Is Jesus Deity?
Comments
-
@Dave_L said:
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?In a couple of previous posts, I offered my take on this issue, Dave. You responded to my take, but in a way that, with respect, I could not decipher.
My take on the issue you raise is that BEFORE his resurrection/glorification, Paul believes, Jesus was an obedient, no-count servant who humbled himself to the cross. It's the humble, servant Jesus who was "void of reputation," to use your phrase. But that changed when God raised Jesus in the resurrection, and gave him the name that is above all names. Because of that glorification, Jesus became famous, the "most famous man ever to live," to use your phrase.
So "famous" only AFTER the resurrection/glorification. A humble, no-count, emptied self BEFORE the resurrection.
Your response to a previous version of that take was this...
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.
I don't know what you meant by that response, particularly its first paragraph.
-
@Dave_L said:
Without reputation, empty, void of reputation the point being Paul said Jesus became such.No, Paul does not say, hat Jesus became such .... the text says, that Jesus emptied himself
But certainly this cannot mean he became such as a man. He is the most famous man ever to live.
??? He was destined to be king and as God's son was "royalty" ... yet, he himself, decided by his own willful decision, to empty himself of the rights and privileges of this position and rank and make himself a servant, a bond-slave, humbling himself in obedience to God even to the point of death of the cross.
As I mentioned before, you are fixated on the term "reputation" and its particular shade of meaning as "famous" ... and you do so because you go by a certain English translation and misunderstand the term.
So how does Paul reconcile this reputation with the one Christ is said not to have?
Further misunderstanding .... nowhere does Paul even think along the lines you do in terms of Christ being famous but Paul not saying that he is famous ...
I believe Paul refers to Jesus' divinity that petty few were ever aware of when he walked the earth.
You are free to believe what you want to believe .... but why not just believe what the text in the immediate context declares? Where Paul in simple words explains that the man Christ Jesus humbled himself by making himself a bond-slave even though he was God's only begotten Son, which provides an example for humility which Paul encourages in the section, introducing his point by the statement in v.5, that believers should think in the same manner as Jesus thought ...
The fact that they killed him for making himself equal with God, and claiming to be the Messiah strongly suggest this.
what does that have to do with Jesus' attitude, Jesus' thinking, Jesus' mind which is the central point of the whole section in Phi 2:5ff ?
“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)
Thanks for pointing out one of the verses which does in fact relate to Phil 2:6-7 in that it refers to the man Jesus' humble mind and his obedience to God. I trust you realize that Jesus in this statement from Joh 6:38 clearly indicates that he is NOT God, because he makes a clear distinction between (a) himself, and (b) the one [God] who sent him .
-
@C_M_ said:
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."In my use of the terms, to claim that the Bible is "true," "trustworthy," and "relevant" does NOT require that the Bible be without error.
Is the Bible right about slavery? No.
Is the Bible right about the role of women in the home and in the church? No.
Is the Bible right about God's support for genocide? No.
Does the Bible contain NO contradictions? No.Do those make the Bible untrue, untrustworthy, and irrelevant? Not in my view.
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.
I agree, which is why I attest to the need for discerning the truth of the whole of Scripture, not just selected portions.
- Accept the entire Bible as the inspired Word of God delivered through human instrumentality under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
I make this claim, but for me it raises the question of the impact of "human instrumentality." In my view, that humans were involved means the end product was susceptible to error.
- 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.
I, too, grant the Bible profound status as an influence on people and culture.
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.
I largely agree with you here, though I'll highlight the importance of those presuppositions on the interpreter's reception and handling of possible errors. Interpreters convinced that the Bible is inerrant will resist assertions of possible errors, however sensible or evidence-based those claims are.
For example, here are Some Basic Presuppositions of the NT Writers:
2. The Holy Spirit is the divine author of the OT (1 Pe 1: 10, 11).I don't read those verses to refer to the "OT" writ large, nor to authorship of any OT text. I read those verses to refer to the inspiration of certain prophetic content and foci.
- 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.
I don't have time to engage all of the presuppositions that you list. Please let it suffice for me to say that in my view, few of your presuppositions deals with the meaning of claims that the Bible is "inspired," specifically, whether "inspired" texts filtered through humans hands can contain errors.
“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.
