectations, and reduce the discussion of Jesus’ divinity to technical matters about the boundaries between the concept of “man†and of “godâ€, we entirely overlook what really matters – the Jewish matrix of expectation into which Jesus was born. I suggest the Biblically literate 1st century Jew would be anticipating this return. If that Jew were being true to the Biblical tradition, he would at least be open to the possibility that YHWH might return to His people in the form of a “humanâ€. From the famous throne chariot vision of Ezekiel 1:

And there came a voice from above the expanse that was over their heads; whenever they stood still, they dropped their wings. 26Now above the expanse that was over their heads there was something resembling a throne, like lapis lazuli in appearance; and on that which resembled a throne, high up, was a figure with the appearance of a man.

I want to be clear: this and other texts such as Daniel 7 only hint at a possibility - there is no strong and pervasive theme in the Old Testament that clearly anticipates the notion of God incarnated in the form of man. But, and this is key, neither is such a possibility over-ruled, with texts like this one from Ezekiel and the one from Daniel 7 giving the hint of the possibility a divine human figure.

This is why arguments against Jesus’ divinity that are grounded in conceptual distinction entirely miss the point (e.g. Jesus is man, and a man cannot be God, Jesus is the “son†of God and therefore cannot be God, etc.). The real issue is the grand plan of covenantal redemption that we see woven through both testaments. If honouring the coherence of that story leads us to see Jesus as divine, so be it – the conceptual distinctions are derivative, not fundamental.

As I argue below, Jesus clearly sees Himself as fitting into the story in a specific way – it is His life’s work to embody the promised return of YHWH to Zion. And that makes Him “divineâ€, with divinity understood in the appropriate framework – not the framework of conceptual categories that have little connection to large Biblical narrative of covenantal redemption, but rather in the context of a God who promised to return to His people. In that framework, we have a young Jew named Jesus who saw Himself as called to the vocation of implementing that promised return.

 

[Drew]

Post 1 of 2 of an argument for the "divinity" of Jesus:

Much of the gospel of Luke is the story of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. Towards the end of that journey, Jesus tells the parable of the returning king – the story of a king who goes away and then returns to call his servants to account. This parable is found in Luke 19:11 and following.

This parable has almost universally been understood to constitute a statement by Jesus that He will go away, though crucifixion, resurrection, and then ascension, only to return in the future (i.e. in the 2nd coming). On such a reading, Jesus sets Himself, as He tells the parable, in the role of the king who is about to leave.

I suggest this is not the correct reading. Instead, we should understand that in telling the parable, Jesus is setting Himself in the role of the returning king, not the departing one. On such a reading, the departing king represents YHWH leaving his people by abandoning the temple and sending the Jews into exile, something that lies in the past of Jesus’ audience. If this interpretation is correct, Jesus can logically fill only one role in the parable: YHWH returning to Zion as promised. And this means, of course, that Jesus is the embodiment of Israel’s God.

Why should we read the parable this way? Well, for starters, the parable does not really work on its traditional reading. Note what happens to the third servant – all that he has is taken from him. This really cannot be reconciled with the notion that the returning King is Jesus at his 2nd coming, calling his people to account. Nowhere in the New Testament is there even the slightest suggestion that any of Jesus’ followers will be cast out and lose all at Jesus’ 2nd coming as the parable would seem to suggest on the traditional reading. It is clear from the scriptures that that believers who “build with hay and stubble†will still be saved. So it is very hard to make the parable work with Jesus as the King about to go away and return at a 2nd coming.

Besides, consideration of what happens next makes it clear that Jesus is setting himself in the role of the returning king. Note what happens after parable is told – Jesus rides on to Jerusalem and, upon seeing it, says the following:

"If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. 43"For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, 44and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation."

Clearly, Jesus sees Himself as the King returning in visitation, returning to judge Jerusalem who is set in the role of the unfaithful 3rd servant. If, as many believe, the returning King in the parable is Jesus at His second coming, then it would be deeply misleading for Jesus to give the parable then immediately ride into Jerusalem as He does, to palm branches waving no less, with all the imagery of a returning King that this action clearly evokes. No. Jesus clearly intends his listeners to understand that He is the returning King, not the departing one. In giving this parable and then riding into the royal city as a king, Jesus is clearly telling us that He, through this teaching and these actions, is embodying the fulfillment of the hoped for return of YHWH to his people. And what does Jesus do next?:

Then he entered the temple area and began driving out those who were selling. 46"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be a house of prayer'; but you have made it 'a den of robbers.'

