Is Jesus Deity?
Comments
-
@Dave_L said:
@Wolfgang said:
And how is this verse supposed to say that Jesus is God (cp. your claim in the opening sentence of your post) ?? Did God endure sufferings before glories followed? Since when is God subject to suffering inflicted on Him by humans??If you read the passage in light of the others, it says everything about Jesus being God.
It most certainly does not ... it perhaps does in your mind and on the basis of some assumptions you hold in your mind, but it surely does not objectively speaking.
Here's another problem with your denial of Christ's deity.
The Old Testament clearly teaches that a man cannot die for the sins of another man. Children cannot suffer for their parent's sin under law. So if Jesus was merely a man, he would sin under OT Law trying to atone for the sins of another.
Where is the problem? Reading the context of these passages and what they are talking about would provide you with the rather simple truth. Instead, once more you are linking unrelated passages to a matter (i.e. solution to the sin problem and making redemption from sin available to mankind) to which they do not relate ... read Rom 5:12ff and see who is involved in the entrance of sin into the world and is involved in the solution to that sin problem. When you read the text carefully, you will notice easily that in each case it was ONE MAN (one human being).
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
@Wolfgang said:
And how is this verse supposed to say that Jesus is God (cp. your claim in the opening sentence of your post) ?? Did God endure sufferings before glories followed? Since when is God subject to suffering inflicted on Him by humans??If you read the passage in light of the others, it says everything about Jesus being God.
It most certainly does not ... it perhaps does in your mind and on the basis of some assumptions you hold in your mind, but it surely does not objectively speaking.
Here's another problem with your denial of Christ's deity.
The Old Testament clearly teaches that a man cannot die for the sins of another man. Children cannot suffer for their parent's sin under law. So if Jesus was merely a man, he would sin under OT Law trying to atone for the sins of another.
Where is the problem? Reading the context of these passages and what they are talking about would provide you with the rather simple truth. Instead, once more you are linking unrelated passages to a matter (i.e. solution to the sin problem and making redemption from sin available to mankind) to which they do not relate ... read Rom 5:12ff and see who is involved in the entrance of sin into the world and is involved in the solution to that sin problem. When you read the text carefully, you will notice easily that in each case it was ONE MAN (one human being).
Here's a different angle, perhaps it will help you see that Jesus is God....
Paul shows the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ as being the same.“You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this person does not belong to him.” (Romans 8:9)
“And the person who keeps his commandments resides in God, and God in him. Now by this we know that God resides in us: by the Spirit he has given us.” (1 John 3:24)
In Deuteronomy 24:16 one cannot be punished for the sins of another. Also consider Exodus 32:31–34, Moses offering himself in an effort to save the sinners from wrath, only to be rejected by God. Ezekiel 18ff says basically the same: The soul that sinneth, it shall die... the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.' And ““When that time comes, people will no longer say, ‘The parents have eaten sour grapes, but the children’s teeth have grown numb.’Rather, each person will die for his own sins. The teeth of the person who eats the sour grapes will themselves grow numb.” (Jeremiah 31:29–30)
Sooooo...... How can Jesus atone for another's sins if he is merely a good man and not God as you say? And if he could? How could one good man atone for more than one bad man?
Only Jesus as God can provide the type of atonement the OT clearly forbids.
-
@Dave_L said:
Paul shows the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ as being the same.“You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this person does not belong to him.” (Romans 8:9)In context, the verse from Romans says something other than what you assert, Dave... at least in my view:
- Romans 8.3 says we have been set free from "the law of sin and death" (Romans 8.2) because God sent "his own son." A clear distinction between God - the sender - and Jesus - the one who was sent.
- In Romans 8.11 Paul argues that if "the Spirit of him who raised Jesus" lives in us, then the one who raised Jesus will give our mortal bodies life through his (God's) spirit. A clear distinction between Jesus - the one raised - and God - the one did the raising.
In that context, it seems to me, Romans 8.9 must refer to two different sources of power when it mentions both "the Spirit of God" and "the Spirit of Christ." The New Living Translation of the verse makes the distinction clear when it renders the verse this way...
"But you are not controlled by your sinful nature. You are controlled by the Spirit if you have the Spirit of God living in you. (And remember that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ living in them do not belong to him at all.)"
Tyndale House Publishers. (2013). Holy Bible: New Living Translation (Ro 8:9). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
Paul shows the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ as being the same.“You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this person does not belong to him.” (Romans 8:9)In context, the verse from Romans says something other than what you assert, Dave... at least in my view:
- Romans 8.3 says we have been set free from "the law of sin and death" (Romans 8.2) because God sent "his own son." A clear distinction between God - the sender - and Jesus - the one who was sent.
