The Diety of Christ/Jesus is God: An Approach for Skeptics

[mutzrein]

... If it based on 'interpretation' it is of the intellect (the flesh) and can only ever lead to self righteousness. Revelation on the other hand is of the Spirit. What would you say is my interpretation then? Or is revelation?

Well, men wrote it, and men must read it. So, who is the final interpreter of scripture: The Church, or the individual? (I think you already know MY answer.)

Yes, men wrote it. Men inspired by the Spirit of God. And it is the same spirit that dwells in me.

As scripture says, " . . . We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: "For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

Yes I know your answer. But I am not subject to the interpretation that your church places on scripture. I am only subject to the revelation of the Spirit God which has given me life in and through Christ my Lord.

 

[Imagican]

Mutz,

I know you were joking. But you know, the more I have studied their teachings the more I am inclined to admire MANY of their members. I subscribe to NO denomination and you know this of course. But they OFTEN come 'a knockin' at my door to TELL me of Jesus Christ Our Savior. I have YET to have a member of the Baptist, Methodist, ANY other denomination come to my door of their OWN free will to TELL me about Christ.

I do NOT agree with MUCH of their 'theology'. But then I have YET to find a 'denomination' that I DO agree with. So, everyone likes to 'poke fun' of these and accuse them of 'being a 'cult' and such'. But I CAN testify that MANY of it's members ARE OUT doing what we have been COMMISSIONED to DO.

As I said, I KNEW you were 'joking' and recognized the timing and humor offered. But TRUST me, I have been 'accused' of WORSE, (he he he).

MEC

 

[Imagican]

... If it based on 'interpretation' it is of the intellect (the flesh) and can only ever lead to self righteousness. Revelation on the other hand is of the Spirit. What would you say is my interpretation then? Or is revelation?

Well, men wrote it, and men must read it. So, who is the final interpreter of scripture: The Church, or the individual? (I think you already know MY answer.)

Yes, men wrote it. Men inspired by the Spirit of God. And it is the same spirit that dwells in me.

As it MUST be. For the ONLY 'way' that one is CAPABLE of 'true' understanding IS TO BE LED by The Spirit. The SAME Spirit that INSPIRED The Word.

As scripture says, " . . . We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: "For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

And 'the world' WILL not accept the Truth, PERIOD. It seems that there are MANY that follow 'religion' that IS of this world. And for these, words of TRUE wisdom and those that offer TRUE understanding ARE often NOT understood.

Yes I know your answer. But I am not subject to the interpretation that your church places on scripture. I am only subject to the revelation of the Spirit God which has given me life in and through Christ my Lord.

And ONLY those that are MORE devoted to CHURCHOLOGY rather than TRUTH would INSIST that you MUST follow some 'man-made' religion. Those that are MORE devoted to an 'organization than to Christ and His Father. For The Spirit IS able to offer UNDERSTANDING to ANY that are willing to submit to IT through a love and adherance to Christ's commandments. And even a 'perfect' following of the commandments of which I refer is NOT necessary for understanding to 'take place'. For it is THROUGH understanding that we are FIRST able to FOLLOW.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

...And your feeble attempt to offer that Jesus STATED that He WAS/IS God is nothing other than 'personal' interpretation....

Sorry, I don't do 'personal' interpretations: That is a violation of Scripture:

2 Peter 1:20: Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation.

No it didn't. It comes BY the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

I give the interpreation of the Church,the interpreation of the Councils, the interpreation of the Eastern Orthodox, the interpreation of mainline protestantism, the interpreation of the Early Church Fathers, the interpreation of the 2000 year Christian Tradition.

If that is how you see it then so be it. I know that's what you have been 'taught' and what you 'believe', but HOW do you KNOW how 'accurate' that 'belief' truly is? The CC has admitted to many of it's past teachings of 'being faulty'. What PROOF do we have that it does not continue in such mis-understanding?

Look CC, you seem to think and 'act' like I am here simply to 'speak out against the CC'. Every comment that I make seems to make you 'think' that is directed AGAINST the CC. That is far from the 'truth'. The subjects that I usually comment on are faults of the Protestant Church as well as the CC. And they are NOT meant to be directed 'at' anyone.

You give ME the interpreation of the Jehovas Witnesses. Case Closed.

