Your thoughts on the Trinity?

[jasoncran]

I believe that Christ became fully human to fulfill his purpose on earth. However, when He resurrected I believe that He became fully Spirit again taking on the form He had before coming to earth.

This is the same hope we have when we die because flesh cannot inherit eternal life and though we are human know we will be transformed and changed into new and different bodies at our resurrection also.

Dee

reconcile the transfiguration , and how could a human lay down his life and say he will pick it back up again?

but first look up what the hyperstatic union is(not the band).

 

[Free]

Then we may have to agree to disagree on this one. I can only point to this as a reponse.

You're not just disagreeing with me, it is an error in logic to conclude that the Christian Trinity is pagan just because there are pagan religions that have a trinity. Apart from what Scripture clearly states, I could make the same argument for your polytheism.

From that link you posted, there is an error they make right at the beginning:

"Christianity is founded on the worship of Jesus Christ...The most distinctive Christian claim about God is that the Trinity, three persons in one. This is often thought to contradict the Hebrew notion of "the Lord is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4) and rightly so, for how can three be one?"

Deut 6:4 is not a statement about the nature of God. It is a statement that there is one God; it is a statement of monotheism over against the polytheism of the nations around the Jews. This verse neither proves nor disproves the Trinity.

There is no question that as the Father's only begotten Son, Yahushua has the nature of God. If humans beget humans, and fish beget other fish, why would God beget (birth, sire) something that was not God. (And the Father called Yahushua God in Hebrews 1...unless one would suggest that He was having a conversation with Himself.)

If Jesus had the nature of God, as you and I say he did, then he is God, just as much as the Father is God. One of the attributes of God is that he has existed from eternity past. So if Jesus has the nature of God, then he, too, has existed from eternity past. And this idea is supported in other passages, most notably in John 1:1-3, 14 and Col 1:15-17.

The doctrine of the Trinity does not deny that Jesus is God nor does it make the Father and the Son the same person, as though the Father would be able to have a conversation with himself.

Although Christ has the capacity of God, he never took it upon himself to assume his power, instead waiting for his Father to bestow that honor upon himself.

According to all those verses you just posted, that you like so much, here are some additional points that I posted in another thread:

1. Jesus was "in very nature God." Pretty self-explanatory.
2. Yet, he "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped," that is, something to be retained or forcibly held on to.
3. He, Jesus, "made himself nothing." (emphasis added) It follows that a) he had the power to make himself nothing, b) if he became nothing, he had been "something," and that something was his "being in very nature God."
4. His being made nothing is further explained as "taking the very nature of a servant," "being made in human likeness" and "being found in appearance as a man." This supports the notion that he had been something, he had been "in very nature God."
5. He "being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death." Again, pretty self-explanatory.

Points 1 and 2 provide some of the reasoning behind the ontological Trinity. Points 2 through 5 support the economical Trinity--Jesus' willing submission to the Father for the redemptive purposes of Creation.

Hebrews 5


And the apostles also treated the Son as a separate being, who recieved power from His Father.

2 Peter 1

These do nothing to show the Trinity false but are dealt with by Phil 2:5-8.

Here's 2 questions for you. 10 If there is ONE God embodied in three persons, then why would the 2nd person of your Trinity say that the 1st person is also his God. Wouldn't that make for 2 Gods?

John 20:


2) If God is 3 persons why do we recieve the name of Yahushua's God on us and the new name of Yahushua in New Jerusalem?

Rev 3

I'm hungry so I'm going to get lunch. I will get back to you on these.

 

[D4Christ]

reconcile the transfiguration , and how could a human lay down his life and say he will pick it back up again?

but first look up what the hyperstatic union is(not the band).

I did not mean to imply that Yahushua was not fully God in nature because he operated in the full authority that His Father gave him. He was able to raise his own life because His Father gave him the power to do so. But He was also fully human, experiencing all of the suffering that we do.

John 10

18 No one can take my life from me. I sacrifice it voluntarily. For I have the authority to lay it down when I want to and also to take it up again. For this is what my Father has commanded.â€

but first look up what the hyperstatic union is(not the band).

Sorry...I put up scritpures and research terms when presenting my pov. If you want me to know what that is you're going to have to cite it. :D

Blessings,
Dee

 

[jasoncran]

both man and god at the same time.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

My working hypothesis -

I have a very difficult time understanding one God in the form of three persons in the sense of who is being spoken of:

SO do we all - there are those who "Struggle" to understand the "unknowable", and there are those of us who simply DON'T MIND MYSTERIES, and simply accept that we WON'T know, and that it's not important - HEY!!! on the "other side" when we "KNOW" even as we are KNOWN - it'll all be clear. I can wait (but at 68 with heart issues, probably not TOO much longer).

