Is Jesus Deity?
Comments
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
“Jesus replied, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.”” (John 2:19)
“But he spake of the temple of his body.” (John 2:21)
“The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.” (Acts 5:30)This is correct. @Wolfgang if Jesus claimed he would raise his body and is not God then that makes Jesus a liar and therefore could not pay for our sins.
Really ? How come Acts 5:30 declares that NOT Jesus raised himself up, but rather "the God of our fathers" raised up Jesus ??? By, the way, numerous other verses declare the same, that it was NOT Jesus, but rather God (Whom Jesus said was his Father and of Whom Jesus said, that He (Jesus' Father) alone was true God ...
I would suggest to understand the one seemingly difficult verse (Joh 2:19) in light of the many clear verses (such as Acts 5:30, Rom 10:9,10. etc.) ... and NOT make a theology and dogma out of one verse which is misunderstood
It's not misunderstood. Jesus is God, therefore he did not lie.
How do you reconcile John 2:19 if Jesus is not God?
But you must address a similar question, David: How do YOU reconcile Acts 5.30? If Jesus (God) raised himself, why do Peter and the apostles tell the council that the God of their ancestors raised Jesus? Why is there NO suggestion of Jesus' involvement in his own resurrection in the apostles' word to the council?
And if Jesus raised himself, how do YOU reconcile Acts 2.24, Acts 2.32, Acts 3.15, Acts 3.26, Acts 4.10, Acts 10.40, Acts 13.30, Acts 13.37, Romans 4.24-25, Romans 8.11, Romans 10.9, 1 Corinthians 6.14, 1 Corinthians 15.15, Galatians 1.1, Colossians 2.12, Hebrews 11.19, 1 Peter 1.21, and many others?
Jesus was God as far as his person (nature). And man as far as his soul and body (nature). He raised his body and soul from the grave after 3 days and nights.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
“Jesus replied, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.”” (John 2:19)
“But he spake of the temple of his body.” (John 2:21)
“The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.” (Acts 5:30)This is correct. @Wolfgang if Jesus claimed he would raise his body and is not God then that makes Jesus a liar and therefore could not pay for our sins.
Really ? How come Acts 5:30 declares that NOT Jesus raised himself up, but rather "the God of our fathers" raised up Jesus ??? By, the way, numerous other verses declare the same, that it was NOT Jesus, but rather God (Whom Jesus said was his Father and of Whom Jesus said, that He (Jesus' Father) alone was true God ...
I would suggest to understand the one seemingly difficult verse (Joh 2:19) in light of the many clear verses (such as Acts 5:30, Rom 10:9,10. etc.) ... and NOT make a theology and dogma out of one verse which is misunderstood
It's not misunderstood. Jesus is God, therefore he did not lie.
How do you reconcile John 2:19 if Jesus is not God?
But you must address a similar question, David: How do YOU reconcile Acts 5.30? If Jesus (God) raised himself, why do Peter and the apostles tell the council that the God of their ancestors raised Jesus? Why is there NO suggestion of Jesus' involvement in his own resurrection in the apostles' word to the council?
And if Jesus raised himself, how do YOU reconcile Acts 2.24, Acts 2.32, Acts 3.15, Acts 3.26, Acts 4.10, Acts 10.40, Acts 13.30, Acts 13.37, Romans 4.24-25, Romans 8.11, Romans 10.9, 1 Corinthians 6.14, 1 Corinthians 15.15, Galatians 1.1, Colossians 2.12, Hebrews 11.19, 1 Peter 1.21, and many others?
So simple Bill. I believe what the Bible tells us that Jesus is also God.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
So simple Bill. I believe what the Bible tells us that Jesus is also God.Given that this is how you "reconcile" the many verses to which I referred, surely you will find it an acceptable response from Wolfgang and me if we tell you that we "reconcile" John 2.19 this way: So simple, David. We believe what the Bible tells us that Jesus is not also God.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
Really ? How come Acts 5:30 declares that NOT Jesus raised himself up, but rather "the God of our fathers" raised up Jesus ??? By, the way, numerous other verses declare the same, that it was NOT Jesus, but rather God (Whom Jesus said was his Father and of Whom Jesus said, that He (Jesus' Father) alone was true God ...I would suggest to understand the one seemingly difficult verse (Joh 2:19) in light of the many clear verses (such as Acts 5:30, Rom 10:9,10. etc.) ... and NOT make a theology and dogma out of one verse which is misunderstood
It's not misunderstood. Jesus is God, therefore he did not lie.