- In Romans 8.11 Paul argues that if "the Spirit of him who raised Jesus" lives in us, then the one who raised Jesus will give our mortal bodies life through his (God's) spirit. A clear distinction between Jesus - the one raised - and God - the one did the raising.
In that context, it seems to me, Romans 8.9 must refer to two different sources of power when it mentions both "the Spirit of God" and "the Spirit of Christ." The New Living Translation of the verse makes the distinction clear when it renders the verse this way...
"But you are not controlled by your sinful nature. You are controlled by the Spirit if you have the Spirit of God living in you. (And remember that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ living in them do not belong to him at all.)"
Tyndale House Publishers. (2013). Holy Bible: New Living Translation (Ro 8:9). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.
The deity of Christ is one of the first casualties of denying the doctrine of the trinity. And your logic rests on this denial. But when your starting point is wrong, your ending point can become even more adverse to the truth. We can bat scripture around all day to no avail, but we can compare what you believe to the Pharisees whom the NT obviously paints as blind leaders of the blind. This is not name calling or an intentional insult. But there is little difference if any in your belief and theirs.
-
@Dave_L said:
Only Jesus as God can provide the type of atonement the OT clearly forbids.God Jesus can provide what the OT clearly forbids ???
God provides what God forbids ???Why should anyone believe such unreasonable illogical non-sense???
-
God is above the Law. He is the Law giver. Therefore Jesus could not sin giving his life in place of others.
-
@Dave_L said:
God is above the Law. He is the Law giver. Therefore Jesus could not sin giving his life in place of others.Do you know what a kinsman redeemer is? OT records speak about it ...
Understanding it provides the key to an accurate understanding of the matter which you appear to be confusing -
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
God is above the Law. He is the Law giver. Therefore Jesus could not sin giving his life in place of others.Do you know what a kinsman redeemer is? OT records speak about it ...
Understanding it provides the key to an accurate understanding of the matter which you appear to be confusingA kinsman redeemer provides a perfect symbol of Christ imputing his righteousness to those having none of their own. But only He as God can impute the infinite righteousness that merits eternal life.
-
@Dave_L said:
The deity of Christ is one of the first casualties of denying the doctrine of the trinity. And your logic rests on this denial. But when your starting point is wrong, your ending point can become even more adverse to the truth. We can bat scripture around all day to no avail, but we can compare what you believe to the Pharisees whom the NT obviously paints as blind leaders of the blind. This is not name calling or an intentional insult. But there is little difference if any in your belief and theirs.My "logic," Dave, rests on the Romans 8 text to which YOU referred in an earlier post, and that text's context in its chapter. I'm therefore surprised to read your glib description of our exchange on that text as the "bat(ting) around" of Scripture. If that's your view of the value of Scripture to our discussion, why did you raise Romans 8.9?
For the record, I'll note that while in your post you compare what I believe to what the Pharisees believed, what you don't do in your post is engage the contextual argument I made about the text that YOU brought into this thread. I'm surprised that you thought enough of Romans 8.9 to introduce it as support for your view that Jesus is God, but apparently don't think enough of the verse to defend its relevance to the issue when I raise a text-based argument to the contrary.
You tell us that your comparing me to the Pharisees is neither "name calling" nor an "intentional insult." In my view, more important is the fact that your comparison is not relevant to the subject of this thread or to the significance of the verse from Romans 8 that YOU raised and I then analyzed.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
The deity of Christ is one of the first casualties of denying the doctrine of the trinity. And your logic rests on this denial. But when your starting point is wrong, your ending point can become even more adverse to the truth. We can bat scripture around all day to no avail, but we can compare what you believe to the Pharisees whom the NT obviously paints as blind leaders of the blind. This is not name calling or an intentional insult. But there is little difference if any in your belief and theirs.My "logic," Dave, rests on the Romans 8 text to which YOU referred in an earlier post, and that text's context in its chapter. I'm therefore surprised to read your glib description of our exchange on that text as the "bat(ting) around" of Scripture. If that's your view of the value of Scripture to our discussion, why did you raise Romans 8.9?
For the record, I'll note that while in your post you compare what I believe to what the Pharisees believed, what you don't do in your post is engage the contextual argument I made about the text that YOU brought into this thread. I'm surprised that you thought enough of Romans 8.9 to introduce it as support for your view that Jesus is God, but apparently don't think enough of the verse to defend its relevance to the issue when I raise a text-based argument to the contrary.
You tell us that your comparing me to the Pharisees is neither "name calling" nor an "intentional insult." In my view, more important is the fact that your comparison is not relevant to the subject of this thread or to the significance of the verse from Romans 8 that YOU raised and I then analyzed.
We can go around in circles all day batting scripture back and forth to no avail. But we cannot deny direct parallels between your creed and the Pharisees'. For starters, we could honestly identify someone as being Pharisee like who rejects the trinity and the deity of Christ.