At first I thought your response was headed for the issue of the possibility of errors in the Bible. It turns out that your focus was on the Trinity, a doctrine about whose biblical foundations you and I obviously disagree.
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.
I THINK I agree with you, but I'm not sure. The "man" didn't write the text, but the "writers" did? What's the difference between the "man" and the "writers"?
I also don't believe God dictated the words we find in the Bible.
-
In my use of the terms, to claim that the Bible is "true," "trustworthy," and "relevant" does NOT require that the Bible be without error.
Is the Bible right about slavery? No.
Is the Bible right about the role of women in the home and in the church? No.
Is the Bible right about God's support for genocide? No.
Does the Bible contain NO contradictions? No.Do those make the Bible untrue, untrustworthy, and irrelevant? Not in my view.
That is amazing logic.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@C_M_ said:
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.I THINK I agree with you, but I'm not sure. The "man" didn't write the text, but the "writers" did? What's the difference between the "man" and the "writers"?
The difference C_M pointed out was between author and writer ... and I think, he may have meant to write: "The men were not the authors of the Holy text, but they were the writers."
In other words, God - as the One Who inspired holy men of God - is the one author, those holy men of God - as the ones who were inspired by God - are the writers (they wrote down not their own ideas but rather wrote down what they were inspired to write. -
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
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?In a couple of previous posts, I offered my take on this issue, Dave. You responded to my take, but in a way that, with respect, I could not decipher.
My take on the issue you raise is that BEFORE his resurrection/glorification, Paul believes, Jesus was an obedient, no-count servant who humbled himself to the cross. It's the humble, servant Jesus who was "void of reputation," to use your phrase. But that changed when God raised Jesus in the resurrection, and gave him the name that is above all names. Because of that glorification, Jesus became famous, the "most famous man ever to live," to use your phrase.
So "famous" only AFTER the resurrection/glorification. A humble, no-count, emptied self BEFORE the resurrection.
Your response to a previous version of that take was this...
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.
I don't know what you meant by that response, particularly its first paragraph.
Thanks for your thoughts. Paul said Jesus became of no reputation (emptied himself) when we know he became of great reputation. So in what way did Jesus not develop a reputation? _ What was he not known for?_ One way is that only few recognized him as God. Not because he was not God, but because he became of no reputation for being God. Even Thomas did not recognize him as God until after his resurrection. And the Jews killed him for making himself equal to God and for answering Yes when asked if he was the Messiah.
You may contribute what you think he did not become known for, but scripture at least says he did not become known for his divinity.
-
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for your thoughts. Paul said Jesus became of no reputation (emptied himself) when we know he became of great reputation. So in what way did Jesus not develop a reputation? _ What was he not known for?_ One way is that only few recognized him as God. Not because he was not God, but because he became of no reputation for being God. Even Thomas did not recognize him as God until after his resurrection. And the Jews killed him for making himself equal to God and for answering Yes when asked if he was the Messiah.You may contribute what you think he did not become known for, but scripture at least says he did not become known for his divinity.
I find this packaging of your response to the issue of Jesus' "reputation" easier to unpack, Dave, so thanks.
Lists of things for which Jesus did not become known do not particularly interest me because I think Paul makes a point that deeper and broader than such lists can convey. As humble, obedient servant, he wasn't known for anything! (not literally "anything," of course) That's the outcome of his "emptying" himself. Only AFTER the resurrection did he receive the attention - did people notice him - the way God intended people to notice him.
As many have said throughout the ages, without the resurrection, there would be no Christianity today. His healings and teachings would have had local currency for a few generations, but would not have generated the worldwide community of faith that arose after the resurrection.
As for his not becoming known for his divinity, perhaps one reason he didn't become known for being God was that he wasn't God. At least that's what my reading of the Bible leads me to conclude.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
As for his not becoming known for his divinity, perhaps one reason he didn't become known for being God was that he wasn't God. At least that's what my reading of the Bible leads me to conclude.
This is some of the point I'm making. Is that anyone reading scripture certainly sees the Jesus the man. And even those who do not believe he was God know he is the most famous man ever to live. I think of John Lennon who got himself killed for saying the Beatles were more famous than Jesus. Jesus was at least as famous to the carnal mind as the Beatles at the time Lennon blathered the claim.