How do you reconcile John 2:19 if Jesus is not God?I'll consider answering your request if you answer my questions to you first ... since I was the one asking you, and since my answer will need to take into consideration how you answer my questions.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
But you must address a similar question, David: How do YOU reconcile Acts 5.30? If Jesus (God) raised himself, why do Peter and the apostles tell the council that the God of their ancestors raised Jesus? Why is there NO suggestion of Jesus' involvement in his own resurrection in the apostles' word to the council?And if Jesus raised himself, how do YOU reconcile Acts 2.24, Acts 2.32, Acts 3.15, Acts 3.26, Acts 4.10, Acts 10.40, Acts 13.30, Acts 13.37, Romans 4.24-25, Romans 8.11, Romans 10.9, 1 Corinthians 6.14, 1 Corinthians 15.15, Galatians 1.1, Colossians 2.12, Hebrews 11.19, 1 Peter 1.21, and many others?
Exactly ... I too am looking forward to David's detailed reply on these various very clear and plain verses.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
So simple Bill. I believe what the Bible tells us that Jesus is also God.Given that this is how you "reconcile" the many verses to which I referred, surely you will find it an acceptable response from Wolfgang and me if we tell you that we "reconcile" John 2.19 this way: So simple, David. We believe what the Bible tells us that Jesus is not also God.
Except that doesn't reconcile the fact that makes Jesus a liar and therefore could note atone for sin.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
So simple Bill. I believe what the Bible tells us that Jesus is also God.I am still waiting for detailed comments on the many verses which show clearly that Jesus did NOT raise himself from the dead ...
Your claim "I believe what the Bible tells us that Jesus is also God" is a false claim in 2 respects:
(1) You do not believe what the Bible says, but what a dogma established centuries later claims.
(2) The Bible nowhere tells that Jesus was also God.As for Joh 2:19, an answer similarly structured like your "simple" answer would be:
I indeed believe what the Bible tells us (rather than adhering to a dogma of the 4th century AD) that Jesus was NOT God or also God. -
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
So simple Bill. I believe what the Bible tells us that Jesus is also God.Given that this is how you "reconcile" the many verses to which I referred, surely you will find it an acceptable response from Wolfgang and me if we tell you that we "reconcile" John 2.19 this way: So simple, David. We believe what the Bible tells us that Jesus is not also God.
Except that doesn't reconcile the fact that makes Jesus a liar and therefore could note atone for sin.
Actually, your idea that "Jesus is also God" would be the lie ... as it contradicts all those many verses Bill and I mentioned. Even worse, it would mean that Jesus did not really die, but only "partly died", which indeed would mean that he could not have atoned for sin. Furthermore, your idea contradicts the basic truth that God can NOT die.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Except that doesn't reconcile the fact that makes Jesus a liar and therefore could note atone for sin.Except that on multiple occasions in the Gospels Jesus makes clear his belief that he is not God
- Matthew 26.39 - Jesus' will is unique from God's will, so much so that his will might contradict God's will. Therefore Jesus asks that God's will, not his own, be done. If he believed himself to be God - perfect, without sin - how could his will have ever been different from God's will?
- John 5.30 - Jesus says he can do nothing on his own; he seeks not his own will, but the will of the one who sent him (see previous verse). If he believed himself to be God, why would his will have been any different from the will of the one who sent him?
- John 5.19 - Again, Jesus can do nothing on his own. A "God" who can do nothing on his own is not a very powerful God.
- Mark 10.18 - Jesus objects to being called "good" because he believes that adjective belongs only to God.
- John 14.28 - Jesus believes the Father is "greater" than he. So much for co-equal branches of the godhead.
- Matthew 27.46 - He asks God why God has forsaken him. If he saw himself as God, did he believe he was forsaking himself?
- John 17.3 - Jesus defines eternal life as knowing "the one true God" AND Jesus Christ whom that God has sent, making a clear distinction between himself and the one true God.
And then there's a passage such Matthew 12.15-18, in which the Gospel writer employs a passage from Isaiah to describe Jesus as a "servant' whom God has "chosen" and upon whom God will put God's spirit. Clearly, Matthew believes Jesus is God's servant, not God.
And for good measure, I'll throw in Revelation 1.5b-6 - John offers glory and dominion to the one who has "freed us from our sins" and "made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father." John clearly believes Jesus had a God, which in my view means John didn't believe Jesus WAS God.
As for atonement, in my view, God can use any method and/or person of God's choosing to make us right.
-
When the Bible says Jesus is God and Jesus says Jesus is God and His disciples say Jesus is God and many witnesses say Jesus is God, then to conjure up some notion that Jesus is not God by isolating a handful of passages leaves the burden of proof to the unbelievers.
Must I really prove the earth is round and that there is a moon in the sky. Look! Did you see the eclipse? Why waste time defending the known accepted and obvious.
In the end, one accepts God at His word, believes in Jesus as God or rejects Him. Choose ye this day....
-
@GaoLu said:
When the Bible says Jesus is God and Jesus says Jesus is God and His disciples say Jesus is God and many witnesses say Jesus is God, then to conjure up some notion that Jesus is not God by isolating a handful of passages leaves the burden of proof to the unbelievers.Excuse me, but the Bible nowhere says Jesus is God, nor did Jesus say anywhere that he (Jesus) is God nor do any witnesses mentioned in the Bible say that Jesus is God. Instead of making such false claims, I would appreciate to provide the verses that actually do say what you claim ...