-
@Dave_L said:
We can go around in circles all day batting scripture back and forth to no avail. But we cannot deny direct parallels between your creed and the Pharisees'. For starters, we could honestly identify someone as being Pharisee like who rejects the trinity and the deity of Christ.Apparently what you're NOT willing to "bat around," Dave, is the verse YOU brought into this thread (Romans 8.9) as support for your view that Jesus is God. My goodness, you're not even willing to tell us why you raised it for our consideration!
It's striking that in your two posts to me since I posted my analysis of the Romans 8.9's context, you haven't even mentioned the verse. It's as if you read it, raised it, then abandoned it as soon as I challenged it.... And replaced it with a comparison of my beliefs to those of the Pharisees', a subject whose relevance to a thread titled "Is Jesus Deity?" is, to be generous, dubious.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
We can go around in circles all day batting scripture back and forth to no avail. But we cannot deny direct parallels between your creed and the Pharisees'. For starters, we could honestly identify someone as being Pharisee like who rejects the trinity and the deity of Christ.Apparently what you're NOT willing to "bat around," Dave, is the verse YOU brought into this thread (Romans 8.9) as support for your view that Jesus is God. My goodness, you're not even willing to tell us why you raised it for our consideration!
It's striking that in your two posts to me since I posted my analysis of the Romans 8.9's context, you haven't even mentioned the verse. It's as if you read it, raised it, then abandoned it as soon as I challenged it.... And replaced it with a comparison of my beliefs to those of the Pharisees', a subject whose relevance to a thread titled "Is Jesus Deity?" is, to be generous, dubious.
Well. this is what happens many times here ... verses are thrown in as "proof text for Trinity and Jesus is God", and when you - or I - point out how the text actually does NOT say anything to that effect, the Trinity folks move on to another supposed "proof text", but never really engage in detail by answering our objections to their claims
-
@Wolfgang said:
Well. this is what happens many times here ... verses are thrown in as "proof text for Trinity and Jesus is God", and when you - or I - point out how the text actually does NOT say anything to that effect, the Trinity folks move on to another supposed "proof text", but never really engage in detail by answering our objections to their claims
What you describe in your post, Wolfgang, certainly SEEMS to be what's happened in the case of Dave's raising Romans 8.9 to our consideration. He raised the text, but hasn't mentioned it since!
Something very similar seems to have happened in my interaction with David Taylor over a text in Isaiah 9.
What's most striking to me is that on this matter of the Trinity, you and I regularly offer the most cogent and involved biblical analysis - those who disagree with our views usually issuing brief, unsupported, and occasionally ad hominem objections, then refusing to engage seriously over the Scriptures we cite - but yet WE'RE the heretics!
-
@Wolfgang said:
Well. this is what happens many times here ... verses are thrown in as "proof text for Trinity and Jesus is God", and when you - or I - point out how the text actually does NOT say anything to that effect, the Trinity folks move on to another supposed "proof text", but never really engage in detail by answering our objections to their claimsWhat you describe in your post, Wolfgang, certainly SEEMS to be what's happened in the case of Dave's raising Romans 8.9 to our consideration. He raised the verse, but hasn't mentioned it since. Something very similar seems to have happened in my interaction with David Taylor over a text in Isaiah 9.
What's striking to me is that though you and I are the ones who offer the most cogent and involved biblical analysis on the issue of the Trinity, WE'RE allegedly the heretics! We stand behind, or at least willingly and substantively engage, on our views of Scripture's witness on the matter. Those who disagree with us - their right!! - regularly refuse to engage us on Bible texts or any other aspect of the issue, and yet WE'RE the heretics. Astonishing.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
We can go around in circles all day batting scripture back and forth to no avail. But we cannot deny direct parallels between your creed and the Pharisees'. For starters, we could honestly identify someone as being Pharisee like who rejects the trinity and the deity of Christ.Apparently what you're NOT willing to "bat around," Dave, is the verse YOU brought into this thread (Romans 8.9) as support for your view that Jesus is God. My goodness, you're not even willing to tell us why you raised it for our consideration!
It's striking that in your two posts to me since I posted my analysis of the Romans 8.9's context, you haven't even mentioned the verse. It's as if you read it, raised it, then abandoned it as soon as I challenged it.... And replaced it with a comparison of my beliefs to those of the Pharisees', a subject whose relevance to a thread titled "Is Jesus Deity?" is, to be generous, dubious.
How many times have we exchanged scripture interpretations without finding a solution? I notice the same results when you preach to a choir different from your own. So I prefer to present alternatives that cannot be argued.
