Is Jesus Deity?
Comments
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Wolfgang said:
Sadly, Dave_L doesn't seem to be the only one here unable or unwilling to do so in discussions of textual passages ... Reformed displays the very same conductI've long believed that people who have no effective reply to another's argument have three basic choices: 1) Acknowledge they have no effective reply; 2) Say nothing at all; 3) Change the subject or otherwise distract from their lack of an effective reply.
In my view, both Dave L and reformed have chosen option 3, and have done so via name-calling:
- Dave L has no response to the texts I cite, so he likens me to a Pharisee.
- Reformed as no response to the texts I cite, so he likens me to a heretic.
If you can't beat the message, beat the messenger. Call 'em a name.
Unfortunately for them, their problem is not that I am or might be a Pharisee or heretic. Their problem is that the verses I cite - as well as a clear majority of NT verses/passages - don't support their view.
This may well be the case ... in which case they actually would be rather well acquainted with what it means to engage a text and reply in detail to others' questions regarding a text passage, but refuse to answer.
Perhaps they don't realize how such behavior actually openly displays what they hope to achieve to hide by their "beating the messenger" ?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
Jesus taught us that it was useless to argue with the Pharisees who saw things the same as BC and WS do. If either cannot grasp the passages already cited, surely the more complex proofs of Christ's deity will also not be received.So why do you post new texts in these threads for Wolfgang's and my consideration when you believe we "cannot grasp the passages already cited"?
Sometimes scriptures giving a different view provide better understanding of those less clear. One of the basics in scripture interpretation is to compare scripture with scripture. This sometimes forces a correct interpretation on verses that can be understood in different ways.
-
@Dave_L said:
Sometimes scriptures giving a different view provide better understanding of those less clear. One of the basics in scripture interpretation is to compare scripture with scripture. This sometimes forces a correct interpretation on verses that can be understood in different ways.you mention some good principles for interpreting Scripture more accurately ... unfortunately, you do not adhere to your own advice. For example, you compare unrelated scripture passages and thus arrive at erroneous interpretations .
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Actually you listed verses that make a distinction between the son and the father. Not a distinction between the son and God.As I showed in the verses I cited, for Jesus, "Father" is a term of endearment for God, not a reference to God as part of a multi-person godhead. For example, John 8.54...
54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Jn 8:54). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
There is nothing there to suggest that it is merely a term of endearment and not part of the God-Head. That is reading into the text.
In other words, Jesus tells the crowd the one he calls "Father" is the one they call "God."
Of course. That doesn't go against the Trinitarian view at all.
A similar result obtains from John 6.27...
Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.”
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Jn 6:27). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
Notice that Jesus refers to himself as "the Son of Man," which clearly is not a component of any Trinitarian formulation. He solidifies that point in John 6.29, where he says the work of God - not "the Father" - is to believe in the one God - not "the Father" - has sent.
Please explain how the reference of "Son of Man" is against the Trinity? And the work of the Father is because each member of the Trinity has a different function. No contradiction here.
Then there are the verses I cited in which Jesus claims personal powerlessness without God. Those verses have nothing to do with a distinction between "Father" and "Son;" they have to do with a distinction between Jesus and God, his source of power and authority. For example, John 5.30....
30 “I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Jn 5:30). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
That verse also establishes a clear distinction between Jesus' will and God's will, something found multiple times in the Gethsemane scene.
Again, we have been over this before, each member of the Trinity has a different function. And nothing in that verse says there is a different will than the Father.
And perhaps the clearest distinction of all among the verses I cited is in John 17.3, where in a prayer, Jesus says...
And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Jn 17:3). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
Jesus begins the prayer (John 17.1) with the term of endearment "Father," but in 17.3 does not refer to God as "Father" or to himself as "the Son." He calls God "the only true God," and he calls himself "Jesus Christ," the one God has sent. If that verse doesn't declare a clear distinction between God and Jesus, I'm at a loss to know what language would.
Remember context is everything. Jesus has not yet revealed himself as God at this point. And he is not excluding himself from being the only true God, you must use the whole of Scripture. From John 1, and other passages, we know he is God. This passage is excluding gods of all other religions.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
Sometimes scriptures giving a different view provide better understanding of those less clear. One of the basics in scripture interpretation is to compare scripture with scripture. This sometimes forces a correct interpretation on verses that can be understood in different ways.you mention some good principles for interpreting Scripture more accurately ... unfortunately, you do not adhere to your own advice. For example, you compare unrelated scripture passages and thus arrive at erroneous interpretations .