This shouldn't BE personal issues flung back and forth against each other. Oh, and by the way, as I stated to Mutz, your attempt at somehow discrediting what I have to offer by 'accusing me' of BEING a JW has no bearing on the TRUTH. I do NOT subscribe to the JW's doctrine any more than that of the CC or the Baptist Church or the Methodist etc........ I claim NO SUCH 'label'. If anything, I simply wish to be recognized as a 'follower' of Christ. A LOVER of God. And, when ABLE to overcome the 'spirit of this world'; a lover of my brothers and sisters, (neighbors).

But rest assured, you have NOT offended me by your accusation. It simply goes to show just how little of what I have offered has 'sunk in'. You REFUSE to listen to 'anything' that I offer for the FACT that it is NOT what you have been 'taught' to understand and 'repeat'. For you have fallen prey to a 'religion' that INSISTS that your allegiance must FIRST be offered to a 'man-made' organization. That you MUST accept what it has offered REGARDLESS of what COULD be 'personally' offered through The Spirit. TOTALLY unable to 'think' or 'relate' on your own, you have chosen to be LED by those that you have NO way to 'prove' ARE teaching that which is ANYTHING but their Own PERSONAL interpretation. Regardless of 'how OLD' this interpretation IS, it is STILL nothing other than that.

About the ONLY difference between me and thee is that I choose to DEPEND on God instead of 'somebody' or 'some organization'. Our devotion to WHAT we believe in is obviously pretty MUCH the 'same'. I am most certainly as 'passionate' about MY understanding as you are yours.

The case is only EVER closed when one CHOOSES to close their minds and hearts to that which if offered. So, in this case I assume that you have your mind made up and there is NOTHING that can be offered to influence you PERIOD. In this case there IS little that you and I have to discuss over such issues.

But you and I are NOT the 'only folks' here. So, in the Spirit of Christ, let me offer PEACE between you and myself. I appologize for ANY comments that I may have made that have offended you. Whether it was my intention or NOT, I am sorry for anything that I may have stated that has offended you. Please forgive me and in the future may we BOTH offer more understanding of each other and strive MORE to edify the other than ourselves.

With this I close:

So far as the use of the Gospel of John to PROVE a 'trinity' in which Jesus IS God. If I am NOT mistaken, the epistle written as John I was the SAME author. And this is what HE states in I John:

1John.4
[1] Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
[2] Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
[3] And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
[4] Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
[5] They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
[6] We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
[7] Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
[8] He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
[9] In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
[10] Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
[11] Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.
[12] No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
[13] Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.
[14] And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
[15] Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
[16] And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
[17] Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
[18] There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
[19] We love him, because he first loved us.
[20] If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
[21] And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.

As can clearly be SEEN above; NO ONE has EVER 'seen' God. But there WERE witnesses of His Son's appearance on this planet. Now IF Jesus IS God Himself, then HE that penned this statement is LYING. For it is stated that NO MAN has EVER 'seen' God. And this offered from ONE that HAD witnessed the Son's existence on this planet. And 'furthermore' NO WHERE is it stated that one MUST 'accept' that Jesus IS God. It states JUST the opposite in fact. It states:

[15] Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

and THIS my friends is NOT what is offered in 'trinity'. JUST the opposite. For we have been GIVEN the distinction of God and His Son. NOT simply Father and Son, but the FACT that God and The Son are SEPARATE entities. NOT 'the same' in any way other than 'purpose'. And IF this 'belief' in 'trinity' was SO important to understanding TRUTH, then WHY was it NOT offered by the apostles? Why did it take hundreds of years AFTER the death of Christ and the DEATH of the apostles for it to BE discovered?

We can PLAINLY see in the above statements that Jesus is NOT 'God' Himself. For it STATES that NO MAN has EVER 'seen' God. Christ IS The Son of God. Beware of the 'false God' that you MAY be 'creating' by stating a 'belief' that Jesus IS God. For there WERE those that physically SAW Christ. Followed Him day after day and witnessed His death and ressurection. Do you TRUST 'these' or those that would 'come along later' and offer a DIFFERENT doctrine?

MEC

 

[Catholic Crusader]

....Yes, men wrote it. Men inspired by the Spirit of God. And it is the same spirit that dwells in me.....