This is why I use church history where your beliefs stand widely condemned as heresy. That is a fact. And now I use the Pharisees whom you echo in your denial of the trinity and deity of Christ. This too is a fact. But it helps anyone to evaluate your position in the light of the New Testament scriptures.
But the most serious charge against your position is that it denies the true Messiah came in the person of Jesus, in the flesh. Because the Messiah in the OT was God in person. John says, to deny this is the spirit of Antichrist.
Post edited by Dave_L on -
@Dave_L said:
How many times have we exchanged scripture interpretations without finding a solution? I notice the same results when you preach to a choir different from your own. So I prefer to present alternatives that cannot be argued.I don't recall having that many (any?) exchanges of Scripture interpretations with you, Dave. To my recollection, your far more common practice has been to offer texts to support your views, but then not to engage in discussions of the validity of those texts when challenged.
Our respective recollections aside, the fact remains that in this thread, my analysis/rebuttal of the texts you offered remains unchallenged by you or any other forum-participating believer in the Trinity.
This is why I use church history where your beliefs stand widely condemned as heresy. That is a fact. And now I use the Pharisees whom you echo in your denial of the trinity and deity of Christ. This too is a fact. But it helps anyone to evaluate your position in the light of the New Testament scriptures.
So when you can't/won't defend your use of Scripture to defend your views, you turn to church history and to the Pharisees... about whom your first source of information, I'm confident, is Scripture... whose applicability you can't/won't defend if I challenge it. But just for my information, please cite a couple of passages where the Pharisees declare that Jesus is not God. I find John 9.16, where they deny that Jesus is FROM God, but in my hurried search, I couldn't find where they expressed an opinion as to whether Jesus WAS God. Please provide.
But the most serious charge against your position is that it denies the true Messiah came in the person of Jesus, in the flesh. Because the Messiah in the OT was God in person. John says, to deny this is the spirit of Antichrist.
While there are indeed OT texts in which God says God will do the saving, it is also true that at the time of Jesus, Jews did not expect the "messiah" to be God, but rather God's representative, a military and political leader from the line of David who would restore Israel (see HERE for a good summary of both the OT's and Judaism's take on the messiah).
As for your claim that "John says" the Messiah is "God in person," we must turn to 1 John 2.18-23... (emphasis added)
18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. 20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge. 21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Jn 2:18–23). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
John doesn't say the spirit of Antichrist is those who deny that the Messiah is "God in person." He says the Antichrist is one who denies the Father and the Son. I don't deny "the Father" (Jesus' name for God) and I don't deny "the Son" (Jesus was the Son of God - cf 1 John 1.3, 1 John 1.7, 1 John 2.1-3, 1 John 3.21-23, and most of 1 John 4, where John makes a clear distinction between God (the Father) and Jesus (God's son). My view is that in 1 John, Jesus is clearly not God, but rather the "Son" God (the "Father") sends.
As for Church history, you may be right. If so, then on this issue, you'll stand on church history and I'll stand on Scripture. I'm okay with that.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
We can go around in circles all day batting scripture back and forth to no avail. But we cannot deny direct parallels between your creed and the Pharisees'. For starters, we could honestly identify someone as being Pharisee like who rejects the trinity and the deity of Christ.Apparently what you're NOT willing to "bat around," Dave, is the verse YOU brought into this thread (Romans 8.9) as support for your view that Jesus is God. My goodness, you're not even willing to tell us why you raised it for our consideration!
It's striking that in your two posts to me since I posted my analysis of the Romans 8.9's context, you haven't even mentioned the verse. It's as if you read it, raised it, then abandoned it as soon as I challenged it.... And replaced it with a comparison of my beliefs to those of the Pharisees', a subject whose relevance to a thread titled "Is Jesus Deity?" is, to be generous, dubious.
Well. this is what happens many times here ... verses are thrown in as "proof text for Trinity and Jesus is God", and when you - or I - point out how the text actually does NOT say anything to that effect, the Trinity folks move on to another supposed "proof text", but never really engage in detail by answering our objections to their claims
You mean like your "proof texts" that Jesus is not God? What about the Bible saying Jesus made all things?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
You mean like your "proof texts" that Jesus is not God?Exactly ... I have consistently provided detailed scripture text based arguments, while you and others evade such ...
@davidtaylorjr said:
What about the Bible saying Jesus made all things?What about that? Would you provide the actual text, your thoughts and reasoning as to why the text would contradict Gen 1 which says that not Jesus but God created, etc ? Who knows, perhaps the text you have in mind doesn't even say what you think it says, perhaps the text actually means that God, Jesus' Father, made all things? Would be best if you provided us with the necessary details to take a closer look ....
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
You mean like your "proof texts" that Jesus is not God? What about the Bible saying Jesus made all things?I don't have time to engage your post at any depth, David, but I do have time to point out the irony of your expressing concern for what you call my "proof texts," immediately before asking me to respond to... proof texts of your own.