If you want to talk about "conjure up some verses", let's note that both Bill and I did not need to conjure up any verses and instead quoted quite a number of verses totally outnumbering the rather very few or single verses which you and others have claimed say what they do not even really say.@GaoLu said:
Must I really prove the earth is round and that there is a moon in the sky. Look! Did you see the eclipse? Why waste time defending the known accepted and obvious.Exactly ... look at the many clear and plain verses which say that Jesus is God's only begotten Son, the Son of God ... and then realize what is indeed obvious, instead of defending unbiblical dogmas which were intended to turn Christianity away from the God of the Bible and His Messiah and turn it into some kind of "multi-person Godhead" similar to Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek and Roman "Deities"
@GaoLu said:
In the end, one accepts God at His word, believes in Jesus as God or rejects Him. Choose ye this day....The problem is, the one who believes in Jesus as God is the one who actually rejects the God of the Bible and also His Messiah in favor of a "mystery multi-person Trinity Deity".
-
Brethren,
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."
"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead [dwells] bodily" (Colossians 2:8-9).
Plain truth-- like a nose on a man's face-- "all the fulness of the Godhead." Paul was dealing false teachings-- a king of mysticism close to Gnosticism to keep believers from worshipping angels (Col. 2:18).
If this is not enough for the truth-seeker (not habitual debater), the Divinity of Jesus is revealed in the Book of Revelation using terms of God in the OT applied to Christ:
APPLIED TO GOD IN THE OT
"I am Almighty God" (Gen. 17:1; See also Gen 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; 49:25; Exodus 6:3; Numbers 24:4; etc.).
"For the Lord your God is god of gods, and Lord of lord, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward" (Deut. 10:17).
"I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire" (Dan 7:9).
"Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last" (Isaiah 48:12).
APPLIED TO CHRIST IN THE NT
"The Almighty" (Rev. 1:8)
“These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful” (Rev.17:14).
"His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire" (Rev. 1:14).
"And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last" (Rev.1:17).
Let us rejoice in having the Bible and God's revelation! "When it's all said and done", **"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." **
SOURCE: A proverb which means that you can give someone an opportunity but not force them to take it. www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/.../2012/09/120924_todays_phrase_horse_to_water.shtml
-
@GaoLu said:
When the Bible says Jesus is God and Jesus says Jesus is God and His disciples say Jesus is God and many witnesses say Jesus is God, then to conjure up some notion that Jesus is not God by isolating a handful of passages leaves the burden of proof to the unbelievers.In my last two posts, I cited 26 texts - I guess that would be five handfuls plus a thumb - all of which offer the same message: that Jesus (and others) did not believe Jesus was God.
What's most interesting to me about your and David's responses, Gao Lu, is that neither of you engaged ANY of those 26 texts. You offered unsupported commentary and conclusions (to which you're welcome!) but no substantive engagement with what I contend is a significant number of texts.
Does it concern you at all that those who dispute the deity of Jesus can find so many texts which informed, faithful defenders of that deity such as yourself and David either can't or choose not to engage? If texts reflective of my point of view on this matter were in number, as your post mischaracterizes them, only a handful, perhaps I would understand your silence. But when you don't engage any of 26 texts - and I could offer dozens more - I lean toward believing your silence conveys capitulation more than confidence.
In the prior edition of the CD forums, while consistently declaring that the whole of the New Testament makes clear that Jesus was not God, on many occasions I also acknowledged the existence of texts that could be interpreted as supporting the contrary position. Do you make a comparable claim from your point of view - that while you consistently declare that the whole of the New Testament makes clear that Jesus was God, you also acknowledge the existence of texts that could be interpreted as supporting the contrary position? If you do, perhaps we can claim a small bit of common ground.
Bottom line for me is that five handfuls of texts that all say the same thing - that Jesus was not God - is significant, if for no other reason than that a New Testament with that many renegade passages must surely said to struggle for consistency on the issue.
In the end, one accepts God at His word, believes in Jesus as God or rejects Him. Choose ye this day....
And one either engages the 26 texts I previously cited, or one doesn't. It seems we each have chosen this day.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
I cited 26 texts - I guess that would be five handfuls plus a thumb - all of which offer the same message: that Jesus (and others) did not believe Jesus was God.There is not enough substance to the argument from passages cited to engage. Sorry. In a few cases where one might raise an eyebrow in question, we have thoroughly debunked the doubt in other threads. No point in rehashing all that.
It seems we each have chosen this day.
Exactly. Well said.
-
@GaoLu said:
@Bill_Coley said:
I cited 26 texts - I guess that would be five handfuls plus a thumb - all of which offer the same message: that Jesus (and others) did not believe Jesus was God.There is not enough substance to the argument from passages cited to engage. Sorry. In a few cases where one might raise an eyebrow in question, we have thoroughly debunked the doubt in other threads. No point in rehashing all that.