Ahhh, I see. So the Holy Spirit leads you when you interpret the scriptures.. ....the VERY THING you claim is impossible for the Pope. Now THERE is the height of hypocrisy.

In essence, you are your own Pope. You belive the Holy Spirit guides you in your interpretations, and you believe your interpretations are correct. Holy Cow.

 

[Paul W.]

I see some people here seem to get very tense about the concept of Jesus being God. Perhaps if the wording were reversed it might seem a litlle less impossible, or improbable. What if the wording were placed this way:


God is Jesus?



"...with God all things are possible." -Matthew 19:26b



No man has seen God at any time. This is true. Some have seen Jesus. This is also true. However, while God is Jesus, Jesus, during his earthly ministry, was given a body and he set aside the glory which he had with the Father, Whom God is also. Jesus retained all of his holiness when he walked this earth in human form; yet the bible states clearly that he set aside much of his glory and condescended to man. This is know as the "exinanition of Christ."



"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." -Philippians 2:5-7


In the Greek, this verse literally says, "...Christ Jesus, who, being in very nature God..."

For my way of thinking the bible only has to say something once for it to be true. The bible says Jesus was God "in very nature." I accept what the bible says.

I do not have a lot of time for posting just now but I will make the effort to post more soon.



I wish everyone here at 123 Christian Forums a beautiful and blessed evening, and...








May the love and peace of Jesus Christ be yours,
Paul W.

(Yes, I am a new member here.)

 

[Catholic Crusader]

The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God (cf. John 8:58, 10:38, 14:10; Col. 2:9). And yes, Jesus DID say he was God. In John 8:58, when quizzed about how he has special knowledge of Abraham, Jesus replies, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am"â€â€invoking and applying to himself the personal name of Godâ€â€"I Am" (Ex. 3:14). His audience understood exactly what he was claiming about himself. "So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple" (John 8:59). In John 5:18 we are told that Jesus’ opponents sought to kill him because he "called God his Father, making himself equal with God."

In John 20:28, Thomas falls at Jesus’ feet, exclaiming, "My Lord and my God!" (Greek: Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mouâ€â€literally, "The Lord of me and the God of me!")

Philippians 2:6 says that Jesus "who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped" (New International Version). So Jesus chose to be born in humble, human form though he could have simply remained in equal glory with the Father for he was "in very nature God."

Also significant are passages that apply the title "the First and the Last" to Jesus (Rev. 1:17). This is one of the Old Testament titles of Yahweh: "Thus says Yahweh, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, Yahweh of armies: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no god’" (Is. 44:6; cf. 41:4, 48:12).

This title is directly applied to Jesus three times in the book of Revelation: "When I saw him [Christ], I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, ‘Fear not, I am the First and the Last’" (Rev. 1:17). "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the First and the Last, who died and came to life’" (Rev. 2:8). "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end" (Rev. 22:12–13).

This last quote is especially significant since it applies to Jesus the parallel title "the Alpha and the Omega," which Revelation earlier applied to the Lord God: "‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty" (Rev. 1:8).

But did the early Christians believe this? YES! Here are some quotes:

Ignatius of Antioch: "Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

Aristides: "[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (Apology 16 [A.D. 140]).

Clement of Alexandria: "The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginningâ€â€for he was in Godâ€â€and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things" (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1 [A.D. 190]).

 

[Paul W.]

Well stated, Catholic Crusader.

Here is another verse of scripture which needs to be considered carefully when we are studying "The Diety of Christ":


"Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." -Acts 20:28




Many times people look only for direct quotes from scripture in their attempt to formulate doctrine: e.g. "Thou shalt not drink Budweiser," or "Thou shalt not smoke marijuana," or "Thou shalt not steal CD players from Big Lots between the hours of 1:00 p.m. and 2:37 p.m." However, the building blocks of doctrines are not always given to us in direct quotes alone; and some times there are no direct quotes at all about a particular subject. This can sometimes be confusing; however, where there is confusion about scripture the confusion is ours. It is never in the scriptures themselves. All scripture which is applicable to any theological/doctrinal issue must be carefully studied, contemplated, and meditated upon; and it MUST agree with ALL other scripture which touches upon the matter at hand. It is crucial, also, that we lean upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit who, as Jesus has told us, will guide us into all truth.