There's a "Father God" to whom I PRAY in the AUTHORITY (hopefully) Of "Jesus" who is the "Son"/"Word"/"Creator". Communication between US and the "Godhead is facilitated by the "Holy Spirit".

And they are all the "same entity" - continually at the same time - and yet with "individual characteristics".

Whatever that means.

SO - since I'll NEVER understand the "Godhead" in scientific terms, I simple have an Internal "picture" of three "entities" - not unlike the "Picture" presented in "The Shack" - where God the Father is an "Aunt Jemima" character, Jesus is a casual youth, and the Holy Spirit is a somewhat indistinct Asian feminine character.

In my case, The "Father" is a "Dumbledore - ish" person, while Jesus looks like the big Swede that played Him in "Gospel Road", and the Holy Spirit is more like an insubstantial "vapor".

Naturally I KNOW that there's no "truth" in any of that in the absolute - but as a "mental picture" - it'll do nicely until the "REALITY" becomes understandable. Other than that, I don't worry about it at all.

Simple as that.

 

[Scotth1960]

Re: My working hypothesis -

I have a very difficult time understanding one God in the form of three persons in the sense of who is being spoken of:

SO do we all - there are those who "Struggle" to understand the "unknowable", and there are those of us who simply DON'T MIND MYSTERIES, and simply accept that we WON'T know, and that it's not important - HEY!!! on the "other side" when we "KNOW" even as we are KNOWN - it'll all be clear. I can wait (but at 68 with heart issues, probably not TOO much longer).

There's a "Father God" to whom I PRAY in the AUTHORITY (hopefully) Of "Jesus" who is the "Son"/"Word"/"Creator". Communication between US and the "Godhead is facilitated by the "Holy Spirit".

And they are all the "same entity" - continually at the same time - and yet with "individual characteristics".

Whatever that means.

SO - since I'll NEVER understand the "Godhead" in scientific terms, I simple have an Internal "picture" of three "entities" - not unlike the "Picture" presented in "The Shack" - where God the Father is an "Aunt Jemima" character, Jesus is a casual youth, and the Holy Spirit is a somewhat indistinct Asian feminine character.

In my case, The "Father" is a "Dumbledore - ish" person, while Jesus looks like the big Swede that played Him in "Gospel Road", and the Holy Spirit is more like an insubstantial "vapor".

Naturally I KNOW that there's no "truth" in any of that in the absolute - but as a "mental picture" - it'll do nicely until the "REALITY" becomes understandable. Other than that, I don't worry about it at all.

Simple as that.

Dear friends, We should not any of us try to rely on our own thinking or speculation, or try to understand the Trinity "logically" (sic), but rely only on the Scriptures and only on the received traditions of the Church (Creed of 381 AD of 318 fathers). In Erie PA Scott H.

 

[D4Christ]

both man and god at the same time.

yes, Although I believe Yahushua ceased being man when He left to be with His Father.

 

[Scotth1960]

yes, Although I believe Yahushua ceased being man when He left to be with His Father.

Dear D4Christ, Not at all. Jesus Christ remains forever true God and true man. He did not lose His humanity when He returned to the house of God the Father in heaven. As far as Scripture seems to indicate, there is only one throne of God, and Christ is on the throne. The Father rules through with and in Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit is also on the throne together with the Father in Christ the Son. In Christ dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. So all three Persons are on the throne of Christ. The only one visible is the God-man, Jesus Christ. Father and Spirit are invisible God. Christ is God visible in the flesh. In Erie Scott H.

 

[jasoncran]

the hyperstatic union obviously only applies to christ when he was on the earth, as one cant be a flesh being in heaven

 

[Free]

yes, Although I believe Yahushua ceased being man when He left to be with His Father.

Scott has given a good answer--Jesus has not ceased being the God-man--but I would add that to say Jesus ceased being man is borderline Gnosticism.