The scriptures I've provided revolve around a central theme. That Jesus is God with a human mind and body. The recent "Son of man returning to heaven where he came from" is particularly interesting as it helps solve some trinitarian squabbles.
-
@Dave_L said:
The scriptures I've provided revolve around a central theme. That Jesus is God with a human mind and body.Hmn ... another first for me here => God has a human mind and body.
I've always believed what Jesus said, such as "God IS SPIRIT" (cp John 4:24) which excludes that God has a human body. Now Dave_L claims that God has a human body ... exactly the opposite of what Jesus stated.
The recent "Son of man returning to heaven where he came from" is particularly interesting as it helps solve some trinitarian squabbles.
really ? you have thus far flat out refused to explain in detail how the text of that verse has anything to do with a Trinity idea! From your deeds (rather than your talk), I get that you have no idea how such would be the case and are most likely just babbling and repeating what someone else propagated about that verse?
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
The scriptures I've provided revolve around a central theme. That Jesus is God with a human mind and body.Hmn ... another first for me here => God has a human mind and body.
I've always believed what Jesus said, such as "God IS SPIRIT" (cp John 4:24) which excludes that God has a human body. Now Dave_L claims that God has a human body ... exactly the opposite of what Jesus stated.
The recent "Son of man returning to heaven where he came from" is particularly interesting as it helps solve some trinitarian squabbles.
really ? you have thus far flat out refused to explain in detail how the text of that verse has anything to do with a Trinity idea! From your deeds (rather than your talk), I get that you have no idea how such would be the case and are most likely just babbling and repeating what someone else propagated about that verse?
Scripture will not make sense unless you realize Jesus is body (human) soul/mind (human) and Spirit (God). If you try using this formula, you will have an entirely different view of the NT.
-
So why do you post new texts in these threads for Wolfgang's and my consideration when you believe we "cannot grasp the passages already cited"?
@Dave_L said:
Sometimes scriptures giving a different view provide better understanding of those less clear. One of the basics in scripture interpretation is to compare scripture with scripture. This sometimes forces a correct interpretation on verses that can be understood in different ways.
But Dave, you claimed that Wolfgang and I "cannot grasp" the meaning of Scripture passages. So on what basis did you decide that providing ADDITIONAL Scripture passages might "(force) a correct interpretation" on us?
-
POST MOVED TO ANOTHER (i.e. CORRECT!) THREAD.
Post edited by Bill_Coley on -
@Dave_L said:
@Wolfgang said:
Hmn ... another first for me here => God has a human mind and body.
I've always believed what Jesus said, such as "God IS SPIRIT" (cp John 4:24) which excludes that God has a human body. Now Dave_L claims that God has a human body ... exactly the opposite of what Jesus stated.Scripture will not make sense unless you realize Jesus is body (human) soul/mind (human) and Spirit (God). If you try using this formula, you will have an entirely different view of the NT.
WOW ... it's getting better with every post .... now it is not actually Jesus as a whole person who is supposedly God, but only 1/3 of him is God (spirit) whereas 2/3 of him are Human (body and soul/mind) ??
That idea eliminates the earlier claims of Jesus being "fully God and fully Human (man)", as the 1/3 to 2/3 idea above discards the "fully" anyways; in addition to the logical impossibility of being "FULLY God" (because as such, you could not be also human) or being "FULLY man" (because as that you could not be also God).Dave_L, Scripture makes perfect sense ... but YOUR ideas - which you claim to be Scriptural - do not make sense and thus are unscriptural.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
@Wolfgang said:
Hmn ... another first for me here => God has a human mind and body.
I've always believed what Jesus said, such as "God IS SPIRIT" (cp John 4:24) which excludes that God has a human body. Now Dave_L claims that God has a human body ... exactly the opposite of what Jesus stated.Scripture will not make sense unless you realize Jesus is body (human) soul/mind (human) and Spirit (God). If you try using this formula, you will have an entirely different view of the NT.
WOW ... it's getting better with every post .... now it is not actually Jesus as a whole person who is supposedly God, but only 1/3 of him is God (spirit) whereas 2/3 of him are Human (body and soul/mind) ??