I wish you, everyone, a most blessed day in the Lord Jesus Christ today.


Praise God. Do right. Love everyone today.

Do these things for Christ's sake, and...









May the love and peace of Jesus Christ be yours,
Paul W.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

...Many times people look only for direct quotes from scripture in their attempt to formulate doctrine: e.g. "Thou shalt not drink Budweiser," or "Thou shalt not smoke marijuana," or "Thou shalt not steal CD players from Big Lots between the hours of 1:00 p.m. and 2:37 p.m." However, the building blocks of doctrines are not always given to us in direct quotes alone....

Oh, lordy, don't get me going on that one. I agree 110%.

 

[Paul W.]

I was just doing a little checking on something I thought I remembered reading and I find I did indeed remember correctly.

Many of you may or may not be familiar with NU Text. For those of you who are not familiar with this text it is, simply put, the text that is found in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, twenty-seventh edition (N) and in the United Bible Society's third, and fourth, editions (U). Hence, NU -Text. This text generally represents the Alexandrian or Egyptian type text of a few manuscripts found in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Those who advocate the use of these manuscripts do so because these manuscripts are older than the majority of manuscripts. Most modern translations of the Bible are based on the NU text.

According to the NU Text John 1:18 reads,"No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him."


Bible versions based on the Textus Receptus (Received Text) and the Majority Text read, "only begotten Son."




From "Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible":

No man hath seen God at any time - Moses and others heard his voice, and saw the cloud and the fire, which were the symbols of his presence; but such a manifestation of God as had now taken place, in the person of Jesus Christ, had never before been exhibited to the world. It is likely that the word 'seen,' here, is put for 'known,' as in John 3:32; 1John 3:2, 1John 3:6, and 3 John 1:11; and this sense the latter clause of the verse seems to require: - No man, how highly soever favored, hath fully known God, at any time, in any nation or age; the only begotten Son, (see on John 1:14 (note)), who is in the bosom of the Father, who was intimately acquainted with all the counsels of the Most High, he hath declared him, εξηγηÃαÄο, hath announced the Divine oracles unto men; for in this sense the word is used by the best Greek writers. See Kypke."

"Lying in the bosom, is spoken of in reference to the Asiatic custom of reclining while at meals; the person who was next to the other was said to 'lie in his bosom;' and he who had this place in reference to the master of the feast was supposed to share his peculiar regards, and so be in a state of the utmost favor and intimacy with him."



Just a little food for thought.



God bless you all today, and...








May the love and peace of Jesus Christ be yours,
Paul W.

 

[Vic C.]

Hi Paul,

I fully understand all you posted, but I am not following it to any conclusion as to what you believe.

Are you in favor of the TR (Byzantine based text) or the Alexandria text? I know which one I prefer and personally, older isn't always better. Anyway...

only begotten Son takes nothing away from the context or the belief that Jesus was God incarnate.

The only begotten God, in it's context, makes little sense considering the Father is mentioned in the very same verse. We are dealing with the Father/Son relationship within the triune God and the TR translations make sense doctrinally.

Peace,
Vic

 

[Paul W.]

Hello, vic C.

Thank you for replying. I was begiining to wonder if anyone else could even see my posts. I have not received many replies since I joined the forum. That in itself is no big deal. I was just beginning to feel invisible.

vic C., you wrote:

Hi Paul,

I fully understand all you posted, but I am not following it to any conclusion as to what you believe.

I believe God is Jesus is God, just as scripture reveals.



You asked:

Are you in favor of the TR (Byzantine based text) or the Alexandria text?

No. :D

I really do not necessarily prefer one over the other as much as I make the attempt to consider all contributions of ancient manuscripts. I will say that I do not study as much from the NU Text based bibles as I do the others. Still, I do not summarily discount them either. I am aware the two texts from which the NU Text is derived do not always agree with each other; nor do they always agree with other texts either.

My point was that the older texts from which the NU Text is derived says "only begotten God;" nothing more or less. I found it to be worth mentioning that some of the earliest writes believed Jesus to be God. In light of this discussion I consider that a valid point.





You said:

only begotten Son takes nothing away from the context or the belief that Jesus was God incarnate.