Note how this maps perfectly to this prophecy about the return of YHWH to his people:

Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the LORD of hosts. 2"But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.

The overall picture is clear. As per an earlier post, we have the strong Biblical tradition of the promised return of YHWH to Zion (and his temple) after the time of the exile. Now here, in Luke, we have the journey of a young Jew named Jesus to Jerusalem. As He is about to enter, He tells a parable of a king who goes away and then returns. Next, He laments over Jerusalem and declares that she is not recognizing His mission as a “visitationâ€. In the context of Jews who saw themselves still in exile, and still awaiting the return of YHWH, Jesus’ intended meaning is clear. In saying that Jerusalem has not recognized her visitation, He is saying that she has failed to recognize that, in His very actions, the promised return of YHWH to Zion is being fulfilled. And then Jesus enters the temple and overturns the tables in judgement, fulfilling the Malach 3 promise that YHWH will come suddenly to the temple in judgement. The coherence of this picture is compelling. Jesus is embodying the return of YHWH to Zion. And that, of course, makes Him the embodiment of Israel’s God.

This is why arguments like “Jesus cannot be divine since Jesus was tempted and God cannot be tempted†are a spectacular exercise in missing the point. Such arguments assume a model for the nature of God-hood and human-ness and then leverage that assumption to make the case against Jesus’ divinity. Well, we should be getting our concepts of who YHWH is from the Old Testament, not from conceptual definitions with no connection to the Jewish worldview. And in the Old Testament, YHWH is the one who has left His people and promised to return. When Jesus, then, so obviously sees Himself as embodying that promised return, that, and not vague conceptual arguments, makes the case that Jesus sees Himself as the incarnation of Israel’s God. Again, the conceptual arguments you make are deeply misleading since they are built on a model of the “boundaries†between god and man that make no reference at all to the Scriptures.

 

[Drew]

This is really the problem with so many theological discussions in a forum setting. Too many people think it is a matter of showing a bunch of passages and then someone wins and someone loses. It's never a matter of just posting the "top 3 scriptures." A proper discussion of the deity of Christ involves discussing everything the Bible states--from cover to cover--about the Messiah and God's plan for salvation and the redemption of creation.

True. We need to escape from the trap of "atomistic" exegesis - trying to establish doctrine based on tiny snippets of text. That is the easy path, but as is usually the case, the harder way is the better way.

As I have tried to argue in the last 2 posts, the notion of Jesus as embodying the return of the Father to Zion strongly suggests that Jesus is, in fact, "divine" as this term is normally used in Christendom.

A lot of arguments against the Trinity (e.g. how could Jesus be God if He sets the Father "above" Him, etc.) are, I suggest, really just the results of the inadequacy of our conceptual tools. It is not surprising that there are going to be seeming paradoxes of logic when we talk about "God" taking human form, and assuming all the limitations that go with it.

What matters is the big picture - the sweeping plan of redemption we see in the Bible. And I suggest that picture strongly endorses the divinity of Jesus. Yes, we and even the writers of scripture struggle to find the right "language" to express this. But it is the sweep of the narrative that is primary, and I suggest it is a narrative where a young Jew named Jesus speaks and acts in such a way as to leave little doubt - Jesus embodies the promised return of, yes, God, to His people.

 

[Free]

True. We need to escape from the trap of "atomistic" exegesis - trying to establish doctrine based on tiny snippets of text. That is the easy path, but as is usually the case, the harder way is the better way.

As I have tried to argue in the last 2 posts, the notion of Jesus as embodying the return of the Father to Zion strongly suggests that Jesus is, in fact, "divine" as this term is normally used in Christendom.

A lot of arguments against the Trinity (e.g. how could Jesus be God if He sets the Father "above" Him, etc.) are, I suggest, really just the results of the inadequacy of our conceptual tools. It is not surprising that there are going to be seeming paradoxes of logic when we talk about "God" taking human form, and assuming all the limitations that go with it.

What matters is the big picture - the sweeping plan of redemption we see in the Bible. And I suggest that picture strongly endorses the divinity of Jesus. Yes, we and even the writers of scripture struggle to find the right "language" to express this. But it is the sweep of the narrative that is primary, and I suggest it is a narrative where a young Jew named Jesus speaks and acts in such a way as to leave little doubt - Jesus embodies the promised return of, yes, God, to His people.

I completely agree. The whole should adequately explain the parts, whereas the way things are typically done, only the parts are looked at with almost complete disregard for the whole. This is even done within the context of the NT itself.