So if Paul spoke of Jesus becoming of no reputation or emptying himself, it was not his humanity he referred to. But if we ask what got Jesus killed, it stands out that making himself equal with God, when the Jews knew there was only one God who certainly did not fit his pathetic profile in their thinking. And claiming to be the Messiah when asked. Since the Messiah would have established David's physical Kingdom, and this Jesus certainly did not do. So if we look for his anonymity in anything, it was certainly his divinity.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Is the Bible right about slavery? No.
Is the Bible right about the role of women in the home and in the church? No.
Is the Bible right about God's support for genocide? No.
Does the Bible contain NO contradictions? No.Do those make the Bible untrue, untrustworthy, and irrelevant? Not in my view.
Bill, hold your horses, again. Was the Bible setting a standard for the aforementioned or simply; revealing the acts of men and God relating to them, in a particular culture?
The Bible contains several types of writings: Poetry, History, Prophecy, genealogy, etc. Don't be so fast to say it was wrong. Just wondering, why you emphasize the negative over the 99.9 and .99 percent, that the Bible is Inspired?I am aware that not one of the original documents (Autographs) produced by Bible writers has ever been found. These autographs were handwritten, hence the name "manuscripts." Most of them were probably written on such material as leather, papyrus, a rather perishable substance made from the stem of the papyrus plant, or on vellum. None of these autographs is inexistent. It is probable that all of them, through age and use, have long since crumbled and disappeared.
The manuscripts run into many thousands. Like the loss of the autographs, the existence of so many variants might seem to be a serious dilemma. On the contrary, however, there is such ample evidence available for the reconstruction of the wording of the autographs of both the Old and New Testaments that it can safely be affirmed that in substance the text of the Bible is certain.
"The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation throughout the centuries."-- Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Harpers, 1941, p.23.
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.
I THINK I agree with you, but I'm not sure. The "man" didn't write the text, but the "writers" did? What's the difference between the "man" and the "writers"?
the nature of the Bible is based on two important verses: “All Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Tim 3:16) and “No prophecy came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet 1:21). These verses emphasize the divine-human character of the Bible.
• The messages of Bible writers originated from God
• The messages were expressed in human language, reflecting the cultural and educational background of the writers.The recognition of the divine-human nature of the Bible rules out the two mistaken views of the Bible.
➢ The first is the inerrantists’ view that exalts the divine aspect of Scripture, minimizing the human participation in order to ensure that the text is completely free of all errors.➢ The second is the progressive view of the critics who maintain that biblical writings simply reflect human ideas and aspirations. They believe they are the product of religious geniuses who were influenced—not by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit—but by the culture of their time.
I don't hold to the views of the Bible held by inerrantists on the one hand and by liberal critics on the other. Instead, I hold to a balanced view of the Bible based on its testimony (2 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 1:21) about its divine-human character. The divine-human aspects of the Bible are mysteriously blended together, somewhat similar to the union of the divine and human nature of Christ.
Start a new post, if you would like to continue this discussion. Let's be respectful of the OP and the author. CM
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Bill_Coley said:
@C_M_ said:
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.I THINK I agree with you, but I'm not sure. The "man" didn't write the text, but the "writers" did? What's the difference between the "man" and the "writers"?
The difference C_M pointed out was between author and writer ... and I think, he may have meant to write: "The men were not the authors of the Holy text, but they were the writers."
In other words, God - as the One Who inspired holy men of God - is the one author, those holy men of God - as the ones who were inspired by God - are the writers (they wrote down not their own ideas but rather wrote down what they were inspired to write.Wow! Wolfgang, I couldn't say it better. You covered my intent PERFECTLY! Thank you, brother. CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@C_M_ said:
For example, here are Some Basic Presuppositions of the NT Writers:
2. The Holy Spirit is the divine author of the OT (1 Pe 1: 10, 11).I don't read those verses to refer to the "OT" writ large, nor to authorship of any OT text. I read those verses to refer to the inspiration of certain prophetic content and foci.