I agree. Some, however, do not. I find the fact that these particular early writers did believe this to be worth mentioning. I also agree with you, vic C., that older does not necessarily mean better. Neither does newer.





You wrote:

The only begotten God, in it's context, makes little sense considering the Father is mentioned in the very same verse.

Actually, I find that this is exactly where the strengh of the statement lies. It screams to me "God is God and no other!!"




You wrote:

We are dealing with the Father/Son relationship within the triune God...

Perhaps I have misunderstood "The Deity of Christ/Jesus is God." I thought we were dealing with whether or not Jesus is God; not whether or not the Son is the Father.


(By the way, has anyone else noticed "Deity" is misspelled in the title of this thread? :-D )





You wrote:

...the TR translations make sense doctrinally.

I agree wholeheartedly, sir. I posted this information for those who do not see this biblical revelation as we do.



I thank you again for your reply. I hope I have clarified what I was attempting to say.

By the way, vic C., I have read a lot of your posts and so far I agree with you on most things.


I also wish you a wonderful evening, and...







May the love and peace of Jesus Christ be yours,
Paul W.

 

[mutzrein]

....Yes, men wrote it. Men inspired by the Spirit of God. And it is the same spirit that dwells in me.....

Ahhh, I see. So the Holy Spirit leads you when you interpret the scriptures.. ....the VERY THING you claim is impossible for the Pope. Now THERE is the height of hypocrisy.

In essence, you are your own Pope. You belive the Holy Spirit guides you in your interpretations, and you believe your interpretations are correct. Holy Cow.

Sorry, I missed your response - the result of a busy life and sometimes spasmodic look-ins to the forum.

I have to say though the tone of your response took me by surprise. Lets take this slowly. Where did I claim something to be impossible for the Pope?

 

[Imagican]

Paul,

My response will be in bold.

I see some people here seem to get very tense about the concept of Jesus being God. Perhaps if the wording were reversed it might seem a litlle less impossible, or improbable. What if the wording were placed this way:


God is Jesus?



"...with God all things are possible." -Matthew 19:26b



No man has seen God at any time. This is true. Some have seen Jesus. This is also true. However, while God is Jesus, Jesus, during his earthly ministry, was given a body and he set aside the glory which he had with the Father, Whom God is also. Jesus retained all of his holiness when he walked this earth in human form; yet the bible states clearly that he set aside much of his glory and condescended to man. This is know as the "exinanition of Christ."

I have never read this word, 'exinanition' in The Word. And it may well be this insistence that EVERYTHING must be explained in a 'man-made' understanding that causes the 'tension' to which you refered. The word itself sounds like some 'philosophical attempt' to label God in 'man-made terms'. Why is that NEEDED? Isn't the offerings of God through His Son ENOUGH. Christ Himself offered that the words that He spoke were NOT HIS OWN, but given Him BY the Father. Now, should I believe what Christ stated or what philosophers have devised in an attempt to offer what was NEVER stated by Christ or HIs apostles?


"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." -Philippians 2:5-7


In the Greek, this verse literally says, "...Christ Jesus, who, being in very nature God..."

For my way of thinking the bible only has to say something once for it to be true. The bible says Jesus was God "in very nature." I accept what the bible says.

Ah Paul, and here may be your BIGGEST error. For God stated in His commandments that 'thou shall NOT KILL'. Yet we have the clear evidence that God Himself has COMMANDED that the Hebrews/Jews, (the very people to which this commandment was GIVEN), have been ALSO commanded TO KILL.

What is MORE important than something APPEARING to bear witness, is the witness of the Holy Spirit ITSELF. For one is clearly able to discern on their own what they CHOOSE to 'see' in the Word, WITHOUT the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

It CANNOT be both ways. Either Christ IS God. Or He is 'something' OTHER THAN God. I offered the words of JOHN himself STATING that NO MAN has EVER SEEN God. Now, from YOUR perspective, which is it? Is this the 'saying it ONCE' that is able to discern the complete truth of Christ=God? Obviously for YOU it is NOT.

I do not have a lot of time for posting just now but I will make the effort to post more soon.



I wish everyone here at 123 Christian Forums a beautiful and blessed evening, and...








May the love and peace of Jesus Christ be yours,
Paul W.

(Yes, I am a new member here.)

And welcome to the forum Paul.

MEC

 

[Paul W.]

