Is Jesus Deity?

dct112685 · February 2018

@Bill_Coley said:

@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, 17

To 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.

Of course he did, but he also wanted to reach his audience. If he immediately gave the truth about Jesus being God, he would have been stoned. You can't just pick and choose pieces of the Bible while ignoring others. They all synthesize.

@Wolfgang said:

@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 ...

I gave you a simple answer.

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.

Except I'm not. There is not one passage that says Jesus is not God.

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.

I am, you are the one who puts God in a box of your own rules.

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.

Except you do not know truth at all, you reject it.

Dave_L · February 2018

I found this outline showing the deity of Christ by nathan busenitz from may 23, 2016

In early church history, one of the biggest theological debates centered on the deity of Jesus Christ. There are still groups that deny His deity today, from Muslims (who say Jesus was merely a prophet) to Jehovah’s Witnesses (who insist that He is not equal to the Father).
By contrast, the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God.

Here are eleven lines of evidence that affirm the doctrine of Christ’s deity, with corresponding biblical references:
1. The Old Testament predicted that the Messiah would be God (Isaiah 9:6; Matt. 1:23)

  Jesus claimed a heavenly preexistence (John 6:62; 8:23; 16:28; 17:5)

```
  Jesus assumed divine authority:
```
Over the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5)

Over the forgiveness of sins (Mark 2:5–11)

Over people’s eternal destinies (John 8:24; cf. Luke 12:8–9; John 5:22, 27–29)
```
  Jesus exercised divine authority
```

Over demons (Mark 1:2–27; 3:11; 5:1–20)

Over disease and death (Mark 1:29–31; 40–45; 5:25–43; 8:22–26; etc.)

Over the natural world (Luke 5:1–11; 8:22–25; 9:10–17; etc.)

```
  Jesus claimed ownership over that which belongs only to God:
```
The kingdom of God (Matt. 13:41; 16:28; cf. Luke 1:33)

The elect of God (Matt. 24:30–31)

The angels of God (Matt. 13:41; 24:30–31)

  Jesus claimed the right to receive worship and the ability to answer prayer (John 14:13–14; cf. Acts 7:59; 9:10–17; Rev. 1:17)

  Jesus called Himself the Son of Man, a title with divine implications from the Old Testament (cf. Dan. 7:13–14)

  Jesus also called Himself the Son of God, a title His opponents understood as a claim to deity (Matt. 27:43; John 5:18; 10:46; 19:7)

  Jesus called Himself “I Am,” thereby applying the Old Testament name Yahweh to Himself (John 8:58; 6:51; 10:9, 11; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1).

   Jesus claimed absolute unity with the Father, such that He could tell His disciples, “If you’ve seen Me, you’ve seen the Father” (John 14:9–10; 10:30; 12:45).

   The rest of the New Testament affirms that Jesus is God (John 1:1; Acts 20:28; Romans 9:5; 1 Corinthians 1:24; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Philippians 2:6; Colossians 1:15–16; 2:9; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:3, 8; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20)

nathan busenitz. (n.d.). the deity of Jesus Christ.

Bill_Coley · February 2018

@Bill_Coley said:
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:

Of course he did, but he also wanted to reach his audience. If he immediately gave the truth about Jesus being God, he would have been stoned. You can't just pick and choose pieces of the Bible while ignoring others. They all synthesize.

Your response surprises me, David. You seem to say that in Acts 2.22-24 (and for that matter, throughout his sermon found in Acts 2) Peter withheld from his audience the truth about Jesus' divine identity - that is, he gave them the false impression that Jesus was NOT God - in order to "reach his audience." In your view, is the giving of false information/impressions in order to reach audiences a common technique in the Bible? If so, what interpretive method(s) do you employ to discern between falsehoods used to reach audiences and the truth those falsehoods fail to communicate?

But I contend there's a larger challenge to your explanation of Peter's testimony in Acts 2. You've made clear your view that the Gospels attest to Jesus' making no secret of his own divinity. So after multiple years of Jesus' claims to divinity, doesn't it seem reasonable to assume many in Peter's audience in Jerusalem would not have been surprised had Peter told them the "truth"? Why did Peter have to lie when by the time he preached, surely the "truth" would have spread widely?

And the final challenge to your point of view, I contend, is simply that I can't imagine Peter's deciding that it was okay to tell his audience something about Jesus that was no better than misleading, and more bluntly, plainly false.

dct112685 · February 2018

@Bill_Coley said:

@Bill_Coley said:
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:

Of course he did, but he also wanted to reach his audience. If he immediately gave the truth about Jesus being God, he would have been stoned. You can't just pick and choose pieces of the Bible while ignoring others. They all synthesize.