The Greek phrase π σα γραφ θε πνευστος, all Scriptures is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16a) is not only referring to the Scriptures in the TaNaKh but is also applicable to the New Testament writings. CM
-
@Dave_L said:
@Bill_Coley said:
As for his not becoming known for his divinity, perhaps one reason he didn't become known for being God was that he wasn't God. At least that's what my reading of the Bible leads me to conclude.This is some of the point I'm making. Is that anyone reading scripture certainly sees the Jesus the man. And even those who do not believe he was God know he is the most famous man ever to live.
The Scriptures clearly teach that Jesus was a man, a human being.
Whether Jesus was famous or not in the eyes of whoever doesn't mean a thing.
So if Paul spoke of Jesus becoming of no reputation or emptying himself, it was not his humanity he referred to.
?? Of course, Paul is not talking about Jesus emptying himself of his humanity, but neither of emptying himself of his divinity/deity !! Those are things that are IMPOSSIBLE to be lost, emptied or changed. What should a human become emptying himself of "humanity"? An animal? a tree ? What should God become emptying himself of "divinity"? a man, an animal, a tree or plant ? In either case, such an idea of an individual emptying himself of what they actually are is total non-sense.
But if we ask what got Jesus killed, it stands out that making himself equal with God, when the Jews knew there was only one God who certainly did not fit his pathetic profile in their thinking.
?? Did you notice that Scripture does NOT say that Jesus made himself God? Even the Jews knew very well that Jesus was NOT God, but a man.
And claiming to be the Messiah when asked. Since the Messiah would have established David's physical Kingdom, and this Jesus certainly did not do.
The Messiah would be a human being, a man. This truth was known to mankind from Gen 3:15 onward.
The Jews had the wrong idea that the Messiah would re-establish an earthly kingdom on the throne of David because they did not realize and understand that David's earthly kingdom was a foreshadow of the spiritual reality, a heavenly reign which the Messiah would be given by God.
So if we look for his anonymity in anything, it was certainly his divinity.
?? Why look for Jesus' "anonymity" ??
As mentioned before, Scripture is not talking about any "famous-ness" of Jesus or any "anonymity" ??
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
@Bill_Coley said:
As for his not becoming known for his divinity, perhaps one reason he didn't become known for being God was that he wasn't God. At least that's what my reading of the Bible leads me to conclude.This is some of the point I'm making. Is that anyone reading scripture certainly sees the Jesus the man. And even those who do not believe he was God know he is the most famous man ever to live.
The Scriptures clearly teach that Jesus was a man, a human being.
Whether Jesus was famous or not in the eyes of whoever doesn't mean a thing.
So if Paul spoke of Jesus becoming of no reputation or emptying himself, it was not his humanity he referred to.
?? Of course, Paul is not talking about Jesus emptying himself of his humanity, but neither of emptying himself of his divinity/deity !! Those are things that are IMPOSSIBLE to be lost, emptied or changed. What should a human become emptying himself of "humanity"? An animal? a tree ? What should God become emptying himself of "divinity"? a man, an animal, a tree or plant ? In either case, such an idea of an individual emptying himself of what they actually are is total non-sense.
But if we ask what got Jesus killed, it stands out that making himself equal with God, when the Jews knew there was only one God who certainly did not fit his pathetic profile in their thinking.
?? Did you notice that Scripture does NOT say that Jesus made himself God? Even the Jews knew very well that Jesus was NOT God, but a man.
And claiming to be the Messiah when asked. Since the Messiah would have established David's physical Kingdom, and this Jesus certainly did not do.
The Messiah would be a human being, a man. This truth was known to mankind from Gen 3:15 onward.
The Jews had the wrong idea that the Messiah would re-establish an earthly kingdom on the throne of David because they did not realize and understand that David's earthly kingdom was a foreshadow of the spiritual reality, a heavenly reign which the Messiah would be given by God.
So if we look for his anonymity in anything, it was certainly his divinity.
?? Why look for Jesus' "anonymity" ??
As mentioned before, Scripture is not talking about any "famous-ness" of Jesus or any "anonymity" ??
Jesus certainly did not become of reputation being the most famous man ever to live. He became of no reputation as God. Why did the Jews kill him? The simple answer is that he made himself equal to God, and he claimed to be the Messiah. This he was obviously not known for, else they would not have killed him.
In essence, had he not emptied himself by obscuring his deity, they would not have killed him, and his elect would remain in their sins.