Hello, Imagican, and thank you for your kind reply. I am headed off to see if I will be able to work today (I am a bricklayer who lives in the "not-so-sunny-right now" south) so I may be returning home in just a bit. I cannot address your comments just now, but I will try to do so later today.



I love you in the name of Jesus Christ and...







May the love and peace of Jesus Christ be yours,
Paul W.




By the way, that commandment is actually "Thou shalt not murder" in the original Hebrew. Also, life is God's to give and take. All things are meant for His purpose alone.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

....Yes, men wrote it. Men inspired by the Spirit of God. And it is the same spirit that dwells in me.....

Ahhh, I see. So the Holy Spirit leads you when you interpret the scriptures.. ....the VERY THING you claim is impossible for the Pope. Now THERE is the height of hypocrisy.

In essence, you are your own Pope. You belive the Holy Spirit guides you in your interpretations, and you believe your interpretations are correct. Holy Cow.

Sorry, I missed your response - the result of a busy life and sometimes spasmodic look-ins to the forum.

I have to say though the tone of your response took me by surprise. Lets take this slowly. Where did I claim something to be impossible for the Pope?

I don't want to derail this thread. But I think I am fair in assuming that you deny the charism of Infallibility which he who teaches from the chair of Peter enjoys. And, again, I think it is safe to assume that you are of the school of thought that when you read the Bible the Holy Spirit leads you in your interpretation. Am I right so far?

 

[Paul W.]

Imagican wrote:

I have never read this word, 'exinanition' in The Word.

By "The Word" do you mean scripture or the paraphrase version of scripture? "Exinanition" will not be found in either; I am just curious which one it is to which you are refering.






Imagican wrote:

And it may well be this insistence that EVERYTHING must be explained in a 'man-made' understanding that causes the 'tension' to which you refered.

Actually, I was not trying to explain anything the bible does not say.

(Exinanition)


(n.) An emptying; an enfeebling; exhaustion; humiliation. -1913 Webster's Dictionary

"Exinanition" is just a word which happens to apply to what is discussed in Philippians 2:7-8, and is used in theological circles; just as the "humiliation of Jesus" is used. I do not know if you will find the word "humiliation" in the bible but the term is used extensively to describe what Jesus endured his last two days leading up to and including his death on the cross of Calvary; and it most definitely applies to the condescension of God to the level of man for our edification and His glory.

I personally prefer the "exinanition" of Jesus to the "humiliation" of Jesus because Christ went to the cross of his own volition. He said no less than five times in the tenth chapter of John that He laid down his life for his sheep. He said repeatedly no one took his life from him. Exinanition is the willing "emptying of oneself" as opposed to humiliation which carries with it the connotation of something which is done to a person.


As far as the "tension" goes, I am not even certain what it is to which you are referring. I do not recall saying anything about tension.






Imagican wrote:

The word itself sounds like some 'philosophical attempt' to label God in 'man-made terms'.

I can see where you might think this, but I assure you it is not a philosophical term at all. I will concede that it is a bit archaic. People do not use it as much these days. Extensive vocabulary has fairly much gone the way of the dodo bird in America. All you hear these days is:

It was like... and I was like... and she was like... and they were like...

And:


My bad!

And:

I don't pop it like that!


And...Well, you get the picture. :D


You are correct, however, when you say, "to label God in 'man-made terms.'" This scripture is speaking of God when it speaks of Christ.






Imagican wrote:

Isn't the offerings of God through His Son ENOUGH.

I say, "YES!"







Imagican wrote:

Christ Himself offered that the words that He spoke were NOT HIS OWN, but given Him BY the Father.

Yes. He did.

Here is what he said:

"Because I have not spoken on my own authority; but the Father who sent me, Himself gave me a command what to say and in what words to speak." -John 12:49


He also said:

"Do you not believe that I am in the Father and that the Father is in me? The things that I tell you all I do not speak on my own authority: but the Father dwelling within me carries on His own work." -John 14:10







Imagican wrote:

Now, should I believe what Christ stated or what philosophers have devised in an attempt to offer what was NEVER stated by Christ or HIs apostles?

I believe Christ. No mention was made, however, of philosophers, except by you. I did not mention any philosophers, nor do I take the ideas of philosophers over scripture.