Your response surprises me, David. You seem to say that in Acts 2.22-24 (and for that matter, throughout his sermon found in Acts 2) Peter withheld from his audience the truth about Jesus' divine identity - that is, he gave them the false impression that Jesus was NOT God - in order to "reach his audience." In your view, is the giving of false information/impressions in order to reach audiences a common technique in the Bible? If so, what interpretive method(s) do you employ to discern between falsehoods used to reach audiences and the truth those falsehoods fail to communicate?

He did not give them false information. Do you go into a whole theology course when you witness to someone? I doubt it. He gave them the information they needed to hear at that time.

But I contend there's a larger challenge to your explanation of Peter's testimony in Acts 2. You've made clear your view that the Gospels attest to Jesus' making no secret of his own divinity. So after multiple years of Jesus' claims to divinity, doesn't it seem reasonable to assume many in Peter's audience in Jerusalem would not have been surprised had Peter told them the "truth"? Why did Peter have to lie when by the time he preached, surely the "truth" would have spread widely?

He didn't lie to them, and remember, this was still a volatile time for that audience with regard to Jesus. No need to poke the bear so to speak.

And the final challenge to your point of view, I contend, is simply that I can't imagine Peter's deciding that it was okay to tell his audience something about Jesus that was no better than misleading, and more bluntly, plainly false.

Except he didn't so I'm not sure how your challenge is valid.

Bill_Coley · February 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:
He (Peter) did not give them false information. Do you go into a whole theology course when you witness to someone? I doubt it. He gave them the information they needed to hear at that time.

The issue with Peter's Acts 2 sermon is not whether it provides a "whole theology course," but whether the parts of the theology course it does offer are misleading and perhaps, even false. And so I ask you for a direct answer to this question:

As to the issue of whether Jesus was God, what impression would his audience would have most naturally and understandably have taken from Peter's sermon in Acts 2, particularly Acts 2.22-24? Please specify verses in the Acts 2 sermon that in your view communicate the message about Jesus' divinity from which Peter's audience would most naturally have taken that impression. [NOTE: I am NOT asking about other parts of the NT, or other Peterine writings. The subject of our exchange here is solely Peter's Acts 2 sermon.]

He (Peter) didn't lie to them, and remember, this was still a volatile time for that audience with regard to Jesus. No need to poke the bear so to speak.

I contend that on the question of Jesus' divinity, the clear message of Peter's Acts 2 sermon, particularly Acts 2.22-24, is that Jesus was NOT God, a claim that clearly contradicts the assertion you and many others make, that Jesus WAS God. If Peter knew Jesus was God - and I'm pretty confident you claim he did - then how was his sermon's impression to the contrary anything other than a lie?

Bill_Coley · February 2018

In my sermon prep today, I ran a passage that I don't remembering citing in previous debates about the divinity of Jesus, so I offer it here: John 7.14-19, particularly John 7.16-18.... (emphasis added)

16 So Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. 17 If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. 18 The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Jn 7:16–18). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

I contend that in those verses, Jesus clearly distinguishes between himself and God:

He says the message he brings is not his own, but God's. (v.16)
He says people will know whether his teaching is from God or from his own authority (v.17)
He says people who speak on their own authority seek their own glory. But since he speaks on the authority of the one who sent him - not his own authority - there is no falsehood in him. (v.18)

He speaks God's message, not his own message.
He distinguishes between teaching that's from God and teaching that's from himself.
He says he speaks on the authority of the one who sent him, not on his own authority.
In my view, had Jesus believed himself to be God, he would not and could not have said any of those three things.

[Deleted User] · February 2018

@Bill_Coley said:
He speaks God's message, not his own message.
He distinguishes between teaching that's from God and teaching that's from himself.
He says he speaks on the authority of the one who sent him, not on his own authority.
In my view, had Jesus believed himself to be God, he would not and could not have said any of those three things.

Thank you for pointing out another passage of Scripture which rather clearly states that Jesus is not God and that Jesus himself did not think of himself as being God.

I wonder what the likes of @davidtaylorjr will have to say, now that their idea of "there is no scripture that teaches that Jesus is not God has been shown to be plain false ?

Dave_L · February 2018

This passage might help to see Jesus' divinity. I took it from a couple of different translations.

“You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had. Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form, he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross.” (Philippians 2:5–8)

“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” (Philippians 2:5–8)

dct112685 · February 2018

@Bill_Coley said:

@davidtaylorjr said:
He (Peter) did not give them false information. Do you go into a whole theology course when you witness to someone? I doubt it. He gave them the information they needed to hear at that time.

