Understanding Jesus as God

[Cubes]

Since Father (GOD) did the speaking, he said, “let there be light.”
Another way to look at it on a much lower level is:

I bore my children. They came in the world through me and their dad. But their real origin is in God through Christ.

[NickHassan]

Hi Rudy,
We are part of the body of Christ on earth. We may be a toe or a knee or a hand.

But Jesus is separate from the Father. He is not the Hand of the Father but AT the right hand of the Father.

[NickHassan]

ps. That means that the unity between the Father and the Son is not “physical” as you seem to imply. We ,however, are physically one with Yeshua. Again since we differ in this way the unity we have with God and Yeshua spoken of in John 17.21f is of the Name and Will and Spirit surely and not substance?

[NickHassan]

Quote (Cubes @ April 28 2005,00:50)

Quote (Rudy @ April 28 2005,00:00) Nick, What then was Christs' role in creation since in fact all things that exist (Yahweh excluded) were created by Him and for Him and that by Him all things are upheld? Specifically, what did He do? For one thing we are told that: 1.  He is the express image of the Father. 2.  He is the branch, and one who came to reconcile mankind to God and ever lives to make intercession for us. 3.  Also that as the Word of God, all things were made through him. 4.  He is the heir of God, and co-heirs with us. 5.  He is the worthy, holy Lamb of God 6.  He is the Lord of Creation and the Firstborn of creation. 7.  The Way, the Truth and the Life to the Father… 8.  He has the unique classification of being the only begotton son of God 9. And he is the Son of Man. 10.  He is the Bridegroom whom his Father gives into at the Wedding Feast…. Just a few things off the top of my head. As for the Father's role?  He brought all the above to pass and so much more…

Sure Rudy
He is also

The firstborn from the dead.
The suffering Servant
The Light
The resurrection
The Daystar
The alpha and Omega
The beginning and the end
The first and the last
The Shoot
The root of Jesse
The saviour
The vine
The Gate
The Shepherd
The Rock
The foundation stone
the stumbling stone
the capstone

[Is 1:18]

Quote

How high do you want me to jump again?

This high t8:

Quote

Jesus is a [    ?    ] being.

This is not a point scoring exercise t8. Since we agree on the issue of 'Who Jesus is' (He is the Christ, the son of the living God), the issue of Jesus' being is actually the nexus, the epicentre of the debate over His deity. To show me that God is not what Jesus is, you must prove to me that they are ontologically different beings. To do this you must tell me definitively what being Jesus is, so that I may see that they are indeed distinct kinds and by association could not be equal in any sense.

I look at your assertion that God is not what Jesus is in the same light I would look at an athiest who tried to convince me that God did not create the universe. A good approach to refute their argument is to use the kalam argument to establish the fact that that creation demands a cause (creator), and then ask him/her the same type of question I asked you: “If God is not what created the universe, then what did?”. Im sure you would use a similar line of cosmological-based reasoning to defend the existence of a creator, and the question I would pose is an entirely logical one that demands a denotative answer – and so is the one I put to you.

It appears that your christological doctrine rests on a 'cornerstone' question that you cannot answer t8.

I hope you can now better understand why I can't accept your teaching on Christ.
God Bless.

[NickHassan]

Hi Rudy,
If Jesus asked you the same question he asked Peter
“but who do you say that I am?”
What would be your reply?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 28 2005,22:18)

Quote How high do you want me to jump again? This high t8: Quote Jesus is a [    ?    ] being. This is not a point scoring exercise t8. Since we agree on the issue of 'Who Jesus is' (He is the Christ, the son of the living God), the issue of Jesus' being is actually the nexus, the epicentre of the debate over His deity. To show me that God is not what Jesus is, you must prove to me that they are ontologically different beings. To do this you must tell me definitively what being Jesus is, so that I may see that they are indeed distinct kinds and by association could not be equal in any sense. I look at your assertion that God is not what Jesus is in the same light I would look at an athiest who tried to convince me that God did not create the universe. A good approach to refute their argument is to use the kalam argument to establish the fact that that creation demands a cause (creator), and then ask him/her the same type of question I asked you: “If God is not what created the universe, then what did?”. Im sure you would use a similar line of cosmological-based reasoning to defend the existence of a creator, and the question I would pose is an entirely logical one that demands a denotative answer – and so is the one I put to you. It appears that your christological doctrine rests on a 'cornerstone' question that you cannot answer t8. I hope you can now better understand why I can't accept your teaching on Christ. God Bless.

You say that “I hope you can now better understand why I can't accept your teaching on Christ.” And then you ask me to produce evidence that will condemn me. What a joke. If you are to judge me so severly then you must already have proof that I am teaching falsely in order to pass this judgement. Why would you need anymore evidence?