Imagican wrote:

Ah Paul, and here may be your BIGGEST error. For God stated in His commandments that 'thou shall NOT KILL'. Yet we have the clear evidence that God Himself has COMMANDED that the Hebrews/Jews, (the very people to which this commandment was GIVEN), have been ALSO commanded TO KILL.

What is MORE important than something APPEARING to bear witness, is the witness of the Holy Spirit ITSELF. For one is clearly able to discern on their own what they CHOOSE to 'see' in the Word, WITHOUT the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Respectfully, Imagician, I do not even know what you mean by these two paragraphs. I see no connection between them and the rest of the conversation. Could you possibly express these thoughts differently so I might be able to understand you purpose for commenting on this commandment?








Imagican wrote:

It CANNOT be both ways. Either Christ IS God. Or He is 'something' OTHER THAN God.

I agree with you wholeheartedly in this, Imagician.
I say Jesus Christ is God; just as Holy Scripture reveals.






Imagican wrote:

I offered the words of JOHN himself STATING that NO MAN has EVER SEEN God. Now, from YOUR perspective, which is it? Is this the 'saying it ONCE' that is able to discern the complete truth of Christ=God? Obviously for YOU it is NOT.

Actually, I addressed this point in a prior post. If you are interested in looking for it, it should be about two or three of my posts back.








Imagican wrote:

I do not have a lot of time for posting just now but I will make the effort to post more soon.



I wish everyone here at 123 Christian Forums a beautiful and blessed evening, and...

I can certainly appreciate both of these sentences. I do not have all that much time for forums anymore either.

Imagician, I greatly appreciate your reply to my post and I appreciate equally your hunger for truth. May I suggest we continue to search together as members of the glorious body of Christ.


I wish you a blessed evening, and...









May the love and peace of Jesus Christ be yours,
Paul W.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

The early Church Fathers also recognized that Jesus Christ is God......


Ignatius of Antioch:
"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).

"[T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is" (Letter to the Romans 1 [A.D. 110]).


Aristides:
"[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (Apology 16 [A.D. 140]).


Tatian the Syrian:
"We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man" (Address to the Greeks 21 [A.D. 170]).


Melito of Sardis:
"It is no way necessary in dealing with persons of intelligence to adduce the actions of Christ after his baptism as proof that his soul and his body, his human nature, were like ours, real and not phantasmal. The activities of Christ after his baptism, and especially his miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the deity hidden in his flesh. Being God and likewise perfect man, he gave positive indications of his two natures: of his deity, by the miracles during the three years following after his baptism, of his humanity, in the thirty years which came before his baptism, during which, by reason of his condition according to the flesh, he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the true God existing before the ages" (Fragment in Anastasius of Sinai’s The Guide 13 [A.D. 177]).


Irenaeus:
"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to reestablish all things; and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth . . . " (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

"Nevertheless, what cannot be said of anyone else who ever lived, that he is himself in his own right God and Lord . . . may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth" (ibid., 3:19:1).


Clement of Alexandria:
"The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginningâ€â€for he was in Godâ€â€and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things" (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1 [A.D. 190]).

"Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, [Jesus is] the expiator, the Savior, the soother, the divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son" (ibid., 10:110:1).


Tertullian:
"The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born" (The Flesh of Christ 5:6–7 [A.D. 210]).

"That there are two gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God; but formerly two were spoken of as gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ would come, he might both be acknowledged as God and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord" (Against Praxeas 13:6 [A.D. 216]).


Origen:
"Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 [A.D. 225]).


Hippolytus:
"Only [God’s] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:33 [A.D. 228]).


Hippolytus of Rome:
"For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering the old man new" (ibid., 10:34).


Novatian:
"If Christ was only man, why did he lay down for us such a rule of believing as that in which he said, ‘And this is life eternal, that they should know you, the only and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent?’ [John 17:3]. Had he not wished that he also should be understood to be God, why did he add, ‘And Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent,’ except because he wished to be received as God also? Because if he had not wished to be understood to be God, he would have added, ‘And the man Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent;’ but, in fact, he neither added this, nor did Christ deliver himself to us as man only, but associated himself with God, as he wished to be understood by this conjunction to be God also, as he is. We must therefore believe, according to the rule prescribed, on the Lord, the one true God, and consequently on him whom he has sent, Jesus Christ, who by no means, as we have said, would have linked himself to the Father had he not wished to be understood to be God also. For he would have separated himself from him had he not wished to be understood to be God" (Treatise on the Trinity 16 [A.D. 235]).