“None of the rulers of this age understood it. If they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” (1 Corinthians 2:8)
-
@Dave_L said:
Jesus certainly did not become of reputation being the most famous man ever to live. He became of no reputation as God.No, as the Messiah, the man whom God sent, he relinquished his position and rank as designated king, and he did so by making himself bond-slave being obedient even unto the death of the cross.
God, dear Dave_L, NEVER has and NEVER will become of no reputation, but He always IS the Almighty, Supreme Authority. Your idea of a God Jesus becoming of no reputation as God is simply non-sense.
Why did the Jews kill him? The simple answer is that he made himself equal to God, and he claimed to be the Messiah. This he was obviously not known for, else they would not have killed him.
Yes, the Jews knew he was "THE MAN, whom God had sent, their Messiah", but they did not like it and rejected him as "THE MAN, whom God had sent, their Messiah".
They did NOT even consider the idea that he was God ... such an idea as "fully God and fully man" was to them utter stupidity ... and rightfully so.In essence, had he not emptied himself by obscuring his deity, they would not have killed him, and his elect would remain in their sins.
This is a totally unfounded claim and actually non-sense.
“None of the rulers of this age understood it. If they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” (1 Corinthians 2:8)
Reading in context would provide you with the correct understanding of the passage .... but taking verses out of context and trying to use them as proof-text for a non-biblical doctrine/dogma will never work.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
Jesus certainly did not become of reputation being the most famous man ever to live. He became of no reputation as God.No, as the Messiah, the man whom God sent, he relinquished his position and rank as designated king, and he did so by making himself bond-slave being obedient even unto the death of the cross.
God, dear Dave_L, NEVER has and NEVER will become of no reputation, but He always IS the Almighty, Supreme Authority. Your idea of a God Jesus becoming of no reputation as God is simply non-sense.
Why did the Jews kill him? The simple answer is that he made himself equal to God, and he claimed to be the Messiah. This he was obviously not known for, else they would not have killed him.
Yes, the Jews knew he was "THE MAN, whom God had sent, their Messiah", but they did not like it and rejected him as "THE MAN, whom God had sent, their Messiah".
They did NOT even consider the idea that he was God ... such an idea as "fully God and fully man" was to them utter stupidity ... and rightfully so.In essence, had he not emptied himself by obscuring his deity, they would not have killed him, and his elect would remain in their sins.
This is a totally unfounded claim and actually non-sense.
“None of the rulers of this age understood it. If they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” (1 Corinthians 2:8)
Reading in context would provide you with the correct understanding of the passage .... but taking verses out of context and trying to use them as proof-text for a non-biblical doctrine/dogma will never work.
Even you cannot see that Jesus was God. So he is of no reputation to you as being God. You are a walking lab test proving my point.
-
@Dave_L said:
Even you cannot see that Jesus was God. So he is of no reputation to you as being God. You are a walking lab test proving my point.Now, you want to tell us that you can see that Jesus was God???
I have never in all my life encountered even one person who could do so ... only many who claimed so, but then eventually retreated to admitting that they "believed" it to be so, but of course "could not really see" it since, according to their own admission, it was a mystery.I regard Jesus to be what GOD has MADE HIM TO BE => Both LORD AND CHRIST (cp Acts 2:36), while you regard him to be something he never was nor ever can be nor event wants to be ... cp. the various passages which record Jesus' attitude regarding Whom he considered to be God, and even his personal God.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
Even you cannot see that Jesus was God. So he is of no reputation to you as being God. You are a walking lab test proving my point.Now, you want to tell us that you can see that Jesus was God???
I have never in all my life encountered even one person who could do so ... only many who claimed so, but then eventually retreated to admitting that they "believed" it to be so, but of course "could not really see" it since, according to their own admission, it was a mystery.I regard Jesus to be what GOD has MADE HIM TO BE => Both LORD AND CHRIST (cp Acts 2:36), while you regard him to be something he never was nor ever can be nor event wants to be ... cp. the various passages which record Jesus' attitude regarding Whom he considered to be God, and even his personal God.
If you cannot understand something, does it mean nobody understands it?