 

[Scotth1960]

the hyperstatic union obviously only applies to christ when he was on the earth, as one cant be a flesh being in heaven

Dear jasoncran, According to Scripture and tradition, there will be a resurrection. That includes flesh and bone men. Christ ate fish after He resurrected, to show He is not a ghost. All Christians will be resurrected, and they will marry Jesus Christ in a spiritual union; and then all Christians will "neither marry nor be given in marriage", for in the resurrection, "they are like as the angels of heaven". While in this life, "marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators, adulterers, and whoremongers, God will judge." (cf. Hebrews ). Christ Himself was and remained unmarried. And He is "the Monk who rules the world" (cf. Jaroslav Pelikan, Jesus Through the Centuries, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press). St. Paul, St. Andrew, and St. John were unmarried. St. Peter was married. Some of the rest of the apostles of Christ were either married or unmarried. In heaven, thee will be spiritual bodies, and these will be resurrected physical bodies, but without sin. Christ is forever the man through whom God will rule (judge) the world. He is not just a spirit. He is a flesh and blood man, yet without any sin.
Only in heaven will Christians be finally without any remaining sins.
In Erie PA Scott H.

 

[Scotth1960]

reconcile the transfiguration , and how could a human lay down his life and say he will pick it back up again?

but first look up what the hyperstatic union is(not the band).

Dear jasoncran, Dear brother, the term actually should be "hypostatic union", not "hyperstatic". Hypostasis is Greek for person, hypostases is the plural. The hypostatic union means the union of 2 natures, Divine and human, in the One Person (Hypostasis) of our LORD GOD and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Amen. In Erie Scott H.
:nod

 

[jasoncran]

Dear jasoncran, According to Scripture and tradition, there will be a resurrection. That includes flesh and bone men. Christ ate fish after He resurrected, to show He is not a ghost. All Christians will be resurrected, and they will marry Jesus Christ in a spiritual union; and then all Christians will "neither marry nor be given in marriage", for in the resurrection, "they are like as the angels of heaven". While in this life, "marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators, adulterers, and whoremongers, God will judge." (cf. Hebrews ). Christ Himself was and remained unmarried. And He is "the Monk who rules the world" (cf. Jaroslav Pelikan, Jesus Through the Centuries, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press). St. Paul, St. Andrew, and St. John were unmarried. St. Peter was married. Some of the rest of the apostles of Christ were either married or unmarried. In heaven, thee will be spiritual bodies, and these will be resurrected physical bodies, but without sin. Christ is forever the man through whom God will rule (judge) the world. He is not just a spirit. He is a flesh and blood man, yet without any sin.
Only in heaven will Christians be finally without any remaining sins.
In Erie PA Scott H.

so how does christ being in corporal form only eat? think about it, he descended and disappeared , where did he go?

he has no body as he was flesh and blood and couldnt be in america and isreal simultaneously.

when he came to the earth, he took on human nature as well as what he had, but when he left , he left the body.

a spiritual body IS NOT the same as a Flesh body.

i dont accept transubiation as that is a catholic concept.

 

[Scotth1960]

so how does christ being in corporal form only eat? think about it, he descended and disappeared , where did he go?

he has no body as he was flesh and blood and couldnt be in america and isreal simultaneously.

when he came to the earth, he took on human nature as well as what he had, but when he left , he left the body.

a spiritual body IS NOT the same as a Flesh body.

i dont accept transubiation as that is a catholic concept.

Dear friend, Christ's body is not like ours. We are subject to sin. Christ did no sin. His body was always spiritual, without sin, but it was a physical body like ours, except, unlike any of us, He did not ever sin. All human beings have sinned. They get spiritual bodies only by being born again in Christ (John 3).
They are resurrected in spiritual-physical bodies, but, because of Christ's mercy, one day will be without sin. Christ will expiate away all of Christians' sins. May Christ expiate away all of our sins, my sins, and yours. Because of Christ's shed blood on His Cross. Amen. Lord have mercy. In Erie Scott H.
PS Christ's body is like ours in our common humanity, but His was always sinless. Ours becomes sinless only by His saving us from our sins.
Christ is "God manifest in the flesh" (a physical body, male circumcised Jew).

 

[jasoncran]

Dear friend, Christ's body is not like ours. We are subject to sin. Christ did no sin. His body was always spiritual, without sin, but it was a physical body like ours, except, unlike any of us, He did not ever sin. All human beings have sinned. They get spiritual bodies only by being born again in Christ (John 3).
They are resurrected in spiritual-physical bodies, but, because of Christ's mercy, one day will be without sin. Christ will expiate away all of Christians' sins. May Christ expiate away all of our sins, my sins, and yours. Because of Christ's shed blood on His Cross. Amen. Lord have mercy. In Erie Scott H.
PS Christ's body is like ours in our common humanity, but His was always sinless. Ours becomes sinless only by His saving us from our sins.
Christ is "God manifest in the flesh" (a physical body, male circumcised Jew).

stupid question so God eats in heaven and tires? christ did these and also he hungers if he has a body.