My answer to you is as it was before. That Christ is a 'divine' being. There is no point in you saying that it is not good enough. It is my answer and it is what I teach. If you are to find fault then find it in what I teach. I really don't want to play an elimination game where the choices become fewer and the only valid answers must be endorsed by you. Do you really think that I am that stupid? It doesn't work like that Is 1:18.  It is obvious that you are trying to find fault, so why don't you find fault in what I have already taught. After all you are surely not with me, so then prove to everyone here why you are against me. Where is the evidence that you have judged me with? Or why do you need further evidence if your mind is already made up.

For what have I said that you feel obliged to judge me badly? I will make it easy for you and list out the key points of what I teach.

[NickHassan]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 28 2005,03:18)

Quote How high do you want me to jump again? This high t8: Quote Jesus is a [    ?    ] being. This is not a point scoring exercise t8. Since we agree on the issue of 'Who Jesus is' (He is the Christ, the son of the living God), the issue of Jesus' being is actually the nexus, the epicentre of the debate over His deity. To show me that God is not what Jesus is, you must prove to me that they are ontologically different beings. To do this you must tell me definitively what being Jesus is, so that I may see that they are indeed distinct kinds and by association could not be equal in any sense. I look at your assertion that God is not what Jesus is in the same light I would look at an athiest who tried to convince me that God did not create the universe. A good approach to refute their argument is to use the kalam argument to establish the fact that that creation demands a cause (creator), and then ask him/her the same type of question I asked you: “If God is not what created the universe, then what did?”. Im sure you would use a similar line of cosmological-based reasoning to defend the existence of a creator, and the question I would pose is an entirely logical one that demands a denotative answer – and so is the one I put to you. It appears that your christological doctrine rests on a 'cornerstone' question that you cannot answer t8. I hope you can now better understand why I can't accept your teaching on Christ. God Bless.

Hi Is 1.18,
So you want proof that the Son of God is a different “kind” of being from his Father so they cannot be “equal”?

So in what way can 'kind' relate to 'equality'?

I am of the same 'kind' as Helen Clark, though not the same gender. Im am inanately equal as a human but not equal in authority as she is our country's leader. I do not expect to be treated in the same way as she would be just because we are both human.

I am of the same 'kind' as Yeshua as a man but am not equal though he calls me a brother. He has far greater authority than I over others, and total authority over me personally as well as over you.

The Son of God is also of the same 'kind' as his Father-a divine being of godly nature. He was begotten directly from the Father so he must be. He is the image of his Father and that is a very close similarity I am sure you would agree.

But you have to decide who has authority over who and that is revealed in scripture. And that does not relate to who is of which 'kind' surely? We do not worship a being because our minds say they are a deity but we obey the Word.

Equality or non-equality relates to revealed authority and not 'kind'. Only men would decide who to worship by their nature and not their authority surely? That is why men develop idols and worship angels, but we are guided by what is revealed.

Jesus calls the Father greater than him. He calls Him his God and obeys him and worships Him. So that gives us the information we need and not our mind's folly. It is not a hard choice is it?

[Is 1:18]

Hi t8,
Just for the record, this was my purpose:

Quote

I hope you can now better understand why I can't accept your teaching on Christ

Not to judge or condemn you.

If 'divine' is the correct word then you should have no trouble giving me scriptures that explicitly prove it so. But, of course, they must speak denotatively of His being.

My faith is the “substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” so I make no apologies for “testing all things”.

Quote

Maybe you should ask yourself why you do this. Is this not what the Pharisees did to Christ. They asked him questions not to learn the truth, but in the hope that they could find fault and condemn him. And why is it that they wanted to condemn him? Because he spoke the truth and the Pharisees couldn't relate to him.

Its not pharisaical to use logic and reasoning to make a point in a dispute, Jesus Himself did it (Mat 12:25-26).
God Bless

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 28 2005,22:42)

Quote

The Son of God is also of the same 'kind' as his Father

Do you understand the implications of the words you have written here?

[NickHassan]

Hi Is,
I do not work on implication but revelation.

Implication leads to speculation and presumption.Presumption leads to falsehood and lies.

What do you see that I do not?
That Jesus is a godly being?

But he is not God.

That is not new to me .Was it to you?.
Neither does it mean you and I should worship him as God- because we are in him.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 29 2005,22:10)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 28 2005,22:42) Quote The Son of God is also of the same 'kind' as his Father Do you understand the implications of the words you have written here?

It means that Jesus is the son. It is what God declared to Peter. Jesus is the son of God. A son should be like his Father. This son is the image of God, he is very like him.

If I had a son then he would be in nature a man, but in identity he would be a different person to me. But in nature we are both men.

The Father and the son are divine. So what is the difference. It is simply that God is the originator and Christ is his image. Even we are images and we can partake of the divine nature.