The issue with Peter's Acts 2 sermon is not whether it provides a "whole theology course," but whether the parts of the theology course it does offer are misleading and perhaps, even false. And so I ask you for a direct answer to this question:

As to the issue of whether Jesus was God, what impression would his audience would have most naturally and understandably have taken from Peter's sermon in Acts 2, particularly Acts 2.22-24? Please specify verses in the Acts 2 sermon that in your view communicate the message about Jesus' divinity from which Peter's audience would most naturally have taken that impression. [NOTE: I am NOT asking about other parts of the NT, or other Peterine writings. The subject of our exchange here is solely Peter's Acts 2 sermon.]

It is irrelevant. I'm not going to partake in the poor interpretive practice of taking one small piece of Scripture without the rest of Scripture.

He (Peter) didn't lie to them, and remember, this was still a volatile time for that audience with regard to Jesus. No need to poke the bear so to speak.

I contend that on the question of Jesus' divinity, the clear message of Peter's Acts 2 sermon, particularly Acts 2.22-24, is that Jesus was NOT God, a claim that clearly contradicts the assertion you and many others make, that Jesus WAS God. If Peter knew Jesus was God - and I'm pretty confident you claim he did - then how was his sermon's impression to the contrary anything other than a lie?

It wasn't a lie. If I tell you that my name is Charles (my middle name) but don't tell you my first name is David, that would give you the impression that my name is Charles. Is that a lie? Absolutely not.

Bill_Coley · February 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:
It is irrelevant. I'm not going to partake in the poor interpretive practice of taking one small piece of Scripture without the rest of Scripture.

You claim the message about the deity of Jesus that Peter delivered in his Acts 2 sermon is "irrelevant." I doubt that Peter would agree with you, David. I know I don't agree with you.

But alas, in defense of the irrelevance of Peter's Acts 2 sermon, you rely on your oft-used claim that the Bible must be read as a whole, that its component parts can't be separated. In general, I adhere to that rule, which is why I claim the vast majority, but not all, applicable NT verses deny the deity of Jesus, and that the fact that so many verses deny his deity matters.

But I don't remember reading a post of yours, David, in which you acknowledged the existence of verses that at least seem to deny the deity of Jesus. To my recollection, when I have raised a verse/passage to your attention on this matter, BY FAR your most common reaction has been not to engage it directly, but rather to dismiss its apparent message by saying the rest of the Bible says something else.

You raised Colossians 1.16. I responded to it directly, in my response even restating its content, then reviewing its larger context in Colossians. I raised for you Acts 2.22-24. You called it irrelevant and moved on. Notice any difference in our responses?

In this thread I have now also called John 7.16-18 to your attention. Will you engage the content of that passage directly? Or will you dismiss it, too, with your claim that in your view, the rest of the Bible says something else, so you don't have to engage John 7?

Is your operating premise, David, that you will not directly engage verses/passages that say things that don't conform to your theology? that you will evade their apparently conflicting messages by turning attention quickly to verses/passages that in your view support your view?

In my view, Peter's Acts 2 sermon is NOT irrelevant, nor is his obvious AND CONSISTENT message about the deity of Jesus throughout that sermon.

It (Peter's apparent distinction between Jesus and God if Peter believed Jesus was God) wasn't a lie. If I tell you that my name is Charles (my middle name) but don't tell you my first name is David, that would give you the impression that my name is Charles. Is that a lie? Absolutely not.

In my view, this is not a matter of first and middle names; this is a matter of last names. The language of Peter's sermon - language found in multiple other verses in Acts and the rest of the NT - suggests, to use your imagery, that Peter doesn't think you are Jones if you tell him you're a Taylor.

When Peter calls Jesus the man God raised, that sounds like Peter is saying Jesus was not God.

[Deleted User] · February 2018

@Bill_Coley said:
When Peter calls Jesus the man God raised, that sounds like Peter is saying Jesus was not God.

Who cares what that ignorant unlearned fisherman from Galilee was saying? He got it all mixed up ... only the "fully man" part, the "image", "what seemed to be" ,Jesus, had died, but the real Jesus, the "fully God" part, of course never died, and actually himself raised the other "fully man" part of himself. But since that self-made amateur preacher was drunk with wine -- as many of the audience recognized as the what was really going on -- he obviously just didn't quite know what he was even talking about in his "tongues preaching sermon". The majority was not fooled and knew how the "unity Tri-God" had done all that.

Dave_L · February 2018

[Jesus] “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:” (Philippians 2:6–7)

“And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Philippians 2:8)

I think Unitarians, The Way International, Jws' and others unwittingly see Jesus in the limited way they do, not knowing he intentionally made himself of no reputation as God. If he tried to make himself of no reputation as a mere man, he failed. Since people today mention him every time they cuss or put up a Christmas tree.