For me, the issue isn't whether EVERY SINGLE verse in the Bible expresses the same message about the deity of Jesus (in my view, there is no such uniformity of viewpoint) The issue is what is the message of the New Testament writ large? I believe - because I have found it to be true as the result of intentional and first hand study - that the overwhelming majority of NT texts - including those that quote Jesus himself- make a clear distinction between God and Jesus. I respect your views to the contrary.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
You mean like your "proof texts" that Jesus is not God?Exactly ... I have consistently provided detailed scripture text based arguments, while you and others evade such ...
@davidtaylorjr said:
What about the Bible saying Jesus made all things?What about that? Would you provide the actual text, your thoughts and reasoning as to why the text would contradict Gen 1 which says that not Jesus but God created, etc ? Who knows, perhaps the text you have in mind doesn't even say what you think it says, perhaps the text actually means that God, Jesus' Father, made all things? Would be best if you provided us with the necessary details to take a closer look ....
Col 1:16 specifically says all things were created by Christ. That being said, it doesn't contradict anything since Jesus is God.
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
You mean like your "proof texts" that Jesus is not God? What about the Bible saying Jesus made all things?I don't have time to engage your post at any depth, David, but I do have time to point out the irony of your expressing concern for what you call my "proof texts," immediately before asking me to respond to... proof texts of your own.
For me, the issue isn't whether EVERY SINGLE verse in the Bible expresses the same message about the deity of Jesus (in my view, there is no such uniformity of viewpoint) The issue is what is the message of the New Testament writ large? I believe - because I have found it to be true as the result of intentional and first hand study - that the overwhelming majority of NT texts - including those that quote Jesus himself- make a clear distinction between God and Jesus. I respect your views to the contrary.
Except you have never shown a verse that says Jesus is not God. Not one. Just your spin on it. I, however, have shown many verses that state Jesus is God.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
What about that? Would you provide the actual text, your thoughts and reasoning as to why the text would contradict Gen 1 which says that not Jesus but God created, etc ? Who knows, perhaps the text you have in mind doesn't even say what you think it says, perhaps the text actually means that God, Jesus' Father, made all things? Would be best if you provided us with the necessary details to take a closer look ....Col 1:16 specifically says all things were created by Christ. That being said, it doesn't contradict anything since Jesus is God.
Just what I thought ... now could you point out what the context of this verse is about?
who is mentioned in the immediate context ?
to whom of those mentioned would the personal pronoun refer?
Who, according to other passages concerning the same topic (creation of all things), is the one who is the Creator?
Is Jesus the image of the invisible God, or is he the invisible God (can Jesus be the image of the invisible Himself) ?Just a few questions for clarification ... because common sense tells me that the claim you make that the personal pronoun "him" in Col 1:16 refers to Jesus causes contradictions with the expression that Jesus is "the image of the invisible God" as well as contradictions with other passages which speak about God (Who is the Father of Jesus) being the Creator....
-
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
What about that? Would you provide the actual text, your thoughts and reasoning as to why the text would contradict Gen 1 which says that not Jesus but God created, etc ? Who knows, perhaps the text you have in mind doesn't even say what you think it says, perhaps the text actually means that God, Jesus' Father, made all things? Would be best if you provided us with the necessary details to take a closer look ....Col 1:16 specifically says all things were created by Christ. That being said, it doesn't contradict anything since Jesus is God.
Just what I thought ... now could you point out what the context of this verse is about?
who is mentioned in the immediate context ?The immediate context is Jesus. Verses 15-23 are about Jesus.
to whom of those mentioned would the personal pronoun refer?
Jesus
Who, according to other passages concerning the same topic (creation of all things), is the one who is the Creator?
God
Is Jesus the image of the invisible God, or is he the invisible God (can Jesus be the image of the invisible Himself) ?
Yes
Just a few questions for clarification ... because common sense tells me that the claim you make that the personal pronoun "him" in Col 1:16 refers to Jesus causes contradictions with the expression that Jesus is "the image of the invisible God" as well as contradictions with other passages which speak about God (Who is the Father of Jesus) being the Creator....
No contradiction caused. Yes, other passages speak about God being the creator. So either those passages or this passage is wrong, unless you look at other Scriptures that affirm Jesus is in fact God. Then it all makes sense.
Jesus is God, God/Jesus created all things. No contradictions, no problems.
Thanks for playing the game, you lose again.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Is Jesus the image of the invisible God, or is he the invisible God (can Jesus be the image of the invisible Himself) ?
Yes
Yes to what ... image of the invisible God or the invisible God ??