So if scripture is correct and we will become like Jesus when we are resurrected, then if Jesus is God then we too must be God if we are like him and he calls us brothers. But Jesus is not God himself. He is not God in identity he is god in nature and we will partake in that nature.

So we too will partake of the divine nature and we will be like Christ and we will also be called sons and Jesus will call us brothers. We are both images, but if we are like him in so many ways then surely we would be God if he was. But no, he is the son just as we are sons. He is the image, just as we are images. He has divine nature and we will partake in divine nature. That is the truth of what it means. Not that he is God, but that he is the Son and we are sons.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 29 2005,22:01)

Hi t8, Just for the record, this was my purpose: Quote I hope you can now better understand why I can't accept your teaching on Christ Not to judge or condemn you. If 'divine' is the correct word then you should have no trouble giving me scriptures that explicitly prove it so. But, of course, they must speak denotatively of His being. My faith is the “substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” so I make no apologies for “testing all things”. Quote Maybe you should ask yourself why you do this. Is this not what the Pharisees did to Christ. They asked him questions not to learn the truth, but in the hope that they could find fault and condemn him. And why is it that they wanted to condemn him? Because he spoke the truth and the Pharisees couldn't relate to him. Its not pharisaical to use logic and reasoning to make a point in a dispute, Jesus Himself did it (Mat 12:25-26). God Bless

To whomever,

In response to Is 1:18 post quoted above.

Definition of divine:
Transliteration: theiotes {thi-ot'-ace} (2305)
Word Origin: from 2304 (divinity).
Part of Speech: noun feminine
Usage in the KJV: Godhead
Meaning: divinity, divine nature

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

So we can see that God:

has divine nature;

has invisible qualities;

has eternal power.

2 Peter 1:4
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

So we can participate in the divine nature. Therefore:

are we God?

are we invisible?

do we have eteral power?

No we are not God (we are gods). We have not lived forever in the past and we are certainly not invisible.

But we will share in God's nature and yet we will not be God himself. We will be like him as we are images and we are his sons. So to have divine nature doesn't make anyone God himself.

Now have a look at Christ. He is greater than us, but his Father is greater than him. So he is between us and God.

1 Corinthians 11:3
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

It is John 1:1 that shows us that the Word is not God himself but that the Word is like God. This is because John 1:1c doesn't have an article preceeding the last word God. Therefore rather than talking about a person it is talking of a quality because the word “god” without the article is an adjective not a noun like the other instances of the word “God”in John 1:1.

Here is how Hippolytus (ca. 230 A.D) puts it.
The first and Only, both Creator and Lord of all, had nothing coeval with Himself… He was One, Alone in Himself…. this Solitary and Supreme Deity, by an act of reflection, brought forth the Word first, not the Word in the sense of being expressed by voice, but as a Reason of the cosmos, conceived and residing in the Divine mind. Him alone He produced from existing things, for the Father Himself constituted existence, and the being born from Him was the cause of all things that are produced. The Word was in the Father Himself, bearing the will of his Progenitor, and not being unacquainted with the mind of the Father. For simultaneously with his procession from His Progenitor, inasmuch as he is this Progenitor's firstborn, he has, as a voice in himself, the concepts conceived in the Father. And so it was, that when the Father ordered the world to come into existence, the Word one by one completed each object of creation, thus pleasing God…. God, who is the source of all authority, wished that the Word might render assistance in accomplishing a production of this kind…. The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Logos is God [that is, “deity,” in the sense of nature of substance], being the substance of God….

So I agree that in class Jesus is god and we can be too. But in identity the only God is the Father. His nature originates in himself and he shares his nature. Just as Adam was the first human (the son of man) we are also men, but we are not Adam. Rather we are or should I say were in Adam, we inherited the fleshly nature from him.

The Trinity teaches us that God is not the Father (exclusively), rather God is a substance and that substance has 3 personalities. So God is this one substance that contains 3 personalities. But scripture teaches that God is the Father and he shares his nature with his sons. This I have repeated many times.

The trick with the Trinity doctrine is it tries to convince you that you are praying to 1 God. So in order to present 3 as 1 they say 1 substance. But who prays to a substance? Would that not be like someone communicating with me by talking to my human nature (the flesh). No when you talk to me you are talking to who I am, not what I am. I pray to the Father because that is who God is. Jesus taught us how to pray to God. “Dear Father in heaven”. Jesus said “ask the Father in my name”.

But Trinitarian prayers pray to the 1 substance and call upon any of the so-called 3 personalities that are contained within the substance and they feel at liberty to interchange the identities while they are praying. They are clearly praying to 3 persons when they do this. But Christ taught us to pray to the Father in his name. He taught us how to pray to God correctly.