-
@Wolfgang said:
I regard Jesus to be what GOD has MADE HIM TO BE => Both LORD AND CHRIST (cp Acts 2:36), while you regard him to be something he never was nor ever can be nor event wants to be ... cp. the various passages which record Jesus' attitude regarding Whom he considered to be God, and even his personal God.@Dave_L said:
If you cannot understand something, does it mean nobody understands it?I propose that the more accurate phrasing here is "If you don't believe something, does that mean nobody else believes it?" The use of the verb "to understand" come across to me as suggestive of a belief that one is right (he or she "understands" the issue) and the other is wrong (he or she doesn't "understand" the issue). To distinguish instead between one person's believing something and another person's not believing that thing seems to me to avoid such a suggestion.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Wolfgang said:
I regard Jesus to be what GOD has MADE HIM TO BE => Both LORD AND CHRIST (cp Acts 2:36), while you regard him to be something he never was nor ever can be nor event wants to be ... cp. the various passages which record Jesus' attitude regarding Whom he considered to be God, and even his personal God.@Dave_L said:
If you cannot understand something, does it mean nobody understands it?I propose that the more accurate phrasing here is "If you don't believe something, does that mean nobody else believes it?" The use of the verb "to understand" come across to me as suggestive of a belief that one is right (he or she "understands" the issue) and the other is wrong (he or she doesn't "understand" the issue). To distinguish instead between one person's believing something and another person's not believing that thing seems to me to avoid such a suggestion.
You only prove my point that Jesus became of no reputation as God. The fact that you do not believe he is God illustrates this.
-
@Dave_L said:
You only prove my point that Jesus became of no reputation as God. The fact that you do not believe he is God illustrates this.I don't think the word "reputation" serves you well in this instance because it has a meaning very different from the self-emptiness Paul reports to the Philippians.
That being said, I continue to claim that BEFORE the resurrection, Jesus was the obedient servant, the self-emptied one. Such people don't have much "reputation" (which is Paul's point!) But Paul writes AFTER the resurrection, AFTER his encounter with the risen Jesus. Paul tells the Philippians that it was GOD, not Jesus, who raised Jesus in the resurrection; it was GOD, not Jesus, who glorified Jesus and placed him at God's right hand, all to GOD'S glory, not Jesus' glory. In my view, the meaning of Philippians 2.8-11 (not to mention the many other NT references I could cite) is quite clear on this matter. You and I simply disagree.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
That being said, I continue to claim that BEFORE the resurrection, Jesus was the obedient servant, the self-emptied one. Such people don't have much "reputation" (which is Paul's point!)Exactly ... the man Jesus, by deciding to be the obedient bond-slave made himself of no reputation (because bond-slaves were at the low end of the reputation scala,, while kings were at the top of the reputation ranking).
Paul tells the Philippians that it was GOD, not Jesus, who raised Jesus in the resurrection; it was GOD, not Jesus, who glorified Jesus and placed him at God's right hand, all to GOD'S glory, not Jesus' glory. In my view, the meaning of Philippians 2.8-11 (not to mention the many other NT references I could cite) is quite clear on this matter.
While Jesus made himself of "no reputation" in that he decided to be obedient as bond-slave, and after reaching "the lowest point of reputation" (death of the cross), it the nwas God (Jesus' Father) who turned this "bond-slave-no-reputation" into the "name above all names highest reputation" by raising Jesus from the dead and glorifying him.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
You only prove my point that Jesus became of no reputation as God. The fact that you do not believe he is God illustrates this.I don't think the word "reputation" serves you well in this instance because it has a meaning very different from the self-emptiness Paul reports to the Philippians.
That being said, I continue to claim that BEFORE the resurrection, Jesus was the obedient servant, the self-emptied one. Such people don't have much "reputation" (which is Paul's point!) But Paul writes AFTER the resurrection, AFTER his encounter with the risen Jesus. Paul tells the Philippians that it was GOD, not Jesus, who raised Jesus in the resurrection; it was GOD, not Jesus, who glorified Jesus and placed him at God's right hand, all to GOD'S glory, not Jesus' glory. In my view, the meaning of Philippians 2.8-11 (not to mention the many other NT references I could cite) is quite clear on this matter. You and I simply disagree.
Emptiness produces zero reputation in this case. And a cursory reading of the Gospels shows that Jesus' Messiahship needed divine revelation where his humanity did not.