Just a few questions for clarification ... because common sense tells me that the claim you make that the personal pronoun "him" in Col 1:16 refers to Jesus causes contradictions with the expression that Jesus is "the image of the invisible God" as well as contradictions with other passages which speak about God (Who is the Father of Jesus) being the Creator....
No contradiction caused. Yes, other passages speak about God being the creator. So either those passages or this passage is wrong, unless you look at other Scriptures that affirm Jesus is in fact God. Then it all makes sense.
Jesus being the image of the invisible God and also being that invisible God is a contradiction in itself ... I am astonished you do not notice this simple fact.
I would say the many passages which mention that God is the Creator are correct, and this passage is also correct because v. 16 is simply part of a parenthetical statement, in which more information about the invisible God of v. 15 is given, and the "him" is a reference NOT to Jesus but to the invisible God of Whom Jesus is a visible image.
Jesus is God, God/Jesus created all things. No contradictions, no problems.
IF Jesus were the invisible God, you would have created a contradiction to the statement that he was "the (visible) image of the invisible God" in v. 15.
It is impossible to be a visible image of someone or something invisible and to also be that invisible something or someone.Thanks for playing the game, you lose again.
This is no game, David Taylor ... it is a very serious matter of truth or lie ... lies are unmasked and exposed when the contradiction they cause is exposed and revealed. It is up to you to continue to believe a lie or to acknowledge the Biblical truth of the passage in question.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Is Jesus the image of the invisible God, or is he the invisible God (can Jesus be the image of the invisible Himself) ?
Yes
Yes to what ... image of the invisible God or the invisible God ??
You asked a tautology so the answer is yes.
Just a few questions for clarification ... because common sense tells me that the claim you make that the personal pronoun "him" in Col 1:16 refers to Jesus causes contradictions with the expression that Jesus is "the image of the invisible God" as well as contradictions with other passages which speak about God (Who is the Father of Jesus) being the Creator....
No contradiction caused. Yes, other passages speak about God being the creator. So either those passages or this passage is wrong, unless you look at other Scriptures that affirm Jesus is in fact God. Then it all makes sense.
Jesus being the image of the invisible God and also being that invisible God is a contradiction in itself ... I am astonished you do not notice this simple fact.
I'm amazed you repeatedly put limits on God. That's a pretty arrogant/stupid thing to do.
I would say the many passages which mention that God is the Creator are correct, and this passage is also correct because v. 16 is simply part of a parenthetical statement, in which more information about the invisible God of v. 15 is given, and the "him" is a reference NOT to Jesus but to the invisible God of Whom Jesus is a visible image.
Except that doesn't fit the whole passage. One pronoun suddenly describes another entity when all of the others describe Christ? I don't think so. Who is being illogical now?
Jesus is God, God/Jesus created all things. No contradictions, no problems.
IF Jesus were the invisible God, you would have created a contradiction to the statement that he was "the (visible) image of the invisible God" in v. 15.
It is impossible to be a visible image of someone or something invisible and to also be that invisible something or someone.Only in your feeble mind that puts God in a box. God doesn't play by Wolfgang's rules. (Thank goodness)
Thanks for playing the game, you lose again.
This is no game, David Taylor ... it is a very serious matter of truth or lie ... lies are unmasked and exposed when the contradiction they cause is exposed and revealed. It is up to you to continue to believe a lie or to acknowledge the Biblical truth of the passage in question.
You are the one that believes a lie, and much to your souls' detriment. So in that sense, you are right, it is not a game, it is life or death and I hope you discover God. The true God, not the God Wolfgang has created.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Col 1:16 specifically says all things were created by Christ. That being said, it doesn't contradict anything since Jesus is God.As is usually the case, context matters in the pursuit of the meaning of this verse. To that end, some observations:
- Col 1.15-20 come across as, and is generally considered to be, a hymnic celebration of the risen and glorified Christ. As such, I'm not surprised by its high praise.
- Col 1.15 says God is the image of God; the verse does NOT claim that Jesus IS God.
- Col 1.16 ascribes creation - by, for, and through - to the risen and glorified Christ. The key is what ELSE does the writer of Colossians say about Jesus beyond the hymnic material?
- Col 2.9 - "The fullness of deity" dwells in Christ "bodily." The assertion is not that Jesus was God. The verse reminds of John's Gospel's prologue, where the Word became flesh (John 1.14) Jesus was the human being through whom the Word of God became flesh. In Colossians, he is the human in whom the "fullness of deity" dwelled.
- Col 2.12 - The writer distinguishes between Christ and the God who raised him
- Col 2.13 - We who were dead in sin, God has made alive with Christ (notice that God makes us alive "with him" - a pronoun that issues a reference to someone other than Godself - not with "himself," the pronoun that would have created a reference back to God) The end result is another clear distinction between God and Christ.