That idea eliminates the earlier claims of Jesus being "fully God and fully Human (man)", as the 1/3 to 2/3 idea above discards the "fully" anyways; in addition to the logical impossibility of being "FULLY God" (because as such, you could not be also human) or being "FULLY man" (because as that you could not be also God).Dave_L, Scripture makes perfect sense ... but YOUR ideas - which you claim to be Scriptural - do not make sense and thus are unscriptural.
Jesus is not fully God and fully man. This is a mistake many make. The historic position is "He is fully God as far as his Spirit (person). And "he has a fully Divine Nature and a fully Human Nature" If he is as you and many misunderstand, he would be multiple personality.
-
@reformed said:
There is nothing there to suggest that it is merely a term of endearment and not part of the God-Head. That is reading into the text.In my view, it's not "reading into the text" to observe that it quotes Jesus as telling his audience that the one they call "God" is the one he calls "Father."
The scene that text reports would have been a perfect time for Jesus to report the existence/importance of a Father/Son/Spirit godhead, had he believed in one. The fact that he chose words that gave no such indication, words whose most obvious interpretation was that the one he called "Father" was the one they called "God," is telling.
Jesus believes his term "Father" and their term "God" are synonyms. His "Father," whom elsewhere he calls "my God" (John 20.17) is the same being as their "God," whom they believed was one (and only one).
In other words, Jesus tells the crowd the one he calls "Father" is the one they call "God."
Of course. That doesn't go against the Trinitarian view at all.
His audience believed God was one - not three, or three persons, or three manifestations - one... and only one. When Jesus tells them their one "God" is the same being as his "Father," he's declaring that "Father" doesn't refer to a portion of a multi-part Godhead, but rather to the entire godhead... in one person, not three.
Notice that Jesus refers to himself as "the Son of Man," which clearly is not a component of any Trinitarian formulation. He solidifies that point in John 6.29, where he says the work of God - not "the Father" - is to believe in the one God - not "the Father" - has sent.
Please explain how the reference of "Son of Man" is against the Trinity? And the work of the Father is because each member of the Trinity has a different function. No contradiction here.
I didn't claim that "Son of Man" "is against the Trinity." I claimed that "Son of Man" is not a Trinitarian reference. No one I know contends that the Trinity consists of The Father, Son of Man, and Holy Spirit.
"Son of Man" is a term of self-reference for Jesus, one that has a particular setting and meaning for him, no part of which is connected with Trinitarian thinking.
That verse also establishes a clear distinction between Jesus' will and God's will, something found multiple times in the Gethsemane scene.
Again, we have been over this before, each member of the Trinity has a different function. And nothing in that verse says there is a different will than the Father.
In Gethsemane, Jesus three times asks God to take away the cup from him, BUT he also declares that he wants God's will, not his own will, to be done. I read that scene as Jesus' saying to God, "I want you to take the cup from me. But I think you want me to keep the cup. So in this moment, my will is different from your will. Given the conflicts between our wills, I want your will to be done, not mine." Show me how my reading of the scene is incorrect.
And perhaps the clearest distinction of all among the verses I cited is in John 17.3, where in a prayer, Jesus says...
Remember context is everything. Jesus has not yet revealed himself as God at this point. And he is not excluding himself from being the only true God, you must use the whole of Scripture. From John 1, and other passages, we know he is God. This passage is excluding gods of all other religions.
So you contend that in John 17 Jesus "has not yet revealed himself as God." Does that mean you disagree with CD posters who have claimed John 8.58 reports an occasion when Jesus reveals himself to be God?
Specific to your point of view, exactly where in John's Gospel do you contend Jesus first reveals himself as God?
-
@Dave_L said:
Jesus is not fully God and fully man. This is a mistake many make.Propagators of traditional trinity dogma proclaim such ... so you are claiming, they are making a mistake? interesting ...
The historic position is "He is fully God as far as his Spirit (person). And "he has a fully Divine Nature and a fully Human Nature"
You split hairs over terminology ... what you here declare is exactly that which others describe as "fully God and fully man".
If he is as you and many misunderstand, he would be multiple personality.
Well, Trinity folks seem to have a "triple personality / three persons" God.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
There is nothing there to suggest that it is merely a term of endearment and not part of the God-Head. That is reading into the text.In my view, it's not "reading into the text" to observe that it quotes Jesus as telling his audience that the one they call "God" is the one he calls "Father."