Hmn ... clear verses of Scripture do not have enough substance to an argument ????? I am more than astonished ...
Where have doubts concerning the Trinity dogma which have been substantiated by the truths of these passages been debunked ???
Let's forsake Scripture and dig into men's dogmas as they apparently have such substance ??? -
Here is another passage showing Jesus is God.
“But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)
“The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.” (Acts 5:30–31)
“And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”” (Acts 5:32)
"Him" refers to Jesus whom God exalted in the first mention. So it also refers to "Him" whom we obey in the second mention. This means Jesus is God whom the apostles say we must obey.
Post edited by Dave_L on -
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Except that doesn't reconcile the fact that makes Jesus a liar and therefore could note atone for sin.Except that on multiple occasions in the Gospels Jesus makes clear his belief that he is not God
- Matthew 26.39 - Jesus' will is unique from God's will, so much so that his will might contradict God's will. Therefore Jesus asks that God's will, not his own, be done. If he believed himself to be God - perfect, without sin - how could his will have ever been different from God's will?
He was living with a human nature and was about to go through excruciating pain and separation from the Father. But, by the simple fact that he went through with it shows that his will actually was to save the world.
- John 5.30 - Jesus says he can do nothing on his own; he seeks not his own will, but the will of the one who sent him (see previous verse). If he believed himself to be God, why would his will have been any different from the will of the one who sent him?
See above.
- John 5.19 - Again, Jesus can do nothing on his own. A "God" who can do nothing on his own is not a very powerful God.
You clearly don't understand that Jesus took on humanity. Can you do anything without God? No.
- Mark 10.18 - Jesus objects to being called "good" because he believes that adjective belongs only to God.
Actually he did not object, he asked a question. Don't read into the text.
- John 14.28 - Jesus believes the Father is "greater" than he. So much for co-equal branches of the godhead.
In the hierarchy of the Godhead the Father is greater until the Son is exalted.
- Matthew 27.46 - He asks God why God has forsaken him. If he saw himself as God, did he believe he was forsaking himself?
Three parts of the Trinity. Not hard.
- John 17.3 - Jesus defines eternal life as knowing "the one true God" AND Jesus Christ whom that God has sent, making a clear distinction between himself and the one true God.
Taken out of context yes, he also says he and the father are one.
And for good measure, I'll throw in Revelation 1.5b-6 - John offers glory and dominion to the one who has "freed us from our sins" and "made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father." John clearly believes Jesus had a God, which in my view means John didn't believe Jesus WAS God.
In your view, that's ok, wrong, but ok. That wasn't John's view at all as we clearly see from his Gospel.
As for atonement, in my view, God can use any method and/or person of God's choosing to make us right.
And he said he must have a SPOTLESS lamb. Therefore, Jesus must be perfect without sin.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@GaoLu said:
When the Bible says Jesus is God and Jesus says Jesus is God and His disciples say Jesus is God and many witnesses say Jesus is God, then to conjure up some notion that Jesus is not God by isolating a handful of passages leaves the burden of proof to the unbelievers.In my last two posts, I cited 26 texts - I guess that would be five handfuls plus a thumb - all of which offer the same message: that Jesus (and others) did not believe Jesus was God.
What's most interesting to me about your and David's responses, Gao Lu, is that neither of you engaged ANY of those 26 texts. You offered unsupported commentary and conclusions (to which you're welcome!) but no substantive engagement with what I contend is a significant number of texts.
Actually I did. You shouldn't make accusations until one has time to respond.
Does it concern you at all that those who dispute the deity of Jesus can find so many texts which informed, faithful defenders of that deity such as yourself and David either can't or choose not to engage? If texts reflective of my point of view on this matter were in number, as your post mischaracterizes them, only a handful, perhaps I would understand your silence. But when you don't engage any of 26 texts - and I could offer dozens more - I lean toward believing your silence conveys capitulation more than confidence.
I engaged them. They are EASILY reconciled. And since Scripture can't contradict itself we must choose the more logical answer.
In the prior edition of the CD forums, while consistently declaring that the whole of the New Testament makes clear that Jesus was not God, on many occasions I also acknowledged the existence of texts that could be interpreted as supporting the contrary position. Do you make a comparable claim from your point of view - that while you consistently declare that the whole of the New Testament makes clear that Jesus was God, you also acknowledge the existence of texts that could be interpreted as supporting the contrary position? If you do, perhaps we can claim a small bit of common ground.
I do not see any text that when taken in context of the whole denies Jesus' deity.
Bottom line for me is that five handfuls of texts that all say the same thing - that Jesus was not God - is significant, if for no other reason than that a New Testament with that many renegade passages must surely said to struggle for consistency on the issue.
Except none of them actually stated that. Eisegesis my friend.
In the end, one accepts God at His word, believes in Jesus as God or rejects Him. Choose ye this day....
