Understanding Jesus as God

Participant

So are you saying that Jesus is not literally or specifically divine, rather he is divine by suggestion only?

May 1, 2005 at 12:58 am#6807

Participant

Hi t8,
It's astounding to me that in the entire time you and I have been exchanging posts you have yet to concede one contentious point to me. It defies all odds! Either you and your theology are infallible or you are obstinate to the point of absurdity.

It has become clear to me that it is not possible to reason with you. You have such a monolithic investment in your theological writings which are a codification of your “revelations” from God. I believe that this experiencial foundation of your christological doctrine utterly prohibits you from conceding on any matter that challenges it.

Factor into this a demonstrative cynicism of institutional churches (and by association some of their doctrines)* and I really have no chance do I t8?- no matter how logical my argument. To relinquish a point that challenges the foundation of your doctrine would, by implication, bring into question the validity of your revelation. Tell me t8, how can anyone convince you of anything contrary to your theology when they have such massive odds stacked against them?

*BTW, this is called bias. Humans are biased by nature, so please dont see this assessment of you as a denigration of your character.

May 1, 2005 at 1:20 am#6808

Participant

Quote (t8 @ April 29 2005,10:39)

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.

Lets put this to the test t8:

Here is NH's premise (which you supported)

Quote

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

From this premise I will construct a logical argument:

1. since the Son of God is also of the same 'kind' as his Father,

2. and the Father is a God kind,

3. then Jesus must be a God kind.

Can you refute this? If so, which pt is incorrect and how?

BTW, If you are contemplating labelling me a pharisee for using a logical approach, consider where the word logic derives from (clue: John 1:1).

May 1, 2005 at 2:47 am#6809

Participant

Quote (t8 @ April 29 2005,12:56)

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 inadequat
e 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 '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.

Hi Is 1.18,
T8 has said clearly that Yeshua is a 'god'. Is this not what you wanted him to say? Or do you want him to say what is not written=that Yeshua is the God? Why would you want him to deny truth and sy Yeshua is his own Father?Or have I misunderstood your confusing theological idioms?

May 1, 2005 at 3:39 am#6810

Anonymous

Guest

OK, list the “confusing theological idioms” for me and i will try to demystify them for you.

May 1, 2005 at 4:45 am#6811

Participant

HiIs , Why do we need such words as 'denotive' in the first place? Can we not just read scripture as a child would to understand what is written?

May 1, 2005 at 5:00 am#6812

Participant

Hi Is and t8
Coll 2.9

” For in him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form”

“him “of course refers to Jesus Christ.

Since the “fullness of deity” dwells “in” him then he must not be that deity. Jesus has divine nature as the Son of God but he cannot be the deity that dwells in him surely? Otherwise he would be dwelling in himself, in his bodily form.

He exists apart from his body as we all do. And it is not just the Father dwelling in that body either. Jesus Christ,the Son of God, independant of his Father, partook of flesh and was born into a body as the Son of man.

There are three layers.

The body of Jesus Christ which died
The person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God
The Spirit of the Father-which is the deity mentioned.

Thus the Father is revealed in Jesus .

May 1, 2005 at 5:29 am#6813

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 01 2005,01:58)

*BTW, this is called bias. Humans are biased by nature, so please dont see this assessment of you as a denigration of your character.

Hi Is,
It is not a debate to find a winner. Surely it is to establish truth from scripture. What seems contentious to you may be perfectly clear to someone else and to harrass and harry someone may be unhelpful if the mote is in your own eye.

Conceding points is only useful if we are greeks demanding human wisdom. We are not. We are christians distilling truth from what is revealed. We are dealing with the most precious words ever written. These words and your fellow christians at least deserve respect surely?

And you may be hurting the body of Christ your brother shares. Should you bite your own hand?

May 1, 2005 at 6:25 am#6815

Participant

True Nick,

It is not about certain people winning and others losing. It is simply about the truth winning. Once the truth shines out, people will be easily able to accept it. I am a willing recipient of truth too.

Is 1:18, if you cannot find fault in my teaching, then have you considered that the reason maybe that I am teaching truth. You know I am willing for anyone to find fault in what I teach because if they do, then I will change so that I will become better. But to just appose what I say because it fits not a certain creed is rediculous.

If you cannot find fault in my words, then can I suggest that you remain quiet and ask God to guide you through what you have been through. If you just spout off with no logical reason and come against me for a reason that you cannot explain, then you will only dig a pit for yourself.

Do you believe that God can use people? If so, then why come against those whom God is using. Why not learn from them? Liars are easily discovered when you scatch the surface, but a true person remains true.

I referred to the Pharisees when I spoke of you because of the similarity of the Pharisees actions towards Christ and your actions toward me. All I could see in both cases were religious people going against the truth and coming up with accusations that had little or nothing to do with the reality.