Bill_Coley · February 2018

@Dave_L said:
[Jesus] “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:” (Philippians 2:6–7)

Note the hymnic language here refers to Jesus' "being** in the form of** God," not "being God," The verse reminds me of John 1.14, wherein "the Word became flesh," and Colossians 2.9, where the "fullness of God" lived in Jesus.

“And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Philippians 2:8)

Jesus humbled himself in obedience to whom? Obviously, God, the one who, in Philippians 2.9, exalts Jesus and bestows on him the name that is above all other names, a name so great that, in Philippians 2.11, every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God. A clear distinction between God and the one God exalted. (As for the "Father" reference in v.11, notice that there is no analogous reference to Jesus: Paul does NOT say every tongue "will confess that Jesus is Son, to the glory of God the Father." Hence, in my view, the "Father" reference is not for Paul a nod to trinitarian thinking, but rather his way of reporting God.

I think Unitarians, The Way International, Jws' and others unwittingly see Jesus in the limited way they do, not knowing he intentionally made himself of no reputation as God. If he tried to make himself of no reputation as a mere man, he failed. Since people today mention him every time they cuss or put up a Christmas tree.

I can't discern that point you're trying to make here, Dave. Please restate it.

Dave_L · February 2018

@Bill_Coley said:

@Dave_L said:
[Jesus] “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:” (Philippians 2:6–7)

Note the hymnic language here refers to Jesus' "being** in the form of** God," not "being God," The verse reminds me of John 1.14, wherein "the Word became flesh," and Colossians 2.9, where the "fullness of God" lived in Jesus.

“And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Philippians 2:8)

Jesus humbled himself in obedience to whom? Obviously, God, the one who, in Philippians 2.9, exalts Jesus and bestows on him the name that is above all other names, a name so great that, in Philippians 2.11, every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God. A clear distinction between God and the one God exalted. (As for the "Father" reference in v.11, notice that there is no analogous reference to Jesus: Paul does NOT say every tongue "will confess that Jesus is Son, to the glory of God the Father." Hence, in my view, the "Father" reference is not for Paul a nod to trinitarian thinking, but rather his way of reporting God.

I think Unitarians, The Way International, Jws' and others unwittingly see Jesus in the limited way they do, not knowing he intentionally made himself of no reputation as God. If he tried to make himself of no reputation as a mere man, he failed. Since people today mention him every time they cuss or put up a Christmas tree.

I can't discern that point you're trying to make here, Dave. Please restate it.

What did Paul refer to when he said Jesus became of no reputation? Obviously it was his deity because it takes special revelation to discern this. And we know Jesus the man became notorious since any can grasp this with their natural senses.

Another way to ask would be, how did a notorious person become without a reputation? Unless it was a certain unknown charistic that became obscured?

I think if you keep this in the forefront of your interpretations, it explains why you emphasize Jesus' physical human characteristics over the divine. Even Peter could not make out who Jesus truly was apart from special revelation.

[Deleted User] · February 2018

@Dave_L said:
[Jesus] “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:” (Philippians 2:6–7)

this explanatory statement about Jesus further expounds on "how the man Jesus thought", expounds on "the mind of the man Christ Jesus", to which reference is made in Phil 2:5 where the believers are encouraged to have that same type of mind, to think along the same lines as Jesus did !!
Such an encouragement would of course be total non-sense if it were talking about God Jesus humbling himself to become a man ... since humans are not God(s) who can humble themselves to become humans.

Please note, v. 6 does not even state that "[Jesus] was God", but rather states that "[Jesus], being in the form of God" ... I would consider this to allude to the truth that the man Jesus was the only begotten Son of God. Very telling is the next phrase "thought it not robbery [did not consider to grasp] to be equal with God" ... an allusion to the first Adam, who - in contrast to Jesus (!) - did grasp at equality with God (remember Gen 3 ? ).

Next, we do not read that "God Jesus" humbled himself in order to take upon him the form of a human being ... instead, we read that Jesus (the man Jesus) humbled himself and with total obedience to God took on the form of a bond slave. Perhaps Trinity believers can tell us to whom God would make himself a slave ????

“And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Philippians 2:8)

To whom became the man Jesus obedient unto death? He was obedient to God in order to accomplish God's plan for man's redemption and salvation.

The passage from Philippians 2:5ff has nothing whatever to do with Jesus is God or a supposed "Deity of Christ", instead it proves that there is a clear distinction between Jesus and Jesus' God to Whom Jesus became obedient even unto the death of the cross"

Furthermore, please note: Believing that Jesus is what Scripture teaches, that is, that man, whom God sent as the Messiah, and who gave himself as a ransom for many, is in no way limiting Jesus .... on the other hand, making Jesus God, which he is not and never claimed to be, is the opposite of limiting, namely "expanding" Jesus into something which he is not!