Of course not, but you said a bit more than that.
The scene that text reports would have been a perfect time for Jesus to report the existence/importance of a Father/Son/Spirit godhead, had he believed in one. The fact that he chose words that gave no such indication, words whose most obvious interpretation was that the one he called "Father" was the one they called "God," is telling.
Based on what? Why would that be the perfect time? Obviously he did not think it was.
Jesus believes his term "Father" and their term "God" are synonyms. His "Father," whom elsewhere he calls "my God" (John 20.17) is the same being as their "God," whom they believed was one (and only one).
That is reading into the text. Nowhere does it suggest he beleives those are synonymns.
In other words, Jesus tells the crowd the one he calls "Father" is the one they call "God."
Of course. That doesn't go against the Trinitarian view at all.
His audience believed God was one - not three, or three persons, or three manifestations - one... and only one. When Jesus tells them their one "God" is the same being as his "Father," he's declaring that "Father" doesn't refer to a portion of a multi-part Godhead, but rather to the entire godhead... in one person, not three.
Trinitarians only believe in one God. And with his declaration, you are saying what the text does NOT say. Once again Bill, you are reading into the text something that is not there.
Notice that Jesus refers to himself as "the Son of Man," which clearly is not a component of any Trinitarian formulation. He solidifies that point in John 6.29, where he says the work of God - not "the Father" - is to believe in the one God - not "the Father" - has sent.
Please explain how the reference of "Son of Man" is against the Trinity? And the work of the Father is because each member of the Trinity has a different function. No contradiction here.
I didn't claim that "Son of Man" "is against the Trinity." I claimed that "Son of Man" is not a Trinitarian reference. No one I know contends that the Trinity consists of The Father, Son of Man, and Holy Spirit.
Actually, every person who believes in the Trinity claims just that.
"Son of Man" is a term of self-reference for Jesus, one that has a particular setting and meaning for him, no part of which is connected with Trinitarian thinking.
Based on what? You also realize that Son of Man can also refer to Deity correct?
That verse also establishes a clear distinction between Jesus' will and God's will, something found multiple times in the Gethsemane scene.
Again, we have been over this before, each member of the Trinity has a different function. And nothing in that verse says there is a different will than the Father.
In Gethsemane, Jesus three times asks God to take away the cup from him, BUT he also declares that he wants God's will, not his own will, to be done. I read that scene as Jesus' saying to God, "I want you to take the cup from me. But I think you want me to keep the cup. So in this moment, my will is different from your will. Given the conflicts between our wills, I want your will to be done, not mine." Show me how my reading of the scene is incorrect.
Different passage, different context. Of course the human nature of Jesus would not want to go through crucifixion. So he did not want the will of his flesh (to not experience pain and suffering) to usurp his divine will and the will of the father. No contradiction. Your reading of the scene is incorrect because you actually changed scenes.
And perhaps the clearest distinction of all among the verses I cited is in John 17.3, where in a prayer, Jesus says...
Remember context is everything. Jesus has not yet revealed himself as God at this point. And he is not excluding himself from being the only true God, you must use the whole of Scripture. From John 1, and other passages, we know he is God. This passage is excluding gods of all other religions.
So you contend that in John 17 Jesus "has not yet revealed himself as God." Does that mean you disagree with CD posters who have claimed John 8.58 reports an occasion when Jesus reveals himself to be God?
Not in an overt way that you are suggesting, no. But yes, he revealed himself to be God early on in subtle ways.
Specific to your point of view, exactly where in John's Gospel do you contend Jesus first reveals himself as God?
Water into wine, woman at the well, all of the I am statements, etc. John's opening monlogue about Christ where he flat says Jesus is God.
-
The scene that text reports would have been a perfect time for Jesus to report the existence/importance of a Father/Son/Spirit godhead, had he believed in one. The fact that he chose words that gave no such indication, words whose most obvious interpretation was that the one he called "Father" was the one they called "God," is telling.
Based on what? Why would that be the perfect time? Obviously he did not think it was.
"A" perfect time, not "the" perfect time.
The question I don't believe you have addressed in any of your responses, reformed, is why would Jesus, in the moments when he didn't reveal himself to be God, time and time and time again use words to describe his relationship with God whose most obvious interpretation was he didn't think himself to be God? [e.g. "Why call me 'good'? Only God is good." "I'm ascending to your God and my God." "Father, not my will, but your will." and many, many others. You twist those to mean trinitarian things, but their most obvious meaning conflicts with trinitarian thought.]