- Col 3.1 - Christ is seated at the right hand of God.
- Col 3.17 - We're called to give thanks to God through Christ.
I see Col 1.16 as part of a larger hymnic celebration of Christ that in fact attributes creation to Christ. However, in the rest of the same letter, the writer makes multiple clear distinctions between God and Christ, distinctions that are at odds with the conclusion to which Col 1.16 seems to lead us, that Christ and God are the same (can you identify even one other verse in Colossians outside of 1.15-20 that reports Jesus is God?) Hence, I conclude that in Colossians writ large, Jesus and God are not the same.
Except you have never shown a verse that says Jesus is not God. Not one. Just your spin on it. I, however, have shown many verses that state Jesus is God.
Notice, David, that I have responded directly and substantively to your cited verse. You will surely disagree strongly with my observations, but you can't deny that I dealt with it head-on.
Contrast the substance of my response to your verse here to the one- and two sentence headlines with which you responded to my questions to you in the Isaiah 9.6 thread that you started. Your response to my last post in that thread, a post in which I asked you to explain your point of view in something other than a one- or two sentence response, was this:
"I just choose not to waste my time on something that has been debunked repeatedly and is known to be something else."
You get direct, substantive responses from me. I get "I choose not to waste my time" from you.
Here's my challenge to you, David: In a direct and substantive response, explain why Peter's declaration about Jesus in Acts 2.22-24 means anything other than Peter believed Jesus was not God.
-
Here's my challenge to you, David: In a direct and substantive response, explain why Peter's declaration about Jesus in Acts 2.22-24 means anything other than Peter believed Jesus was not God.
Every last bit of that fits perfectly with what the Bible says elsewhere about the incarnation. There is no reason whatsoever to think Peter believed Jesus was not God. In fact, we know Peter knew Jesus was God.
I love this proof:
“We saw it with our own eyes: Jesus resplendent with light from God the Father….We couldn’t be more sure of what we saw and heard—God’s glory, God’s voice.”
--2 Peter 1: 16, 17To doubt that Peter knew Jesus was God is to contradict everything that says He was including Peter's own words.
-
@GaoLu said:
Here's my challenge to you, David: In a direct and substantive response, explain why Peter's declaration about Jesus in Acts 2.22-24 means anything other than Peter believed Jesus was not God.
Every last bit of that fits perfectly with what the Bible says elsewhere about the incarnation. There is no reason whatsoever to think Peter believed Jesus was not God. In fact, we know Peter knew Jesus was God.
I love this proof:
“We saw it with our own eyes: Jesus resplendent with light from God the Father….We couldn’t be more sure of what we saw and heard—God’s glory, God’s voice.”
--2 Peter 1: 16, 17To doubt that Peter knew Jesus was God is to contradict everything that says He was including Peter's own words.
I asked David to post "a direct and substantive response" that explained Peter's point of view as to whether Jesus was God in Acts 2.22-24. What you have provided, Gao, Lu, has substance, but that substance concerns a text from 2 Peter 1, not Acts 2.
I'll gladly welcome and respond to your direct and substantive explanation of Acts 2.22-24, should you decide to post one.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
Is Jesus the image of the invisible God, or is he the invisible God (can Jesus be the image of the invisible Himself) ?
Yes
Yes to what ... image of the invisible God or the invisible God ??
You asked a tautology so the answer is yes.
I asked a simple question ...@davidtaylorjr said:
@Wolfgang said:
Jesus being the image of the invisible God and also being that invisible God is a contradiction in itself ... I am astonished you do not notice this simple fact.I'm amazed you repeatedly put limits on God. That's a pretty arrogant/stupid thing to do.
I acknowledge that certain things are impossible ... I believe God is reasonable and not "stupid" or a "non-sense" God unable to communicate. I believe God knows the difference between "an image of God" and "God Himself"I would say the many passages which mention that God is the Creator are correct, and this passage is also correct because v. 16 is simply part of a parenthetical statement, in which more information about the invisible God of v. 15 is given, and the "him" is a reference NOT to Jesus but to the invisible God of Whom Jesus is a visible image.
Except that doesn't fit the whole passage. One pronoun suddenly describes another entity when all of the others describe Christ? I don't think so. Who is being illogical now?
You are ... IF you ignore many plain and clear passages in Scripture.
IF Jesus were the invisible God, you would have created a contradiction to the statement that he was "the (visible) image of the invisible God" in v. 15.
It is impossible to be a visible image of someone or something invisible and to also be that invisible something or someone.Only in your feeble mind that puts God in a box. God doesn't play by Wolfgang's rules. (Thank goodness)
I did not invent any rules of logic and reason ... I would say that God did so and provided mankind with reason and logic to be able to discern truth from error. It's not about putting God in a box.