Dave_L · February 2018

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
[Jesus] “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:” (Philippians 2:6–7)

this explanatory statement about Jesus further expounds on "how the man Jesus thought", expounds on "the mind of the man Christ Jesus", to which reference is made in Phil 2:5 where the believers are encouraged to have that same type of mind, to think along the same lines as Jesus did !!
Such an encouragement would of course be total non-sense if it were talking about God Jesus humbling himself to become a man ... since humans are not God(s) who can humble themselves to become humans.

Please note, v. 6 does not even state that "[Jesus] was God", but rather states that "[Jesus], being in the form of God" ... I would consider this to allude to the truth that the man Jesus was the only begotten Son of God. Very telling is the next phrase "thought it not robbery [did not consider to grasp] to be equal with God" ... an allusion to the first Adam, who - in contrast to Jesus (!) - did grasp at equality with God (remember Gen 3 ? ).

Next, we do not read that "God Jesus" humbled himself in order to take upon him the form of a human being ... instead, we read that Jesus (the man Jesus) humbled himself and with total obedience to God took on the form of a bond slave. Perhaps Trinity believers can tell us to whom God would make himself a slave ????

“And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Philippians 2:8)

To whom became the man Jesus obedient unto death? He was obedient to God in order to accomplish God's plan for man's redemption and salvation.

The passage from Philippians 2:5ff has nothing whatever to do with Jesus is God or a supposed "Deity of Christ", instead it proves that there is a clear distinction between Jesus and Jesus' God to Whom Jesus became obedient even unto the death of the cross"

The question is: how does a notorious man make himself of no reputation?

[Deleted User] · February 2018

@Dave_L said:
The question is: how does a notorious man make himself of no reputation?

Who and what is a notorious man?

I've known some people in different fields of rather high rank or standing in the respective field, who "have made themselves of no reputation" and changed their "white collars" into a "servant" outfit and obeyed directions of others rather than demanding obedience which would have been the normal thing in regards to their rank and standing.

It's all very simple, Dave_L, .... but it becomes very difficult and mostly impossible to see true colors when one's eyes are covered by some colored glasses ... one can easily apply this to see and recognize Biblical truth while wearing theologically colored glasses

Dave_L · February 2018

The thing is, Jesus became notorious as a man, yet Paul says he made himself of no reputation. Is Paul crazy? Or are we missing something?

[Deleted User] · February 2018

@Dave_L said:
The thing is, Jesus became notorious as a man, ...

What are you talking about? You come up with ideas that are so "far out in left field" that even the fastest outfielder can't get it .... My outfielder experience is not sufficient for your comment ....

Dave_L · February 2018

I'm talking about Paul saying [Jesus] .."made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:” (Philippians 2:7)

Yet he is the most notorious person ever to live. That's why I ask if Paul is delusional, or possibly we are overlooking the meaning of his words.

[Deleted User] · February 2018

@Dave_L said:
I'm talking about Paul saying [Jesus] .."made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:” (Philippians 2:7)

Really? and what would have your following statement have to do with this verse?

Yet he is the most notorious person ever to live. That's why I ask if Paul is delusional, or possibly we are overlooking the meaning of his words

So, you say that Jesus is "the most notorious person ever to live" ? In other words, according to you, God became the most notorious person to ever live?

Your comment seems total non-sense ... and that impression has nothing to do whatever with what one believes concerning the topic at hand

Bill_Coley · February 2018

@Dave_L said:
What did Paul refer to when he said Jesus became of no reputation? Obviously it was his deity because it takes special revelation to discern this. And we know Jesus the man became notorious since any can grasp this with their natural senses.

"Notorious" means well known or famous, but usually for bad deeds or actions. For what bad deeds or actions do you contend Jesus became notorious?

As for his becoming a person of "no reputation," it seems to me that Paul finds a great difference between Jesus' state as a crucified servant/slave and the state of one who was "in the form of God." Jesus chose to be the obedient servant, a state which, compared to the state Paul believes he could have had, was basically nothing... or of "no reputation."

Note also that Paul commends to us the mindset that led Jesus to choose obedience.

Another way to ask would be, how did a notorious person become without a reputation? Unless it was a certain unknown charistic that became obscured?

In my view, Paul's point in the Philippians 2 passage is that as obedient, crucified servant/slave, Jesus was, to use your words, "without a reputation." But in response to that surrender of self, God exalted Jesus, giving him - the one who chose to be the no-count, obedient, servant/slave - the name that is above all names. So Jesus was not "notorious" (though I challenge your choice of that adjective) until God exalted him. On his own - as obedient servant/slave - he was no-count, or of "no reputation.

I think if you keep this in the forefront of your interpretations, it explains why you emphasize Jesus' physical human characteristics over the divine. Even Peter could not make out who Jesus truly was apart from special revelation.