 

[D4Christ]

Dear D4Christ, Not at all. Jesus Christ remains forever true God and true man. He did not lose His humanity when He returned to the house of God the Father in heaven.

I am sure Christ kept his humanity in the sense that he will never loose the knowledge of becoming a man. But since He was and existed as the Son before coming to earth, then upon leaving earth it would seem rather natural to return to the state He was first in....that and you cannot be flesh and enter into the heavenly realms.

As far as Scripture seems to indicate, there is only one throne of God, and Christ is on the throne. The Father rules through with and in Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit is also on the throne together with the Father in Christ the Son. In Christ dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. So all three Persons are on the throne of Christ. The only one visible is the God-man, Jesus Christ. Father and Spirit are invisible God. Christ is God visible in the flesh. In Erie Scott H.

Rev 3:21

Those who are victorious will sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat with my Father on his throne.

Matt 19

Jesus replied, “I assure you that when the world is made new and the Son of Man sits upon his glorious throne, you who have been my followers will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Hebrews 1

But to the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever.
You rule with a scepter of justice.

And so on....Satan has a throne, his followers will have thrones, 24 elders in heaven have thrones...but the Son of Man can't have his own throne? Where is the HS's throne mentioned?

I must state that I do agree that the Father is ruling thru His Son because He gave him all authority. But when the Son hands that authority back over to his Father, who will be ruling then, Father or Son?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Re: My working hypothesis -

Dear friends, We should not any of us try to rely on our own thinking or speculation, or try to understand the Trinity "logically"

Yup - that's what I said.

So what's YOUR mental picture of the "Godhead"?? You DO have one, of course - I 'spect that it's not too different than mine.

"Creeds" really aren't much help in such matters - since they're only "Another opinion" from Theologians.

 

[WIP]

The trinity is an aspect of Christian belief that seems to be one of the most difficult concepts to grasp for many. I guess I don’t find the concept hard to accept. I figure we’re talking about God here, not just any old somebody, but THE GOD! This is God; who always was, is, and always will be. This is God; who created heaven, earth, and everything we know just by willing it into existence. This is God; who is omniscient, omnipresent, and ever-living. This is God; who is all things to all things. This is God; the great I AM.

In my mind it is without question that he can be more than one thing at the same time. He can be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in unity. He can be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit individually simultaneously. He can be whatever he wants to be whenever he chooses. He is the all powerful God Almighty! He is everything. He is supreme. He is holy. He is….well I just can’t come up with an adjective good enough.

To think anything less is to put God on our terms and that doesn’t even make sense. It is beyond human comprehension to understand but some day I will. Just like everyone else, believers and non-believers alike, we will all understand some day. For now I will just have faith and believe, without understanding, that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each unique individuals AND all are one and the same. This is just one of the mysteries of our faith that explain or understand.

What’s even harder for me to understand is that this is the same one and only God that loves us and wants to have a relationship with us! Can you believe it?

 

[D4Christ]

You're not just disagreeing with me, it is an error in logic to conclude that the Christian Trinity is pagan just because there are pagan religions that have a trinity. Apart from what Scripture clearly states, I could make the same argument for your polytheism.

My original statement said the trinity "may be considered a heresy by some or even pagan." At least that is the sentiment that I am finding from those who are challenging the trinity, whether they be christian or not. However, I'm not really trying to label people who believe in the trinity one way or the other, for I used to believe in the trinity. My goals are to:
1) share what inspired me to change and
2) deomonstrate that despite the differences (some) non trinitarians are no less chrisitian than those who support the trinity.

If Jesus had the nature of God, as you and I say he did, then he is God, just as much as the Father is God. One of the attributes of God is that he has existed from eternity past. So if Jesus has the nature of God, then he, too, has existed from eternity past. And this idea is supported in other passages, most notably in John 1:1-3, 14 and Col 1:15-17.

On one point I agree. The Father is God. The Son is God. But how was Christ God and with God if they are not the same?

Let's look at the scriptures you quoted:

John 1

1 In the beginning the Word already existed.
The Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
2 He existed in the beginning with God.
3 God created everything through him,
and nothing was created except through him.