Jesus believes his term "Father" and their term "God" are synonyms. His "Father," whom elsewhere he calls "my God" (John 20.17) is the same being as their "God," whom they believed was one (and only one).
That is reading into the text. Nowhere does it suggest he beleives those are synonymns.
In John 8.54, Jesus tells the crowd the his "Father" glorifies him, and that his "Father" is the one of whom they say "He is our God." The most obvious meaning of Jesus' words is the one he calls "Father" is the one they call "God. " And the most obvious meaning of that is Jesus thinks in that instance, "Father" and "God" are synonyms.
But John 8 we have OTHER evidence that Jesus uses "Father" as a term of reference to God, and not to a component of a godhead. John 8.42....
42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father [the SAME Greek word as Jesus uses in John 8.54] , you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Jn 8:42). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
Jesus is here because God - his "Father" - sent him. And the crowd could have God as their "Father" - SAME WORD! - if they wanted that to happen. Clearly, he means "Father" as God, but in a relationship of more intensity and intimacy than the crowd currently has with God. YET such a relationship with God IS possible for them! God can be their "Father," too. That's NOT a trinitarian reference.
Trinitarians only believe in one God. And with his declaration, you are saying what the text does NOT say. Once again Bill, you are reading into the text something that is not there.
I'm not "reading into the text." I'm offering the most obvious interpretation of the text.
Actually, every person who believes in the Trinity claims just that.
Trinity advocates who believe "Son of Man" has trinitarian roots are mistaken.
Based on what? You also realize that Son of Man can also refer to Deity correct?
Based on what?
Different passage, different context. Of course the human nature of Jesus would not want to go through crucifixion. So he did not want the will of his flesh (to not experience pain and suffering) to usurp his divine will and the will of the father. No contradiction. Your reading of the scene is incorrect because you actually changed scenes.
You contend that Jesus had a "will of his flesh" that differed from God's will? How was that not a display of imperfection? How could one who was God have had a will OF ANY KIND that differed - was actually diametrically opposed to - God's will?
So you contend that in John 17 Jesus "has not yet revealed himself as God." Does that mean you disagree with CD posters who have claimed John 8.58 reports an occasion when Jesus reveals himself to be God?
Not in an overt way that you are suggesting, no. But yes, he revealed himself to be God early on in subtle ways.
So contrary to your previous contention - "Jesus has not yet revealed himself as God at this point." - by the time Jesus says what he says in John 17.1, he HAS in fact revealed himself as God - early on, and in what you call "subtle ways"?
Specific to your point of view, exactly where in John's Gospel do you contend Jesus first reveals himself as God?
Water into wine, woman at the well, all of the I am statements, etc. John's opening monlogue about Christ where he flat says Jesus is God.
And again contrary to your previous contention that as of John 17.1, Jesus has not yet revealed himself as God, now you say that in fact Jesus first revealed himself as God in John 2, and again in John 4, and again in John 8?
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
Jesus is not fully God and fully man. This is a mistake many make.Propagators of traditional trinity dogma proclaim such ... so you are claiming, they are making a mistake? interesting ...
The historic position is "He is fully God as far as his Spirit (person). And "he has a fully Divine Nature and a fully Human Nature"
You split hairs over terminology ... what you here declare is exactly that which others describe as "fully God and fully man".
If he is as you and many misunderstand, he would be multiple personality.
Well, Trinity folks seem to have a "triple personality / three persons" God.
I think you have it wrong. The ecumenical creeds state the divinity of Christ doctrine as I do, but they are a little more detailed. And the Trinity doctrine has two different forms which are both true, but different in detail.
-
Let Jesus speak for himself. There are some interesting statements in the Bible:
- John 5:25-27--He is the Son of God and the Son of Man and will raise the dead.
- John 6:47-48 -- He provides eternal life for those who believe in him.
- John 10:30-33 -- Jesus is one with God the Father.
- John 14:6 -- Jesus is the only way to God, truth personified, and life.
- John 17:5 -- Jesus lived with God before creation.
- John 18:37 -- Jesus is King.
- Mk 14:61-62 -- Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah. He sits at the right hand of God and will come back on the clouds.