May 1, 2005 at 6:38 am#6816

Participant

To Is 1:18,

Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 01 2005,21:20)

From this premise I will construct a logical argument:

1. since the Son of God is also of the same 'kind' as his Father,

2. and the Father is a God kind,

3. then Jesus must be a God kind.

Can you refute this? If so, which pt is incorrect and how?

To Is 1:18,

I agree with that. I have said all along that God begat a son in his likeness. I have also said that God made man in his image and that we are gods perhaps for that reason. I have also said that Jesus is a god even a mighty one.

But I have not said that Jesus or us are the original God. The original God is the Father alone, for there is one God the Father. I have said that we (Jesus and mankind) are images of the original, (although man has fallen). I have also said that if we understand the difference between identity and nature then confusion regarding God and the Trinity doctrine would fall away.

In identity there is one God. He is the Father. In nature there are many gods. Not all these other gods are false. For God the Father shares his nature with the images/sons. Jesus is the Son and we are sons.

To recap.

There is one God the Father.
Jesus is the Son (the prototype).
We are sons.
Jesus is the image.
We are images.
We will be like Jesus in our resurrected state.
Jesus will call us brothers.
Our Father will always be our Father.
These points can all be proven easily from scripture. We do not need to resort to philosophy to understand the truths of scripture. If you are concerned that I do not conceed on points, it is because I have merely repeated scripture and I will not conceed on scripture.

May 1, 2005 at 7:01 am#6817

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 02 2005,01:00)

Hi Is and t8
Coll 2.9

” For in him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form”

“him “of course refers to Jesus Christ.

There are three layers.

The body of Jesus Christ which died
The person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God
The Spirit of the Father-which is the deity mentioned.

Thus the Father is revealed in Jesus .

Exactly.

If we take a glass and fill it with water, then does the glass become the water. Of course not. The glass is the glass.

If God's nature or divinity is in Christ, then is Christ that divinity. Of course not. Christ is the recipient of that nature and divinity. Rather Christ is the Word of God.

As it is written:

2 Corinthians 5:19
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

1 Corinthians 3:23
and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.

Therefore if someone is of Christ is he then Christ himself? No.
If Christ is of God, then is he God himself? No. He is of God.

May 1, 2005 at 4:42 pm#6818

Participant

Yes t8.
And Phil 2.13
“for it is God who is at work IN YOU ,both to will and to work for His good pleasure”

May 1, 2005 at 7:44 pm#6822

Anonymous

Guest

Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 01 2005,05:45)

HiIs , Why do we need such words as 'denotive' in the first place? Can we not just read scripture as a child would to understand what is written?

Quote

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.

May 1, 2005 at 8:53 pm#6826

Participant

Hi Is,
Nexus=epicentre.OK But ontological?
I do not see these types of words in scripture.

Have you yet discovered that Yeshua is not Yahweh or are you still working on this theory?

We are both men related through Adam.
We are both brothers in Christ and so related in that way too.

But surely it does not take much work to see that these facts have little bearing on whether;

YOU….
ARE….
ME?

That is a nonsense.

And it is made no more likely by knowing these things above are true surely?

May 1, 2005 at 9:35 pm#6831

Participant

Quote (t8 @ May 01 2005,07:38)

To Is 1:18,

Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 01 2005,21:20)

From this premise I will construct a logical argument:

1. since the Son of God is also of the same 'kind' as his Father,

2. and the Father is a God kind,

3. then Jesus must be a God kind.

Can you refute this? If so, which pt is incorrect and how?

To Is 1:18,

I agree with that.

Praise the LORD!

May 1, 2005 at 9:57 pm#6833

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 01 2005,06:29)

It is not a debate to find a winner. Surely it is to establish truth from scripture. What seems contentious to you may be perfectly clear to someone else and to harrass and harry someone may be unhelpful if the mote is in your own eye.

I do not debate this to score intellectual points on t8 or anyone. I do it because I believe I stand on the side of truth and reason. I try to post to the glory of God, not to satiate my ego. If t8's christology is sound and grounded in logic, it should be able to withstand my feeble blowtorch of logic.

May 1, 2005 at 10:47 pm#6839

Participant

Quote (t8 @ May 01 2005,07:25)

I reject your christology because I have examined it (deeply considered and prayed about it) and found it to be irrational. I hope my post to Cubes (sorry Cubes, its on the way) will bear out some of the key reasons why.

I do not, however, reject you – in fact I quite like you. A thought occured to me the other day while I was out on the golf course and I want to share it with you:

If soldiers were lawyers, I would want t8 in the trenches with me!

May 1, 2005 at 11:01 pm#6840

Participant

Hi Is,
Christology is knowing about Christ just as theology is knowing about God.

They are useful, perhaps, for ignorant theologians and intellectuals.

Christians do not need to know too much about Christ or his Father as they know them personally.

If you are in the same trench as t8 then why not fire at the real enemy?

May 1, 2005 at 11:51 pm#6844