And one either engages the 26 texts I previously cited, or one doesn't. It seems we each have chosen this day.
Yes I have and you lose.
@Wolfgang said:
@GaoLu said:
@Bill_Coley said:
I cited 26 texts - I guess that would be five handfuls plus a thumb - all of which offer the same message: that Jesus (and others) did not believe Jesus was God.There is not enough substance to the argument from passages cited to engage. Sorry. In a few cases where one might raise an eyebrow in question, we have thoroughly debunked the doubt in other threads. No point in rehashing all that.
Hmn ... clear verses of Scripture do not have enough substance to an argument ????? I am more than astonished ...
Where have doubts concerning the Trinity dogma which have been substantiated by the truths of these passages been debunked ???
Let's forsake Scripture and dig into men's dogmas as they apparently have such substance ???They have hardly been substantiated by those texts. All of those texts are taken out of context and don't say what you and Bill try to twist their meanings to say.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Bottom line for me is that five handfuls of texts that all say the same thing - that Jesus was not God - is significant, if for no other reason than that a New Testament with that many renegade passages must surely said to struggle for consistency on the issue.
Except none of them actually stated that. Eisegesis my friend.
I have been waiting for many years now and am still waiting for Trinitarians to provide me with one single verse which states what they claim ...
On the contrary, all of the verses Bill listed do in fact indicate very clearly that Jesus could not have been nor was God, and also that Jesus himself did not believe or claim that he was God, seeing that he made a clear distinction between himself and God.
@Wolfgang said:
Hmn ... clear verses of Scripture do not have enough substance to an argument ????? I am more than astonished ...
Where have doubts concerning the Trinity dogma which have been substantiated by the truths of these passages been debunked ???
Let's forsake Scripture and dig into men's dogmas as they apparently have such substance ???They have hardly been substantiated by those texts. All of those texts are taken out of context and don't say what you and Bill try to twist their meanings to say.
YOU have been the one in your interpretations given in a previous post who took the passages out of their context and interpreted them into the "trinity context" ...
See, David Taylor is a human being, which - by definition - means that he is not God, not a monkey, not a donkey, nor is he anything in addition to being a human being, because GOD has made it that way!!Where is that verse of Scripture which states that there is a TRINITY Godhead? Where is that verse of Scripture where Jesus said that he himself was God and as such the disciples as well as his own God ?
-
"If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead." Lk 16:31
One rose from the dead. Some still do not believe.
-
@GaoLu said:
"If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead." Lk 16:31One rose from the dead. Some still do not believe.
??? and what does this have to do with the topic of this thread and discussion? Is this maybe the verse that supposedly states that there is a "Trinity Godhead" mentioned in the Bible?
-
I suspect, that in fact you know. If you really sincerely do not, I can tell you.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Bottom line for me is that five handfuls of texts that all say the same thing - that Jesus was not God - is significant, if for no other reason than that a New Testament with that many renegade passages must surely said to struggle for consistency on the issue.
Except none of them actually stated that. Eisegesis my friend.
I have been waiting for many years now and am still waiting for Trinitarians to provide me with one single verse which states what they claim ...
On the contrary, all of the verses Bill listed do in fact indicate very clearly that Jesus could not have been nor was God, and also that Jesus himself did not believe or claim that he was God, seeing that he made a clear distinction between himself and God.
Actually, I was waiting for you to provide a verse that actually states Jesus is not God.
John 1 explicitly states Jesus (the Word) is God.
@Wolfgang said:
Hmn ... clear verses of Scripture do not have enough substance to an argument ????? I am more than astonished ...
Where have doubts concerning the Trinity dogma which have been substantiated by the truths of these passages been debunked ???
Let's forsake Scripture and dig into men's dogmas as they apparently have such substance ???They have hardly been substantiated by those texts. All of those texts are taken out of context and don't say what you and Bill try to twist their meanings to say.
YOU have been the one in your interpretations given in a previous post who took the passages out of their context and interpreted them into the "trinity context" ...
See, David Taylor is a human being, which - by definition - means that he is not God, not a monkey, not a donkey, nor is he anything in addition to being a human being, because GOD has made it that way!!Where is that verse of Scripture which states that there is a TRINITY Godhead? Where is that verse of Scripture where Jesus said that he himself was God and as such the disciples as well as his own God ?
I and the father are one. And the Pharisees knew he meant to claim he was God.
-
@GaoLu said:
I suspect, that in fact you know. If you really sincerely do not, I can tell you.I don't ... as I see no logical reasonable connection ...
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
On the contrary, all of the verses Bill listed do in fact indicate very clearly that Jesus could not have been nor was God, and also that Jesus himself did not believe or claim that he was God, seeing that he made a clear distinction between himself and God.Actually, I was waiting for you to provide a verse that actually states Jesus is not God.
You are the one who needs to provide a verse for your non-biblical claim ... The list of verses provided by Bill already gives you 26 verses which state that Jesus could NOT have been and was NOT God.