Is this your veiled way of acknowledging that in his Acts 2 sermon to which I have referred on multiple occasions in this thread - e.g. Acts 2.22-24 - Peter DOES in fact seem to contend that Jesus was not God?

I disagree with your suggestion that I emphasize Jesus' human characteristics over his divine ones. I believe I emphasize his characteristics as defined in the whole of the New Testament.

C Mc · February 2018

@Bill_Coley said:

As for my point of view about the Bible, I offered a hurried and unrefined summary of it in a post on p.12 of this thread. I would welcome an engagement with you on the content of that summary ...

Bill, I just found this, after all this time. Sorry, I couldn't find it, large thread. I will check out page 12 sometimes later.

on the broader subject of the authority/inspiration of the Bible... but, please, not on the subject of the state of people who hold views on that subject.

Bill, you said, "...not on the subject of the state of people who hold views on that subject", is that possible? Does a person becomes what he is or become what he embraces? Somewhere, I read, "we are changed by beholding." What are you endorsing here, the immaculate man or the immaculate thoughts-views? Are you trying to have your cake and eat it too? Is a man his thoughts or thoughts makes the man? Until next time, Thought-man. CM

Dave_L · February 2018

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
I'm talking about Paul saying [Jesus] .."made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:” (Philippians 2:7)

Really? and what would have your following statement have to do with this verse?

Yet he is the most notorious person ever to live. That's why I ask if Paul is delusional, or possibly we are overlooking the meaning of his words

So, you say that Jesus is "the most notorious person ever to live" ? In other words, according to you, God became the most notorious person to ever live?

Your comment seems total non-sense ... and that impression has nothing to do whatever with what one believes concerning the topic at hand

Paul speaks of Jesus becoming of no reputation. But we know as a man, Jesus is very reputable. So was Paul wrong? His name remains the first choice in cuss words for every wretched soul spewing their hatred and misery. Not to mention he remains the object of adoration for untold billions throughout the centuries.

But consider Jesus as God. “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” (John 6:38) And it becomes obvious that in his divinity he became of no reputation. To the point that the Jews killed him for saying he was the Messiah.

Dave_L · February 2018

@Bill_Coley said:

@Dave_L said:
What did Paul refer to when he said Jesus became of no reputation? Obviously it was his deity because it takes special revelation to discern this. And we know Jesus the man became notorious since any can grasp this with their natural senses.

"Notorious" means well known or famous, but usually for bad deeds or actions. For what bad deeds or actions do you contend Jesus became notorious?

As for his becoming a person of "no reputation," it seems to me that Paul finds a great difference between Jesus' state as a crucified servant/slave and the state of one who was "in the form of God." Jesus chose to be the obedient servant, a state which, compared to the state Paul believes he could have had, was basically nothing... or of "no reputation."

Note also that Paul commends to us the mindset that led Jesus to choose obedience.

Another way to ask would be, how did a notorious person become without a reputation? Unless it was a certain unknown charistic that became obscured?

In my view, Paul's point in the Philippians 2 passage is that as obedient, crucified servant/slave, Jesus was, to use your words, "without a reputation." But in response to that surrender of self, God exalted Jesus, giving him - the one who chose to be the no-count, obedient, servant/slave - the name that is above all names. So Jesus was not "notorious" (though I challenge your choice of that adjective) until God exalted him. On his own - as obedient servant/slave - he was no-count, or of "no reputation.

I think if you keep this in the forefront of your interpretations, it explains why you emphasize Jesus' physical human characteristics over the divine. Even Peter could not make out who Jesus truly was apart from special revelation.

Is this your veiled way of acknowledging that in his Acts 2 sermon to which I have referred on multiple occasions in this thread - e.g. Acts 2.22-24 - Peter DOES in fact seem to contend that Jesus was not God?

I disagree with your suggestion that I emphasize Jesus' human characteristics over his divine ones. I believe I emphasize his characteristics as defined in the whole of the New Testament.

Please excuse my misuse of the word Notorious. What I should have said was how Famous Jesus remains today. But in view of this Paul says he became of no reputation, despite the fact he did not - if only a man. But obviously he became of no reputation as God, because only by divine revelation will a person know that he is.

Bill_Coley · February 2018

@Dave_L said:
Please excuse my misuse of the word Notorious. What I should have said was how Famous Jesus remains today. But in view of this Paul says he became of no reputation, despite the fact he did not - if only a man. But obviously he became of no reputation as God, because only by divine revelation will a person know that he is.

The response I offered in my previous post in this thread remains valid now that we have clarified word choice.

In my view, for Paul, Jesus gained lasting fame as a result of God's raising him in the resurrection. Prior to the resurrection, Jesus was the no-count, obedient servant/slave - the one of "no reputation" - who accepted his fate, a choice that took him to the cross.