-
@Wolfgang said:
While Jesus made himself of "no reputation" in that he decided to be obedient as bond-slave, and after reaching "the lowest point of reputation" (death of the cross), it the nwas God (Jesus' Father) who turned this "bond-slave-no-reputation" into the "name above all names highest reputation" by raising Jesus from the dead and glorifying him.
But Jesus became the most famous bond slave in history.....
-
- The deity of Christ and the doctrine of God is under unprecedented attack. If someone says, "The Trinity is like_______," prepare for heresy.
The Trinity is not "like" anything else.
I am probably complementarian when thinking about Gods design for marriage. I would like to offer that the "personalities" of God can possibly be understood with a similar same complementarian concept. What do you think of this?
When we write creeds, then we form doctrines to defend and explain our creed. In this creation, we may have to add to the Bible or offer an interpretation of it. In this process, we are almost certain to introduce some error.
Post edited by GaoLu on -
@dct112685 said:
Give your answer, to yes or no. (Yes, I know this has been hashed out on the old forums many times, but this will help get this forum populated)Yes. Scripture is adamant about this fact.
-
Jesus is God. This is not a question or a debate. In the essay, “The Deity of Christ in the Apostolic Witness,” Stephen Wellum, makes a careful investigation of NT passages such as Rom 1:3-4; Phil 2:5-11; Col 1:15-20; and Heb 1:1-4.
As Son under three headings:
- Jesus’ divine attributes
- His divine rule
- His being worthy of worship.
The divine acts and works of the Son, which all clearly shows the deity of Christ, include Jesus’ dispensing of the promised eschatological Spirit, his raising of the dead and execution of the final judgment, and his granting of salvation and eternal life.
The author, Wellum, also examines the divine names and titles given to the Son and sees in them clear evidence of his deity.
Titles such as “Son,” “Son of Man,” and “Messiah” connote both Christ’s deity and humanity.
The term “Lord”(kurios) clearly underscores both his deity and humanity.There is one title, however, theos, which explicitly identifies Jesus as God and is applied to him at least seven times in the NT (John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Rom 9:5; Titus 2:13; 1 Pet 1:1; Heb 1:8).
More truth for the soul. CM
SOURCE:
-- Morgan, Christopher W., and Robert A. Peterson, eds. The Deity of Christ. Wheaton: Crossway, 2011. 311 pp.
-
@C_M_ said:
Jesus is God. This is not a question or a debate. In the essay, “The Deity of Christ in the Apostolic Witness,” Stephen Wellum, makes a careful investigation of NT passages such as Rom 1:3-4; Phil 2:5-11; Col 1:15-20; and Heb 1:1-4.Hmn ... I am amazed how a supposed "careful investigation of NT passages" apparently disregards what those passages rather clearly and plainly state in order to "support" claims concerning Messiah Jesus which contradict Scripture and what the Lord Jesus himself declared.
Welcome to man-fantasized theology diametrical opposed to Biblical truth ... -
@Wolfgang said:
@C_M_ said:
Jesus is God. This is not a question or a debate. In the essay, “The Deity of Christ in the Apostolic Witness,” Stephen Wellum, makes a careful investigation of NT passages such as Rom 1:3-4; Phil 2:5-11; Col 1:15-20; and Heb 1:1-4.Hmn ... I am amazed how a supposed "careful investigation of NT passages" apparently disregards what those passages rather clearly and plainly state in order to "support" claims concerning Messiah Jesus which contradict Scripture and what the Lord Jesus himself declared.
Welcome to man-fantasized theology diametrical opposed to Biblical truth ...The funny thing is this, Jesus never once claimed that he was NOT God.
-
@reformed said:
The funny thing is this, Jesus never once claimed that he was NOT God.Yes ... Jesus never once claimed that he was NOT a lot of persons or things ... so what? Just because Jesus never once claimed that he was NOT a butcher, was he a butcher??
Your argument is invalid and actually rather non-sensical silliness
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
The funny thing is this, Jesus never once claimed that he was NOT God.Yes ... Jesus never once claimed that he was NOT a lot of persons or things ... so what? Just because Jesus never once claimed that he was NOT a butcher, was he a butcher??
Your argument is invalid and actually rather non-sensical silliness
No, my point is this, you claim that Jesus is not God based on things he said, yet nothing he said would eliminate him from being God.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