@davidtaylorjr said:
John 1 explicitly states Jesus (the Word) is God.No ... John 1 does NOT state that Jesus is God. It states that the Word was God (by the way, no definite article used with the word "God [theos]" as in all places where the term theos refers to God ... thus a more accurate translation would be "divine" rather than "God"). It does NOT state that Jesus was God. What the passage emphasizes that this Word was GOD'S Word, His plan, His idea, His concept ... not any human word.
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
YOU have been the one in your interpretations given in a previous post who took the passages out of their context and interpreted them into the "trinity context" ...
See, David Taylor is a human being, which - by definition - means that he is not God, not a monkey, not a donkey, nor is he anything in addition to being a human being, because GOD has made it that way!!I hope you got the point about the truth that those verses which say that Jesus was A MAN by definition indirectly state that Jesus therefore could NOT and was NOT God.
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
Where is that verse of Scripture which states that there is a TRINITY Godhead? Where is that verse of Scripture where Jesus said that he himself was God and as such the disciples as well as his own God ?I and the father are one. And the Pharisees knew he meant to claim he was God.
My wife and I are also one. You and your wife are one. According to Christ's prayer in Joh 17:21, those who believe in him are to be one AS he and the Father (God) were one. Are you telling us that you and I are also to be God, because we are to be one with Christ?
Also, are you accepting the Pharisees as source for truth? Did those crooked fellows not make false accusations to have him crucified for which Peter later makes them responsible for Christ's death? Or are you trying to tell me that the Pharisees were Trinitarians?
-
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
On the contrary, all of the verses Bill listed do in fact indicate very clearly that Jesus could not have been nor was God, and also that Jesus himself did not believe or claim that he was God, seeing that he made a clear distinction between himself and God.Actually, I was waiting for you to provide a verse that actually states Jesus is not God.
You are the one who needs to provide a verse for your non-biblical claim ... The list of verses provided by Bill already gives you 26 verses which state that Jesus could NOT have been and was NOT God.
Not true. Not one of those verses actually says that.
@davidtaylorjr said:
John 1 explicitly states Jesus (the Word) is God.No ... John 1 does NOT state that Jesus is God. It states that the Word was God (by the way, no definite article used with the word "God [theos]" as in all places where the term theos refers to God ... thus a more accurate translation would be "divine" rather than "God"). It does NOT state that Jesus was God. What the passage emphasizes that this Word was GOD'S Word, His plan, His idea, His concept ... not any human word.
That's an interesting interpretation but not founded in reality.
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
YOU have been the one in your interpretations given in a previous post who took the passages out of their context and interpreted them into the "trinity context" ...
See, David Taylor is a human being, which - by definition - means that he is not God, not a monkey, not a donkey, nor is he anything in addition to being a human being, because GOD has made it that way!!I hope you got the point about the truth that those verses which say that Jesus was A MAN by definition indirectly state that Jesus therefore could NOT and was NOT God.
Once again, your understanding, but not reality.
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
Where is that verse of Scripture which states that there is a TRINITY Godhead? Where is that verse of Scripture where Jesus said that he himself was God and as such the disciples as well as his own God ?I and the father are one. And the Pharisees knew he meant to claim he was God.
My wife and I are also one. You and your wife are one. According to Christ's prayer in Joh 17:21, those who believe in him are to be one AS he and the Father (God) were one. Are you telling us that you and I are also to be God, because we are to be one with Christ?
Also, are you accepting the Pharisees as source for truth? Did those crooked fellows not make false accusations to have him crucified for which Peter later makes them responsible for Christ's death? Or are you trying to tell me that the Pharisees were Trinitarians?
Clearly the Pharisees knew what Jesus meant. The Pharisees were not stupid. In fact, many would argue, they knew the truth and rejected it. They like their power. If the Messiah had come, they lose their power. So to say they are a source of truth is not what I am saying at all, Jesus made the statement, not them. But they knew exactly what he meant. In other words, the original audience, who is the interpretation we should look at, knew what Jesus meant and John, an Apostle of Christ, also knew what Jesus meant by recording it in his Gospel.
That's more authoritative than any crazed interpretation you and Bill can come up with to deny the Deity of Christ to your soul's damnation.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
No ... John 1 does NOT state that Jesus is God. It states that the Word was God (by the way, no definite article used with the word "God [theos]" as in all places where the term theos refers to God ... thus a more accurate translation would be "divine" rather than "God"). It does NOT state that Jesus was God. What the passage emphasizes that this Word was GOD'S Word, His plan, His idea, His concept ... not any human word.That's an interesting interpretation but not founded in reality.
?? It's certainly based on Scripture's text reality ...
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
I hope you got the point about the truth that those verses which say that Jesus was A MAN by definition indirectly state that Jesus therefore could NOT and was NOT God.Once again, your understanding, but not reality.
?? what reality? Trinitarian fantasy reality? It has nothing to do with my understanding, it is plain common sense and basic understanding of language (in any language, by the way) ... not dependent on or defined by my understanding.