So this is a matter of sequence. Jesus wasn't forever famous because he was an obedient servant. He became forever famous when God raised him following the crucifixion Jesus chose to accept. Hence, I think Paul argues that a no-count servant/slave became forever famous by virtue of God's powerful response to that servant's obedience.

Hope that made sense!

Dave_L · February 2018

@Bill_Coley said:

@Dave_L said:
Please excuse my misuse of the word Notorious. What I should have said was how Famous Jesus remains today. But in view of this Paul says he became of no reputation, despite the fact he did not - if only a man. But obviously he became of no reputation as God, because only by divine revelation will a person know that he is.

The response I offered in my previous post in this thread remains valid now that we have clarified word choice.

In my view, for Paul, Jesus gained lasting fame as a result of God's raising him in the resurrection. Prior to the resurrection, Jesus was the no-count, obedient servant/slave - the one of "no reputation" - who accepted his fate, a choice that took him to the cross.

So this is a matter of sequence. Jesus wasn't forever famous because he was an obedient servant. He became forever famous when God raised him following the crucifixion Jesus chose to accept. Hence, I think Paul argues that a no-count servant/slave became forever famous by virtue of God's powerful response to that servant's obedience.

Hope that made sense!

I believe what you say is true, but if Paul said Jesus became of no reputation concerning one thing but, when it is obvious he became of reputation for another, wouldn't Paul be referring to the thing Jesus did not become known for?

The Jews killed him because he did not have a reputation for being God.

C Mc · February 2018

@Bill_Coley said:

In rough, on-the-spot, and condensed form, my view of the Bible is that it is the inspired word of God, written and compiled by human beings who were moved, guided, and inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Thanks, Bill, for expanding the conversation in the area of inspiration (Bible).

God's Word is God-breathed. "It is true. It is trustworthy. It is relevant." The internal testimony of 2 Tim 3:16-17, suggest, "The Bible is sufficient and gives us the guidance we need to follow in God's ways" and "it is inspired by Him and it is used for teaching, rebuking, training."

To accept the Bible as the as the inspired Word of God is to let the Bible be its own interpreter. That is, bring together all that is said about a particular subject from different times and varied circumstances as revealed in Scripture (e.g. Godhead, wine, etc.,). This also includes that the various passages on the same subject be compared and studied together, the fullest meaning of Scripture will not be made evident unless the respective passages from the same and other biblical writers of various times and circumstances are brought together.

When the above is applied one should be aware of his presuppositions (more on this in another post). All interpretations or theologies are built on them. They are briefly:

Accept the entire Bible as the inspired Word of God delivered through human instrumentality under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Biblical history raises and answers some of life's most profound questions. "In the beginning God . . ." (Gn 1:1). On this platform it builds its whole philosophy; from it stems the Judeo-Christian approach to the past, present, and hereafter.

The interpreter's understanding of the whole message of Scripture and his view of the nature and authority of the Bible largely determine his hermeneutical methods. Diverse interpretations of the Bible are largely the result of the philosophical presuppositions of the interpreter and his attitudes toward revelation-inspiration and the resultant authority of Scripture.

For example, here are Some Basic Presuppositions of the NT Writers:

The OT is authoritative for faith and practice (Rom 1:2; 2 Ti 3:15).
The Holy Spirit is the divine author of the OT (1 Pe 1: 10, 11).
Divine revelation is progressive in nature. (Acts 13:32, 33).
There is unity between the OT and the apostolic witness. (2 Pe 3:2).
The historical records of the OT are accepted as genuine. The miraculous experiences of Salaam, Elijah, and Jonah.
The moral and spiritual truths of the OT are of permanent value. "For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction. . . ." (Rom 15:4).
Christ is the focus of all divine action in the OT whether it be through historical experience, prophecy, or ritual worship. "To him [the Christ] all the prophets bear witness," states the apostle Peter (Acts 10:43).
Christianity is the new Israel, composed of born-again persons whether of Gentile or Jewish origin (Gal 6:15, 16).
In Christianity, there is a discontinuity with the typical system of Judaism. (Heb 10:1-4, 12).
God's Word is valid in translation.

The NT writers were a part of a multilingual environment. This indicates that the three languages-- Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek--were used by the Jews in first- century Palestine.

In short, the Christian expositor would be in harmony with the basic presuppositions of the NT writers.

Through the writings of the Bible, God spoke to both their original audiences and audiences throughout time since.

Yes, and he (God) doesn’t contradict himself. The OT point to the NT and the NT affirms the OT.

Due to human involvement in the creation of the writings of the Bible, there are errors and mistakes. Some are copyist errors. Some are errors rooted in different source material. Some are errors created by cultural influence.