I suppose I am a details oriented person which is why I tend to argue from the parts first. The problem with this however, is that, while I am aware of the whole and keep that in mind, it almost immediately becomes too difficult to get the discussions out of the atomistic exegetical trap.

As an example, arguments such as:

The Bible is clear:

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

not only ignore the immediate context, they ignore the OT theme that God himself would come to save Israel and all of Creation, as you have correctly and adequately shown. As Wright argues, 1 Cor 8:6, in it's entirety, is really Paul expanding on the Jewish Shema:

Deut 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." (ESV)

1 Cor 8:6, "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist" (ESV)

(And I would add that just as "from whom are all things" precludes the Father from being a creature, "through whom are all things" precludes Christ from being a creature.)

This supports the idea that God himself came as Israel's, and the world's, Savior. Further supporting this is Matt 1:23, "'Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel' (which means, God with us)." (ESV)

 

[francisdesales]

I completely agree. The whole should adequately explain the parts, whereas the way things are typically done, only the parts are looked at with almost complete disregard for the whole. This is even done within the context of the NT itself.

I suppose I am a details oriented person which is why I tend to argue from the parts first. The problem with this however, is that, while I am aware of the whole and keep that in mind, it almost immediately becomes too difficult to get the discussions out of the atomistic exegetical trap.

As an example, arguments such as:

The Bible is clear:

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

not only ignore the immediate context, they ignore the OT theme that God himself would come to save Israel and all of Creation, as you have correctly and adequately shown. As Wright argues, 1 Cor 8:6, in it's entirety, is really Paul expanding on the Jewish Shema:

Deut 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." (ESV)

1 Cor 8:6, "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist" (ESV)

(And I would add that just as "from whom are all things" precludes the Father from being a creature, "through whom are all things" precludes Christ from being a creature.)

This supports the idea that God himself came as Israel's, and the world's, Savior. Further supporting this is Matt 1:23, "'Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel' (which means, God with us)." (ESV)

Oh boy...

Can't we just do a "STICKY" on this subject so that the doubters can be educated???? Seems like this subject comes up monthly.

Regards

 

[Drew]

Oh boy...

Can't we just do a "STICKY" on this subject so that the doubters can be educated???? Seems like this subject comes up monthly.

Regards

Well, we are fighting against a long tradition of "simplistic" exegesis. To be fair, some may not realize they are caught up in it. I confess that, about 10 years ago, I was in that same mindset, doing "doctrine by verse". It took a fundamental revolution in me to escape that trap - and I give credit for that to a friend (whose thinking had largely been influenced by NT Wright).

This statement from Free really does capture the key idea:

The whole should adequately explain the parts, whereas the way things are typically done, only the parts are looked at with almost complete disregard for the whole

As Free aslo implied (if I follow his post and do a little interpolation), the Pauline statement that "there is but one God, the Father" is not really an "inner numerical analysis" of the nature of God, but rather an echoing of the Jewish affirmation that their God was the one true god, and the gods of the pagans were mere idols. So Paul's statement, despite how it reads in a "superficial" sense is not really a denial of the possibility that Jesus is divine.

To come to see this takes a little work. One needs to know the Old Testament and arguably have input from other historical works.

 

[zionwarrior]

This argument does not hold since you have no problem with "God" being used for the Father, so you are arbitrarily assigning the meaning, completely ignoring context.


"Deity," by definition--"often religiously referred to as a god"--can only mean God since the Christian religion, just like Judaism from which it came, is monotheistic. You are promoting polytheism, which is a grave error. So, if Jesus is deity, in Christianity it means he is God. It cannot mean anything else.

Also, since Jesus indeed has always existed, and since eternal preexistence is an attribute of God alone, Jesus is therefore God. There is no other conclusion once one states that Jesus has always existed.

I am seeing some pretty big inconsistencies in your position which always happens when one denies that Jesus is God.

A deity[1] is a recognised preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers, often religiously referred to as a god.

Often but not always ... You have your defenition and I have mine ...

The fact of the matter is the bible clearly states their is a Father and Son relationship between Jesus and Jehovah. And in all cases, the Father is greater than the Son. So if Jesus is God, he is a lesser God than his Father. But as we know there is only one God so nothing you have said holds any validity what so ever. You can continue to grasp at straws ... thats your choice. You like many others have been programed to believe false doctrine. Satan, as we know, is the master deceiver.

 

[zionwarrior]

Lets get back to basics, and the most important message of both Jesus and Jehovah ... LOVE. And the most famous scripture of the Bible underlines this.