Cyprian of Carthage:
"One who denies that Christ is God cannot become his temple [of the Holy Spirit] . . . " (Letters 73:12 [A.D. 253]).


Gregory the Wonderworker:
"There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is his subsistent wisdom and power and eternal image: perfect begetter of the perfect begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, only of the only, God of God, image and likeness of deity, efficient Word, wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, invisible of invisible, and incorruptible of incorruptible, and immortal of immortal and eternal of eternal. . . . And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever" (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).


Arnobius:
"‘Well, then,’ some raging, angry, and excited man will say, ‘is that Christ your God?’ ‘God indeed,’ we shall answer, ‘and God of the hidden powers’" (Against the Pagans 1:42 [A.D. 305]).


Lactantius:
"He was made both Son of God in the spirit and Son of man in the flesh, that is, both God and man" (Divine Institutes 4:13:5 [A.D. 307]).

"We, on the other hand, are [truly] religious, who make our supplications to the one true God. Someone may perhaps ask how, when we say that we worship one God only, we nevertheless assert that there are two, God the Father and God the Sonâ€â€which assertion has driven many into the greatest error . . . [thinking] that we confess that there is another God, and that he is mortal. . . . [But w]hen we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate each, because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father" (ibid., 4:28–29).

 

[mutzrein]

[quote="Catholic Crusader":1d279]
Ahhh, I see. So the Holy Spirit leads you when you interpret the scriptures.. ....the VERY THING you claim is impossible for the Pope. Now THERE is the height of hypocrisy.

In essence, you are your own Pope. You belive the Holy Spirit guides you in your interpretations, and you believe your interpretations are correct. Holy Cow.

Sorry, I missed your response - the result of a busy life and sometimes spasmodic look-ins to the forum.

I have to say though the tone of your response took me by surprise. Lets take this slowly. Where did I claim something to be impossible for the Pope?

I don't want to derail this thread. But I think I am fair in assuming that you deny the charism of Infallibility which he who teaches from the chair of Peter enjoys. And, again, I think it is safe to assume that you are of the school of thought that when you read the Bible the Holy Spirit leads you in your interpretation. Am I right so far?[/quote:1d279]

Calling me a hypocrite on the basis of something I DID NOT SAY is not the same as assuming I belong to a particular school of thought. As a matter of fact I know of no-one else on this forum who belongs to the same 'school of thought' as me. But that is not the point.

So I offer you this opportunity to show me where I said what you allege or retract it.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Have you ever noticed that scripture does not speak about Jesus being equal TO God? So why do people persist is stating that He is?

The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God (cf. John 8:58, 10:38, 14:10; Col. 2:9). And yes, Jesus DID say he was God. In John 8:58, when quizzed about how he has special knowledge of Abraham, Jesus replies, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am"â€â€invoking and applying to himself the personal name of Godâ€â€"I Am" (Ex. 3:14). His audience understood exactly what he was claiming about himself. "So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple" (John 8:59). In John 5:18 we are told that Jesus’ opponents sought to kill him because he "called God his Father, making himself equal with God."

In John 20:28, Thomas falls at Jesus’ feet, exclaiming, "My Lord and my God!" (Greek: Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mouâ€â€literally, "The Lord of me and the God of me!")

Philippians 2:6 says that Jesus "who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped" (New International Version). So Jesus chose to be born in humble, human form though he could have simply remained in equal glory with the Father for he was "in very nature God."

I also mentioned before passages that apply the title "the First and the Last" to Jesus (Rev. 1:17). This is one of the Old Testament titles of Yahweh: "Thus says Yahweh, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, Yahweh of armies: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no god’" (Is. 44:6; cf. 41:4, 48:12).

This title is directly applied to Jesus three times in the book of Revelation: "When I saw him [Christ], I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, ‘Fear not, I am the First and the Last’" (Rev. 1:17). "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the First and the Last, who died and came to life’" (Rev. 2:8). "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end" (Rev. 22:12–13).