“The vast amount of manuscript material now available as a result of the amazing discoveries of the last century enables us, in many instances, to trace copyists' errors by a careful comparison of the materials on hand. For example, if a reading in a manuscript of comparatively recent date is not found in any of the earlier manuscripts or versions, it is almost certain that the error is of late date. By accepting the reading of the earlier manuscripts, especially if these are in agreement, one is far more likely to be selecting the reading of the original autograph document. A notable instance of a late insertion is found in 1 John 5:7, 8. The words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" are not found in the Greek manuscripts (except two late cursives from the time of Erasmus, the Old Latin and Syriac versions, the quotations of the early Christian writers, nor in the earlier editions of the Vulgate. They are found, however, in the later editions of the Vulgate and from there found their way into the Textus Receptus because Erasmus yielded to pressure. Hence it is evident that John did not write these words. On the other hand, the omission of this statement from Scripture does not destroy or modify the doctrine of the Trinity. The knowledge essential for us regarding the relationship of the beings in the Godhead is sufficiently set forth in other Scriptures.” -- BOETTNER, L. Studies in Theology. Grand Rapids) Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1940. 88 pp.

Therefore, truth of the Bible often cannot be discerned from a single verse or passage, but rather from an engagement with the whole of Scripture (e.g. as to the divinity of Jesus).

Yes, see above.

The presence of errors, in my view, does NOT mean that the Bible is not inspired;

"...it rather means there were humans involved in its creation.

Slow down, here. The Bible is a Divine/human product. Holy men of God, wrote, as they were moved, by the Holy Spirit. The man was not the author of the Holy text, but the writers. They were God penmen, not God’s pen. I believe in verbal inspiration and not that God dictated every word to the prophet or writer.

The errors also do NOT invalidate 2 Timothy 3.16.

Amen! That includes OT (Jesus referred to in his teachings/preaching) and the NT (His sayings, teachings, and life). All of the Bible-- “Tota Scriptura” (more, if like).

The person I recalled readily from history is Mary Baker Eddy (1910). She was a lifelong student of metaphysics. She’s mentioned solely because of her departures from the Word of God. Ms. Eddy believed that “mistakes” have crept into “ancient versions,” thus “darkening” the “inspired pages.” The Bible, Mrs. Eddy asserts, is marred, by mistranslations, which are corrected by the renderings of Christian Science. Her book Science and Health (1934), the basic textbook and supreme authority for the movement-Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, first issued in 1875, was the sure the means to correction. This besides the point, she claimed to have taken the Bible as her “sole guide,” her “only authority,” and “the only textbook.” But she declares that The Bible must be understood in its “spiritual meaning,” and with “metaphysical interpretation” because otherwise, it abounds with “metaphors” and “allegory,” as well as “myth” and “fable” that confuse and mislead.

Source: Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Health (1934), pp. viii, 110, 126, 139, 320, 319. See also p. 579.

[Deleted User] · February 2018

@Dave_L said:
I believe what you say is true, but if Paul said Jesus became of no reputation concerning one thing but, when it is obvious he became of reputation for another, wouldn't Paul be referring to the thing Jesus did not become known for?

The Jews killed him because he did not have a reputation for being God.

Seems to me like you are getting hung up on the modern meaning of the word "reputation" ... which as such is not even in the Biblical text, only in some English translation.

Also, the text does not say that Jesus "became of no reputation", it rather says that Jesus HIMSELF "emptied himself" and he made himself a bond slave ...

I am astonished what Trinity adherents come up with as explanations for verses which clearly shoot down their "trinity doctrine" when read and understood accurately.

Dave_L · February 2018

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
I believe what you say is true, but if Paul said Jesus became of no reputation concerning one thing but, when it is obvious he became of reputation for another, wouldn't Paul be referring to the thing Jesus did not become known for?

The Jews killed him because he did not have a reputation for being God.

Seems to me like you are getting hung up on the modern meaning of the word "reputation" ... which as such is not even in the Biblical text, only in some English translation.

Also, the text does not say that Jesus "became of no reputation", it rather says that Jesus HIMSELF "emptied himself" and he made himself a bond slave ...

I am astonished what Trinity adherents come up with as explanations for verses which clearly shoot down their "trinity doctrine" when read and understood accurately.

Without reputation, empty, void of reputation the point being Paul said Jesus became such. But certainly this cannot mean he became such as a man. He is the most famous man ever to live. So how does Paul reconcile this reputation with the one Christ is said not to have?

I believe Paul refers to Jesus' divinity that petty few were ever aware of when he walked the earth. The fact that they killed him for making himself equal with God, and claiming to be the Messiah strongly suggest this.

“For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.” (John 6:38)

Is Jesus Deity?

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Who's Online 0