John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

How can this be read out of context or miss translated ? It cant. If Jesus was God, he would have sent himself, not his son. Why would God use the Father/Son context if he didnt expect us to see it that way?

Constantine has a lot to answer for, and many Christians have been led astray from his time on.

 

[Drew]

John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

How can this be read out of context or miss translated ? It cant. If Jesus was God, he would have sent himself, not his son. Why would God use the Father/Son context if he didnt expect us to see it that way?

Constantine has a lot to answer for, and many Christians have been led astray from his time on.

I think you essentially beg the question, by pre-supposing that the notion of "multiplicity" within "god" is incoherent. Thus you argue "If Jesus was God, he would have sent himself, not his son". This is really a way of saying "the concept of a trinity makes no sense". This is how almost everyone critiques the notion of the Trinity proceeds - they effectively beg the question by pre-supposing that it is impossible to have a multiplicity of persons in relation with each other and yet which are all 'divine'.

I suggest that the correct Biblical way to see this is to see how the story of Jesus perfectly fulfills the promised return of YHWH to Israel, as I have argued in detail in a couple of posts, above. This makes Jesus the "embodiment" of Israel's God.

 

[Drew]

The fact of the matter is the bible clearly states their is a Father and Son relationship between Jesus and Jehovah. And in all cases, the Father is greater than the Son. So if Jesus is God, he is a lesser God than his Father. But as we know there is only one God so nothing you have said holds any validity what so ever. You can continue to grasp at straws ... thats your choice. You like many others have been programed to believe false doctrine. Satan, as we know, is the master deceiver.

I do not think this is a valid critique. Again, you essentially beg the question by presuming that to accept the notion that "The Father is greater than the Son" is equivalent to saying that Jesus is "less of a god" or "less divine". That begs the question, since it is equally possible that statements that the "Father is greater" can also be taken as statements about how one divine person has deferred his will to another divine person.

I also think it is not constructive to suggest that people who do not agree with you have been "programmed by Satan".

 

[Free]

Lets get back to basics, and the most important message of both Jesus and Jehovah ... LOVE. And the most famous scripture of the Bible underlines this.

John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

How can this be read out of context or miss translated ? It cant. If Jesus was God, he would have sent himself, not his son. Why would God use the Father/Son context if he didnt expect us to see it that way?

Constantine has a lot to answer for, and many Christians have been led astray from his time on.

Implicit in this last sentence is that Constantine, and by extension the Council of Nicaea, came up with the idea that Jesus is God. However, the idea of Jesus being God, yet not the Father, can be seen in writings from the early 2nd century, some 200 years before Constantine. Contrary to popular belief, these Councils didn't get together to come up with doctrine, they affirmed that which was already widely accepted by the Church.

Your argument using John 3:16 is against a Oneness understanding of God, not a trinitarian one. Was your Pentecostal church experience with Oneness Pentecostals by any chance? The doctrine of Trinity was "formulated" precisely because the Father is clearly not the Son, yet the Son is God in the same way the Father is. This is what Scripture shows us and the doctrine of the Trinity has the best explanatory power.

 

[Free]

The fact of the matter is the bible clearly states their is a Father and Son relationship between Jesus and Jehovah.

Again, this is something the doctrine of the Trinity fully affirms.

And in all cases, the Father is greater than the Son.

Drew has answered this so I will only add that at least part of the answer can be found in Phil 2:6-8.

So if Jesus is God, he is a lesser God than his Father. But as we know there is only one God so nothing you have said holds any validity what so ever.

Need I remind you of your earlier statements?

"So God revealed it not Jesus, so they are two different spirits."

"1 Do not let your hearts be troubled. Exercise faith in God. Exercise faith also in me (John 14).

Two different beings to put your faith in."

"I don't dismiss the fact that Jesus may have always existed, but that doesn't make him God."

You are the one positing polytheism with Jesus as a lesser God, not I. I am the one that has been stating Christianity and Judaism are monotheistic.

You can continue to grasp at straws ... thats your choice. You like many others have been programed to believe false doctrine. Satan, as we know, is the master deceiver.

No one is grasping at straws. Some very good arguments have been made that you have yet to deal with. All you have done is proof-text without really engaging with what is being said.

And I must agree with Drew: do not suggest that those who are in disagreement with you "have been programmed to believe false doctrine," having been deceived by Satan. I particularly don't like this because of implication that those who disagree with you have not studied or are incapable of finding the truth. I have deeply studied the matter on my own, quite apart from anything I have ever been taught, never mind having been programmed, by Satan himself no less.