- Mt. 28:19-20 -- Jesus is with us always, even to the end of the age.
This is not a comprehensive list. But it tells us: Although Jesus was a human being, he claimed to be God’s Son, who became the man in order to save us. He is God and creator (John 1:1-3), judge and king, and will come again.
Who knows Jesus better than himself? Now, does everyone accept Jesus and his claims? Stay tuned, next time. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Let Jesus speak for himself. There are some interesting statements in the Bible:I agree completely, CM.
- John 5:25-27--He is the Son of God and the Son of Man and will raise the dead.
Jesus claims to be the SON of God, NOT God. Further, John 5.26 makes clear that the Son has life only because the Father has granted it to the Son. John 5.27 says God grants the Son of Man's authority to judge. One who is God would need to be granted life? granted authority to judge?
- John 6:47-48 -- He provides eternal life for those who believe in him.
Look one verse earlier: John 6.46....
"not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father."
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Jn 6:46). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.Who has seen the Father? One who is God? NO! The one who has seen the Father is the one who is FROM God.
- John 10:30-33 -- Jesus is one with God the Father.
Jesus' conflict with the Jews reported in these verses comes to a head in v.33 when the Jews accuse Jesus of making himself to be God. Note that Jesus does NOT confirm to them that he believes himself to be God! In John 10.36 he reminds the Jews that he has claimed to be the SON of God, not God. And on what basis can they believe his claim to that Sonship? The works of his Father that he does. John 10.37 declares an abiding intimacy between Son and Father, but NOT an abiding equality.
- John 14:6 -- Jesus is the only way to God, truth personified, and life.
Jesus claims to be the way to God; he does NOT claim to be God.
- John 17:5 -- Jesus lived with God before creation.
In the same prayer, two verses earlier (John 17.3) Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and God, who sent him.
- John 18:37 -- Jesus is King.
But not the kind of king Pilate thinks he is. Nor is he the kind of king who claims to be God.
- Mk 14:61-62 -- Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah. He sits at the right hand of God and will come back on the clouds.
As the returning Son of Man he is seated NEXT to God. The text gives no indication that he believes he IS God as he sits at God's right hand.
- Mt. 28:19-20 -- Jesus is with us always, even to the end of the age.
Using authority granted to him by God, Jesus sends his followers into the world. As the glorified and eternal Christ, of course he can be with his followers forever. Eternal presence, however, does not require that he be God.
This is not a comprehensive list. But it tells us: Although Jesus was a human being, he claimed to be God’s Son, who became the man in order to save us. He is God and creator (John 1:1-3), judge and king, and will come again.
I agree, CM. He claimed to be God's Son, but NOT God.
In John's prologue, it is the Word (logos) that became flesh (human) and lived among us. Jesus' salvific mission, as several of the texts you cite make clear, was not of his own making, but of God's.
Who knows Jesus better than himself? Now, does everyone accept Jesus and his claims?
I accept his claims. Do you accept the claims he made in the ten texts I cited in a previous post in this thread? I hope you will engage these texts, CM, as directly as I have engaged the texts you offered:
- John 20.17 - The resurrected Jesus tells Mary that he is ascending to her Father and his, to her God and his. Her God and Father is the same as his God and Father. How could one who was God ascend to his God?
- John 8.28-29 - Jesus says the one who sent him has not deserted him, declaring a distinction between himself and the one who sent him. Jesus says only what the Father has taught him to say, leading naturally to the observation that had he thought of himself as God, surely he could have spoken for himself.
- John 5.30 - Jesus can do nothing on his own (but couldn't God?!) He seeks not his own will, but the will of the one who sent him. If he believed himself to be God, how could his own will have been different from the will of the one who sent him? Why would he have needed to surrender to a will other than his own?
- John 5.31 - Jesus says his testimony on his own behalf would not be true(!) How could one who considered himself God have believed anything he spoke would not be true?
- John 6.27 - Jesus says God has set God's seal on him (the Son of Man) and also makes clear that for him (Jesus) "Father" is a term of endearment he uses to refer to God, not a referent to a multi-part godhead.
- John 6.29 - Jesus says "the work of God" is that people believe in the one God has sent, another clear distinction between sender and the one sent.
- John 7.17 - Jesus makes a clear distinction between teaching that is from God and teaching that is from Jesus himself: He says the choice for people is whether to believe that his teaching is from God, or is from him (Jesus) speaking on his own authority. Once again, Jesus believes himself to have been sent by God; he expresses no hint of belief that he is God.