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
My wife and I are also one. You and your wife are one. According to Christ's prayer in Joh 17:21, those who believe in him are to be one AS he and the Father (God) were one. Are you telling us that you and I are also to be God, because we are to be one with Christ?Also, are you accepting the Pharisees as source for truth? Did those crooked fellows not make false accusations to have him crucified for which Peter later makes them responsible for Christ's death? Or are you trying to tell me that the Pharisees were Trinitarians?
Clearly the Pharisees knew what Jesus meant. The Pharisees were not stupid. In fact, many would argue, they knew the truth and rejected it. They like their power. If the Messiah had come, they lose their power.
Indeed .. they knew that Jesus was the Messiah ... which also axiomatically means that they did NOT even consider that Jesus was YHWH / God Himself !!
So to say they are a source of truth is not what I am saying at all, Jesus made the statement, not them. But they knew exactly what he meant.
Well, if they did not make any statement, on what basis are you claiming that you know what they knew ??
In other words, the original audience, who is the interpretation we should look at, knew what Jesus meant and John, an Apostle of Christ, also knew what Jesus meant by recording it in his Gospel.
And neither the original audience who received the gospels initially nor the apostle John who wrote one of the gospels ever stated that Jesus was YHWH/God !! They were witnesses that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed ... which axiomatically means that Jesus was not YHWH/God, but rather was that man, whom YHWH/God had promised would come to be the Messiah.
That's more authoritative than any crazed interpretation you and Bill can come up with to deny the Deity of Christ to your soul's damnation.
Thanks for your comment, David ... unfortunately you are the one with unscriptural interpretations ... and you never really engage in the text of the passages you yourself sometimes quote or which we have mentioned and to which you comment ... why?? Where is your exegesis?? Where do you show us from the text ??
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Bill_Coley said:
What's most interesting to me about your and David's responses, Gao Lu, is that neither of you engaged ANY of those 26 texts. You offered unsupported commentary and conclusions (to which you're welcome!) but no substantive engagement with what I contend is a significant number of texts.Actually I did. You shouldn't make accusations until one has time to respond. ...
I engaged them. They are EASILY reconciled. And since Scripture can't contradict itself we must choose the more logical answer. ...
I do not see any text that when taken in context of the whole denies Jesus' deity. ...
Yes I have and you lose. ...
They have hardly been substantiated by those texts. All of those texts are taken out of context and don't say what (Wolfgang) and Bill try to twist their meanings to say.
Well, let's see....
BILL:
- Matthew 26.39 - Jesus' will is unique from God's will, so much so that his will might contradict God's will. Therefore Jesus asks that God's will, not his own, be done. If he believed himself to be God - perfect, without sin - how could his will have ever been different from God's will?
- John 5.30 - Jesus says he can do nothing on his own; he seeks not his own will, but the will of the one who sent him (see previous verse). If he believed himself to be God, why would his will have been any different from the will of the one who sent him?
DAVID:
He was living with a human nature and was about to go through excruciating pain and separation from the Father. But, by the simple fact that he went through with it shows that his will actually was to save the world.BILL:
For discussions of the Trinity, in my view, at issue is the origin, not the content, of the will(s) involved in the Garden scene. If Jesus believed himself to be God, then the origin of his will for that scene had to have been God (i.e. himself), in which case there would have been no reason for him to ask that God's will, not his own will, be done.Yes, in the end Jesus surrendered his will to God's will, but that's not dispositive of divine identity! I bet there are times when you've surrendered your will to God's will; I further bet you don't believe those times made you God. The fact that Jesus asked that God's will, not his own will, be done demonstrates that he believed the origin of his will was different from the origin of God's will, and in my view, that means he didn't believe himself to be God.
BILL:
- John 5.19 - Again, Jesus can do nothing on his own. A "God" who can do nothing on his own is not a very powerful God.
DAVID:
You clearly don't understand that Jesus took on humanity. Can you do anything without God? No.BILL:
Thanks for your insight into what I don't understand.John 5.19, like most verses, benefits from being read in-context.
- John 5.18 - The Jews seek "all the more" to kill Jesus because he was "breaking the Sabbath" and "calling God his own Father." If God is Jesus' "father," Jesus can't be God. And notice the Jews object to what they believe is Jesus' "making himself EQUAL with God," NOT his identifying himself AS God.
- John 5.22 - The Father gives all judgment to the Son, which means he didn't have it before the Father granted it.
- John 5.23 - Those who do not honor the Son do not honor the Father who sent the Son. The Father sent the Son.
- John 5.24 - Belief in the one who sent the Son produces eternal life. The Father sent the Son.
- John 5.26 - The Father has granted the Son to have "life in himself," which means he didn't have it before the Father granted it.
- John 5.27 - The Father has granted the Son (of Man) authority to judge, which means....