 

[bibleMAN]

A person reading The Bible without bias will never come to the conclusion of the trinity on their own... only when you start listening to other people's "ideas" does the famously pagan idea of a tri-deity start to sound normal. Arguments for the trinity involve using complex analysis to create enough room to suggest that maybe the Bible was "suggesting" that Jesus and God are One. Because the Bible never stated it, so it's only possible if the Bible "suggested it."

Example from this thread:

What Jesus said:

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

What man says:

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

Post 1 of 2 of an argument for the "divinity" of Jesus:

One Old Testament theme is often overlooked is the theme of the promised return of YHWH to Zion – that though God has abandoned His people through the exile, He will, one day, return to them. A wide range of Old Testament texts embody this hope. Here are just two:

Ezekiel 43:1-7:

Then he led me to the gate, the gate facing toward the east; 2and behold, the glory of the God of Israel was coming from the way of the east[ And His voice was like the sound of many waters; and the earth shone with His glory. 3And it was like the appearance of the vision which I saw, like the vision which I saw when He came to destroy the city And the visions were like the vision which I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell on my face. 4And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate facing toward the east. 5And the Spirit lifted me up and brought me into the inner court; and behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house. 6Then I heard one speaking to me from the house, while a man was standing beside me. 7He said to me, "Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell among the sons of Israel forever And the house of Israel will not again defile My holy name, neither they nor their kings, by their harlotry and by the corpses of their kings when they die,…

Remember the context. The Jews are in a state of exile. The temple had been abandoned by God and destroyed. This vision given to Ezekiel constitutes a promise that God will return to inhabit the “temple” once more.

Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the LORD of hosts. 2"But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.

This material, just like the Ezekiel text, was written during the time of exile. Once more we have a promised return of God to the temple.

These and other texts express a deep hope of the Jewish nation – the God that had abandoned them will one day return to them. When we forget such expectations, and reduce the discussion of Jesus’ divinity to technical matters about the boundaries between the concept of “man” and of “god”, we entirely overlook what really matters – the Jewish matrix of expectation into which Jesus was born. I suggest the Biblically literate 1st century Jew would be anticipating this return. If that Jew were being true to the Biblical tradition, he would at least be open to the possibility that YHWH might return to His people in the form of a “human”. From the famous throne chariot vision of Ezekiel 1:

And there came a voice from above the expanse that was over their heads; whenever they stood still, they dropped their wings. 26Now above the expanse that was over their heads there was something resembling a throne, like lapis lazuli in appearance; and on that which resembled a throne, high up, was a figure with the appearance of a man.

I want to be clear: this and other texts such as Daniel 7 only hint at a possibility - there is no strong and pervasive theme in the Old Testament that clearly anticipates the notion of God incarnated in the form of man. But, and this is key, neither is such a possibility over-ruled, with texts like this one from Ezekiel and the one from Daniel 7 giving the hint of the possibility a divine human figure.

This is why arguments against Jesus’ divinity that are grounded in conceptual distinction entirely miss the point (e.g. Jesus is man, and a man cannot be God, Jesus is the “son” of God and therefore cannot be God, etc.). The real issue is the grand plan of covenantal redemption that we see woven through both testaments. If honouring the coherence of that story leads us to see Jesus as divine, so be it – the conceptual distinctions are derivative, not fundamental.

As I argue below, Jesus clearly sees Himself as fitting into the story in a specific way – it is His life’s work to embody the promised return of YHWH to Zion. And that makes Him “divine”, with divinity understood in the appropriate framework – not the framework of conceptual categories that have little connection to large Biblical narrative of covenantal redemption, but rather in the context of a God who promised to return to His people. In that framework, we have a young Jew named Jesus who saw Himself as called to the vocation of implementing that promised return.

And so on.

You see, The Bible didn't argue the trinity. Man sure is good at arguing it, though! The trinity idea was introduced to the world by man, not the Bible, 325 years after Christ died, by Constantine. If you are interested in learning the origin of the trinity in Christianity, read about it here: First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[zionwarrior]

FREE and DREW ...

I believe Jesus is God as much as I am my father.
I am infact for a large part, my father, because I am made up of his DNA ...

The concepts you propose are beyond normal human comprehension. We have nothing in our world to draw a comparison to. And this is the point you make.

For mortal man to believe 'the trinity' we have to let go of any preconceptions we have based on our own experiences in this world. And trinitarians say that this is the mystery of God, and we can never fully comprehend.