You, however, would be well advised to follow God's rules regarding discerning truth from error.You are the one that believes a lie, and much to your souls' detriment. So in that sense, you are right, it is not a game, it is life or death and I hope you discover God. The true God, not the God Wolfgang has created.
I have known the Trinity God with its illogic, non-sense (declared to be "mystery" so people would not question it), and I thank God to have seen through the "mystery cloud" to discover the simple truth about God and His Son, the man Christ Jesus.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
I asked David to post "a direct and substantive response" that explained Peter's point of view as to whether Jesus was God in Acts 2.22-24. What you have provided, Gao, Lu, has substance, but that substance concerns a text from 2 Peter 1, not Acts 2.
Thank you. It was substantive as you say. I didn't see a need to isolate the passage from context of other Scripture. That you insist on doing so is telling--trained as you say you are in hermeneutics.
I'll gladly welcome and respond to your direct and substantive explanation of Acts 2.22-24, should you decide to post one.
Oh that should be easy. First we have the context of all the other Scripture. On top of that we have Paul applying OT passages referring to Yahweh to apply directly to Christ.
Here are a few of those: Romans 10:13 cf. Joel 2:32; 1 Cor. 1:31 cf. Jer. 9:24; 1 Cor. 2:16 cf. Isa. 40:13; 1 Cor. 10:26 cf. Ps. 24:1; 2 Cor. 10:17 cf. Jer. 9:24
And don't miss this: 1 Corinthians 2:16 alludes to Isaiah 40:13.
Shucks, have another: Romans 10:13 refers to Joel 2:32.
Oh, and a few more:
1 Corinthians 1:31 --> Jeremiah 9:24
1 Corinthians 2:16 --> Isaiah 40:13
1 Corinthians 10:26; --> Psalm 24:1Put those puzzle pieces together and only a hard-hearted fanatic rejecting Lordship of Jesus could reject the clear picture.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
How many times have we exchanged scripture interpretations without finding a solution? I notice the same results when you preach to a choir different from your own. So I prefer to present alternatives that cannot be argued.I don't recall having that many (any?) exchanges of Scripture interpretations with you, Dave. To my recollection, your far more common practice has been to offer texts to support your views, but then not to engage in discussions of the validity of those texts when challenged.
Our respective recollections aside, the fact remains that in this thread, my analysis/rebuttal of the texts you offered remains unchallenged by you or any other forum-participating believer in the Trinity.
This is why I use church history where your beliefs stand widely condemned as heresy. That is a fact. And now I use the Pharisees whom you echo in your denial of the trinity and deity of Christ. This too is a fact. But it helps anyone to evaluate your position in the light of the New Testament scriptures.
So when you can't/won't defend your use of Scripture to defend your views, you turn to church history and to the Pharisees... about whom your first source of information, I'm confident, is Scripture... whose applicability you can't/won't defend if I challenge it. But just for my information, please cite a couple of passages where the Pharisees declare that Jesus is not God. I find John 9.16, where they deny that Jesus is FROM God, but in my hurried search, I couldn't find where they expressed an opinion as to whether Jesus WAS God. Please provide.
But the most serious charge against your position is that it denies the true Messiah came in the person of Jesus, in the flesh. Because the Messiah in the OT was God in person. John says, to deny this is the spirit of Antichrist.
While there are indeed OT texts in which God says God will do the saving, it is also true that at the time of Jesus, Jews did not expect the "messiah" to be God, but rather God's representative, a military and political leader from the line of David who would restore Israel (see HERE for a good summary of both the OT's and Judaism's take on the messiah).
As for your claim that "John says" the Messiah is "God in person," we must turn to 1 John 2.18-23... (emphasis added)
18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. 20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge. 21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Jn 2:18–23). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
John doesn't say the spirit of Antichrist is those who deny that the Messiah is "God in person." He says the Antichrist is one who denies the Father and the Son. I don't deny "the Father" (Jesus' name for God) and I don't deny "the Son" (Jesus was the Son of God - cf 1 John 1.3, 1 John 1.7, 1 John 2.1-3, 1 John 3.21-23, and most of 1 John 4, where John makes a clear distinction between God (the Father) and Jesus (God's son). My view is that in 1 John, Jesus is clearly not God, but rather the "Son" God (the "Father") sends.
As for Church history, you may be right. If so, then on this issue, you'll stand on church history and I'll stand on Scripture. I'm okay with that.
The Messiah in the OT is a Divine person (God). You reject this saying Jesus (whom you call the Messiah) was not God. The Pharisees rejected Jesus as the divine Messiah. Either way, you and the Pharisees say the divine Messiah did not come in the flesh. = the Spirit of Antichrist, either way you look at it.
Post edited by Dave_L on
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