There are 2 major points to tackle in this verse. First is the concept of 'with God' and 'was God.' I know for many this supports the idea of trinity. Some say this proves Father and Son are the same person. Others say they are separte people but equally God. The Son confirms many times that he is not co-equal to His Father and refers to His Father as 'His God." So, to say they are co-equal would be in error. I also think that a misreading of God in some pasages is confusing for some.

For example, when the OT is referring to the Father, God is often translated YHWH. However, in the NT when God is used the Greek does not translate this to YHWH. Unless the use of God is looked at in context, many will assume that God means Christ when it it really pointing to the Father. I will also suggest that God is a nature, just like human is our nature. Therefore, God is what Christ is but the Son is who He is.

Bear with me. The Father is God the way I am human. As a human I cannot begot or birh anything non human. Humans begot only other humans. The Father begot or birthed His Son who has to be God, the way my children have to be human. That's why in Hebrews 1 God (Father) said to His Son, "you are God." He couldn't call him human, nor an angel for humans birth only humans and God birthed only God. For this reason, Christ is the only one God (Father) could give all of his authority to. Humans do the same thing. We only give authority to other humans. No matter how intellegent some think apes are, they will never run our goverments, or teach our children because they are not capable of all that it means to be human. No human could accept all the authority of God unless they were God, which is why we had to wait for Christ to come as Messiah. As God, He could handle the authority from His Father.

Christ was with God (Father) and He was God. Christ, being fully God, at no time claims to be co-equal to His Father which is a basis for the trinity. Instead He makes sure the opposite is known. He states; my Father is greater than me, I do only what he tells me, Father you've given me these people, you've given me my authority, I could be high priest if I wanted to but I'm waiting for you to assign me that honor (paraphrased), etc. The Father's relationship with His Son in prinicple is not differnt than a human relationship. I am human, my son is human...I give authority to my son to do different tasks and he obeys and respects me to bring me honor. This is the relationship described between Christ and His Father in scriptures. This brings us to the 2nd major point in the above scripture.

John 1

1 In the beginning the Word already existed.
The Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
2 He existed in the beginning with God.
3 God created everything through him,
and nothing was created except through him.

If they both existed from eternity past, at the same time, how did one begot the other? Begot means to give birth to or bring into existence. So how could the Father bring the Son into exisitence if they have always existed together? Or did they?

This is one of those enigmas that is not satisified by trinity concepts. Trinity states that Father and Son have always existed together, yet scriptures plainly state that the Father birthed a Son, which means prior to being birthed Christ was not. Huh?

Col 1

15 Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.
He existed before anything was created* and is supreme over all creation,
16 for through him God created everything
in the heavenly realms and on earth.
He made the things we can see
and the things we can’t see—
such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world.
Everything was created through him and for him.
17 He existed before anything else,
and he holds all creation together.
18 Christ is also the head of the church,
which is his body.
He is the beginning,
supreme over all who rise from the dead.
So he is first in everything.

*Other translations, such as KJV state "firstborn of every creature" (others say firstborn of all creation.)

Proverbs 8

22 “The Lord formed me from the beginning,
before he created anything else.
23 I was appointed in ages past,
at the very first, before the earth began.
24 I was born before the oceans were created,
before the springs bubbled forth their waters.
25 Before the mountains were formed,
before the hills, I was born—

Rev 3
14 “Write this letter to the angel of the church in Laodicea. This is the message from the one who is the Amen—the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s new creation:

We know that Christ is the firstborn of creation. He was formed in the beginning before anything else was made. He was with God (Father) in the begining. He first in everthing. So what happened in the beginng?

Genesis 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The above scriptues tell us that "in the beginning" Christ was born first and was the first of all creation and was present when everything else was made.

Therefore, we can conclude that Christ did not exist prior to the beginning and although he existed in the beginnig with the Father and was the first of creation, the Father has always existed. Before creation God was, what He did during that period we don't know. All we know is what happened in the beginning and when God (Father) began creation he started with His Son.

Rev 14 This letter is from John to the seven churches in the province of Asia.

Grace and peace to you from the one who is, who always was, and who is still to come; from the sevenfold Spirit before his throne; 5 and from Jesus Christ. He is the faithful witness to these things, the first to rise from the dead, and the ruler of all the kings of the world.

This message was sent by an angel, who recieved it from Christ, who recieved it from His Father. The Father always was, He birthed Christ as the first of creation in the beginning. They have not always existed together.

Blessings,
Dee

 

[Drew]

Post 1 of 2 in defence of 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 in the following post, 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.