But the bible tells us that God is not a God of confusion ... Concepts beyond our comprehension are clearly ones of confusion.

 

[zionwarrior]

Yes, true Bibleman, it seems to me that Trinitarians cant take things on face value, or as it is written, and have to delve deeply for hidden meaning.
Trinitarians posts are usually quite long ... lol

 

[francisdesales]

You see, The Bible didn't argue the trinity. Man sure is good at arguing it, though! The trinity idea was introduced to the world by man, not the Bible, 325 years after Christ died, by Constantine. If you are interested in learning the origin of the trinity in Christianity, read about it here: First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Same old tired arguments.... Constantine introduced the Trinity concept, citing "wikipedia", no doubt written by another person of dubious historical knowledge...

There are numerous citations from the actual men on the ground 200 years before the Council of Nicea that speak of the belief of God as three persons. In addition, a bit of knowledge is helpful here, because anyone who knows something about Constantine would know that he was of an Arian mindset - did not think Jesus was of the same essence as the Father. IF Constantine was the driving force behind Nicea, clearly, we wouldn't have "Trinity" as a formula from Nicea. The Church would be Arian.

Wikipedia? Please...

Regards

 

[zionwarrior]

Thanks Francisdesales ... we heard you the first time.

Regards !!!

 

[Drew]

A person reading The Bible without bias will never come to the conclusion of the trinity on their own... only when you start listening to other people's "ideas" does the famously pagan idea of a tri-deity start to sound normal.

Begs the question. I provided an argument, you are making an assertion, without supporting it (at least in the present post).

Arguments for the trinity involve using complex analysis to create enough room to suggest that maybe the Bible was "suggesting" that Jesus and God are One. Because the Bible never stated it, so it's only possible if the Bible "suggested it."

There are at least two problems with this:

1. You are simply not engaging the content of an argument that challenges your position. In proper debate, one cannot simply ignore the arguments of one's challenger.

2. You presume some "rule" that if some doctrinal position is true, there will be "direct" statements to support it. Things are not necessarily that simple.

Arguments You see, The Bible didn't argue the trinity.

I have provided a detailed argument from the Bible that suggests otherwise. Why are you not challenging the argument on its own terms.

 

[Drew]

FREE and DREW ...

I believe Jesus is God as much as I am my father.

I suggest that this is simply not a correct argument. Of course you are not your father, but no one is suggesting that you and your father are part of trinity, we are suggesting that Jesus and YHWH are.

Again, I suggest you are trading off the difficulty of the concepts, but not really making the case that the notion of the Trinity is incoherent. If you can tell us precisely what is wrong with this statement, then please do so.

the Father is clearly not the Son, yet the Son is God in the same way the Father is.

The concepts you propose are beyond normal human comprehension. We have nothing in our world to draw a comparison to. And this is the point you make.

Again, I see no actual case here as to why the concept of a Trinity is conceptually incoherent.

And just like always, when I present my "2 post argument" for Jesus acting as the very embodiment of Jehovah returning to Zion, this material gets ignored or is dismissed as "human reasoning" (as if there is any other kind).

And I think I know why: this argument I posted (which is really based on arguments by NT Wright, if not others) is basically correct, and opponents of the position of the "Jesus is divine" position, for reasons best known to themselves, appear unwilling to accept the untenability of their position in light of such scriptural arguments.

 

[Drew]

Yet more evidence that Jesus sees Himself as the incarnation of Israel's God. On his final journey to Jerusalem, we have this statement from Jesus:

Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.​

Jesus is drawing on this image from the book of Ruth:​

"May the LORD reward your work, and your wages be full from the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to seek refuge." ​

Yet one more time - to add to other examples - we have Jesus setting Himself in the role of Israel's God.​

This is Trinitarian theology, understood how it is means to be understood - not in terms of arid conceptual categories, but in terms of the very concrete story of Israel, abandoned by her God, and then looking keenly forward to His return to them.​

Jesus is that very return of the living God to the people of Israel.​

Let us now consider the implications of Jesus not being the embodiment of the God of Israel, knowing that He was not, and yet going ahead and making the statement that He makes.
Jesus knows the Old Testament inside and out. Would Jesus place Himself in the role of the God of Israel as "mother hen" if He (Jesus) did not believe that He was the embodiment of the God of Israel? Let the reader judge how likely that is. One would need to believe that Jesus has used the “hen with Israel under its wings†metaphor without being aware that this very same metaphor has been used to characterize God in the Old Testament.