Now Jesus is known by these 2 titles:

The son of God;

The son of man.

Is that because Jesus had divine nature and therefore was known as the son of God and then emptied himself of his former priviledge and took on human nature to become the son of man, the title that Adam previously had. This is what I believe.

Of course now he is back with God and has the glory that he had with him before the world began. I even think that he has greater glory too.

So is Jesus a divine being? I say he is. He has God's nature and he was begotten directly from God himself. Do you believe that Jesus is a divine being, or not?

Look at Colossians 2:9
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

Definition of deity:
Transliteration: theotes {theh-ot'-ace} (2320)
Word Origin: from theos (2316)
Part of Speech: noun feminine
Usage in the KJV: Godhead.  
Meaning: divinity, godhead

“In the Latin versions, owing to the limitations of that language, both ‘Theotes’ and ‘Theiotes’ are translated by the same term 'divinity'; but this was felt to be inadequate by some scholars, and the word 'deity' was coined at a later date to represent “Theotes.” Scholars are evenly divided over the differences in the words &
#39;theotes' & theiotes. Some say there is no difference others say the difference is like saying 'divinity' versus 'essence'. However whatever the truth is, it is clear that neither word is talking about God in identity (who).

In the Strongs for example it says that the word 'theotes' (Deity) means 'divinity' or 'godhead'. According to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, 'theotes' means 'divinity', 'divine nature'.

The word 'theiotes' (divinity) in the Strongs says it means 'divinity', 'godhead'. This word comes from the word 'theios' which means 'godlike', 'divine', 'godhead'.

So yes in nature or essence Christ is in class 'god'. We can even use the words 'theos' & 'elohim' to describe him. But we too can be in class 'god'. We too can be called by the titles 'theos' & 'elohim'. Even the Father is a god. But as I have said before, the kind of god that the Father is the 'Most High God' and there is no one above him. He is the 'original' God and to call him 'God' or 'the God' is entirely appropriate when referring to the Father. He is even the head of Jesus Christ and Jesus calls him his God and our God.

When we talk of Jesus we say that he is the son. That is the son of God. The prototype son. He is very like God because he is God's son.

[Is 1:18]

Hi t8,
I hope the irony of your last post wasn't lost on you.

You have shown me that you reached your conclusion that 'Jesus is a divine being' not because it is explicitly revealed in scripture (there is no verse that states denotatively that Jesus is 'divine' being) but because it is implied. You used deductive and inferencial reasoning to reach your conclusion t8.

Hmmm.

[Proclaimer]

Incorrect.

I gave you Colossians 2:9
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

I then went to the trouble of explaining the word deity and the Greek word for it which is divinity.

I then showed clearly that God has divine nature and that we will partake in it.

I gave you 3 scriptures that speak on this. One regarding God, another for the son and one regarding man.

As I expected, it doesn't matter even if scripture says that there is one God the Father. For you no amount of scripture will ever be enough. You have already made your mind up to follow a doctrine that came hundreds of years after the last book in the bible was written and this weighs in heavier than even scripture for you.

So are you saying that Christ is not divine or to put it another way that he doesn't have God's nature. This is what I say. Are you denying that? I think that even Trinitarians believe that. So your judgement regarding that I gave no proof would also apply to them. That being the case, then you have no reason to believe that Christ is divine.

It seems ironic that your defence against me appears to have even condemned your own belief. Unless of course you do not believe that he is divine. In that case you are further off the track than I thought.

[Is 1:18]

Quote

So are you saying that Christ is not divine or to put it another way that he doesn't have God's nature. This is what I say. Are you denying that? I think that even Trinitarians believe that. So your judgement regarding that I gave no proof would also apply to them. That being the case, then you have no reason to believe that Christ is divine.

Hi t8,
Do you understand the difference between what is connotative and what is denotative?

1. We are 'fallen' beings (this is connotative)
2. We are 'human' beings (this is denotative)

Quote

Christ is a 'divine' being.

This is true in a connotative sense but NOT in the denotative sense.

I can't be any clearer than this.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (t8 @ April 30 2005,06:25)

You have already made your mind up to follow a doctrine that came hundreds of years after the last book in the bible was written and this weighs in heavier than even scripture for you.

John 16
12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

[Proclaimer]

Is Jesus Christ a divine being or not?

Jesus Christ is ___ divine being.

You can put 'a' or 'not a' into the gap.
This is how high I want you to jump.

[Anonymous]

Jesus is a divine being*

*this sentence is true in the connotative sense

t8,
We could go on like this forever. I will be posting Cubes in the next few days, I hope I will be able to better explain why it is I believe what I do. Be well my friend. God Bless.

[Proclaimer]

But not in a denotative sense?

[Author]

Posts