In my view, Jesus CLEARLY understands himself as both organically separate from and constitutionally powerless without God.
Also in my view, the question you raise - "Can (a person) do anything without God?" - suggests that you believe a person who asks it is not God. It's then not a large leap to conclude Jesus was not God.
BILL:
Mark 10.18 - Jesus objects to being called "good" because he believes that adjective belongs only to God.DAVID:
Actually he did not object, he asked a question. Don't read into the text.BILL:
In my view, it's not reading into the text to interpret Jesus' question as an objection to the idea that he (Jesus) is God. To me, that's the question's most obvious meaning. It's akin to this exchange:
Person 1: Hi, Calvin.
Person 2: Why do you call me Calvin? Only Calvin is Calvin.
In my view, person 2 does not ask that question if he's actually Calvin.BILL:
John 14.28 - Jesus believes the Father is "greater" than he. So much for co-equal branches of the godhead.DAVID:
In the hierarchy of the Godhead the Father is greater until the Son is exalted.BILL:
The idea of a "hierarchy of the Godhead" is new to me. It's certainly not present in the synoptic Gospels.- In Acts 2.33, Jesus is exalted "at the right hand of God," from where he pours out the Holy Spirit... which God gave him. A clear separation between God - the one who exalts and gives - and Jesus - the one who is exalted and distributes what he has been given.
- In Acts 5.31, God exalts Jesus as "leader and savior." Another clear separation between exalter and exalted.
- In Philippians 2.9, God exalts Jesus, giving him the name that is above all names. Every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord to God's glory (Philippians 2.11) More separation between the exalted and the one who exalts.
- In Hebrews 5.5, God appoints Jesus to be a high priest. God says to Jesus, "You are my son, I have begotten you." That's distinction, not equality, in exaltation.
BILL:
Matthew 27.46 - He asks God why God has forsaken him. If he saw himself as God, did he believe he was forsaking himself?DAVID:
Three parts of the Trinity. Not hard.BILL:
I agree with you that it's "not hard." In the verse, Jesus cries out to his God, to the one he believes has forsaken him. He does not believe he has forsaken himself. There is no indication of equality or forthcoming hierarchical promotion in his question. In my view, it's another declaration of separation and distinction.BILL:
John 17.3 - Jesus defines eternal life as knowing "the one true God" AND Jesus Christ whom that God has sent, making a clear distinction between himself and the one true God.DAVID:
Taken out of context yes, he also says he and the father are one.BILL:
He says he and the Father are one - whatever that means - yes, but he also says the one true God has sent him. The one sending is not the one sent.BILL:
And for good measure, I'll throw in Revelation 1.5b-6 - John offers glory and dominion to the one who has "freed us from our sins" and "made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father." John clearly believes Jesus had a God, which in my view means John didn't believe Jesus WAS God.DAVID:
In your view, that's ok, wrong, but ok. That wasn't John's view at all as we clearly see from his Gospel.BILL:
An in-context reading is again helpful. In John 1.4, the author offers grace and peace from the one "who is and who was and who is to come," AND ALSO from Jesus Christ. SO, Jesus is not the one who is, was, and is to come. So the reference to "his God and Father" in Revelation 1.6 functions as a restatement of the distinction/separation announced in Revelation 1.4.BILL: As for atonement, in my view, God can use any method and/or person of God's choosing to make us right.
DAVID:
And he said he must have a SPOTLESS lamb. Therefore, Jesus must be perfect without sin.BILL:
In my view, the sinlessness of Jesus is an issue distinct from the issue of his divinity. I think the few NT references to his sinlessness do not speak to the divinity issue.As to how we're saved, as I said previously, I believe God can save us in any way God chooses, a reality which for me includes but does not require a "spotless lamb."
-
@GaoLu said:
@Bill_Coley said:
I cited 26 texts - I guess that would be five handfuls plus a thumb - all of which offer the same message: that Jesus (and others) did not believe Jesus was God.There is not enough substance to the argument from passages cited to engage. Sorry. In a few cases where one might raise an eyebrow in question, we have thoroughly debunked the doubt in other threads. No point in rehashing all that.
In the post to which this was your response, I observed that you offered "unsupported commentary and conclusions (to which you're welcome!) but no substantive engagement" with the texts I cited. Your response here appears to prove my point.
Had I adopted your approach to this discussion, I could have replaced the texts and commentary I provided previously with something like this:
There is not enough substance to the argument that Jesus was God in the posts and passages offered in this thread to engage. Sorry. In a few cases where one might raise an eyebrow in question, but I have thoroughly debunked the doubt in other threads. No point in rehashing all that.
Something tells me you wouldn't have found that to be a persuasive argument, or even one that advanced the discussion. And I would have agreed with you.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
BILL:
An in-context reading is again helpful. In John 1.4, the author offers grace and peace from the one "who is and who was and who is to come," AND ALSO from Jesus Christ....The reference here should be to Revelation 1.4, NOT John 1.4. Sorry.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