- John 8.54 - For Jesus to glorify himself is "nothing," an odd thing for one who is God to say. Jesus here also declares that the one he calls "Father" is the one the people call "God," adding support to my claim that for Jesus, "Father" does not refer to a godhead, but rather is a term of endearment for God.
- John 13.3 - John says Jesus knew he had come from God and would return to God, reminding us yet again that the one sent is not the same as the sender.
- John 17.3 - Previously noted
-
@C_M_ said:
Let Jesus speak for himself. There are some interesting statements in the Bible:actually, that is what Bill and I have been doing the whole time ... pointing out what Jesus himself said, as well as what other statements in Scripture say about him
- John 5:25-27--He is the Son of God and the Son of Man and will raise the dead.
Yes ... please notice, the statements do NOT say that Jesus is God.
- John 6:47-48 -- He provides eternal life for those who believe in him.
Indeed ... and the verses do NOT state or indicate that Jesus is God
- John 10:30-33 -- Jesus is one with God the Father.
Correct ... but the verses do NOT say that Jesus is God (as that would make him to be his own Father)
- John 14:6 -- Jesus is the only way to God, truth personified, and life.
Indeed ... but where does the verse say that Jesus is God?
- John 17:5 -- Jesus lived with God before creation.
Where does the verse say anything about Jesus LIVING with God before creation? Nowhere. Since when would "WITH God" mean the same as "IS God"? (my labrador dog lives WITH me, but he surely is NOT me)
- John 18:37 -- Jesus is King.
Indeed ... so was David, or Solomon, etc ... Is being King the same as being God? was David God?
- Mk 14:61-62 -- Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah. He sits at the right hand of God and will come back on the clouds.
Yes, indeed ... but what in these verses teaches that the Christ, the Messiah, is God?
- Mt. 28:19-20 -- Jesus is with us always, even to the end of the age.
Yes, indeed ... how was Jesus with his apostles and disciples? Nothing about Jesus is God in those verses either.
This is not a comprehensive list. But it tells us: Although Jesus was a human being, he claimed to be God’s Son,
Yes ... Jesus claimed to be God's son.
However, there is nothing about "ALTHOUGH Jesus was a human being" anywhere in Scripture ...who became the man in order to save us.
NO ... Scripture teaches NOTHING about "the Son of God [ or God] became the man ..." this is straight theological fiction, most likely based on ancient mythologies.
He is God and creator (John 1:1-3),
NO ... nothing about Jesus being God and Creator in John 1:1-3! God, the One Who is Jesus' Father, is the Creator and He created in accordance with His plan and word.
judge and king, and will come again.
Indeed. Jesus has been appointed by God to be the one coming again and judging.
Who knows Jesus better than himself? Now, does everyone accept Jesus and his claims?
I certainly accept Messiah Jesus and his claims. However, please note, there is plain error in some of what you posted above; some of the things you tried to pass on as as being his claims are only YOUR claims, and they even contradict what Scripture and Jesus stated.
-
@Bill_Coley Jesus never claims to not be God. He only claims to not be the Father. If you are going to keep using those statements of Christ please use them correctly and precisely.
-
> @Bill_Coley said:
> So why do you post new texts in these threads for Wolfgang's and my consideration when you believe we "cannot grasp the passages already cited"?
Every Believer had a time of change.
Rom 10:14
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? -
@Wolfgang said:
I certainly accept Messiah Jesus and his claims. However, please note, there is plain error in some of what you posted above; some of the things you tried to pass on as being his claims are only YOUR claims, and they even contradict what Scripture and Jesus stated.
Wolfgang,
Believing in God or even confessing His power isn't enough. One needs to know the Lord (John 17:3). This is a crucial distinction. Knowing God is more than just knowing propositional truths about Him. The most unregenerate degenerate can believe in God's eternal nature, His creative power, and even His atoning death. You are familiar with the text of James 2:19 (KJV), "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." [To avoid misunderstanding, this is a statement of principle and not an underhanded means to name call].It's one thing to know of Christ, it's another thing to know Him as your Lord and Savior. Do you simply believe in God, or do you know Him (John 17:3)?
- This is a question of internal reflection and not one to insult or to embarrass. However, you are free to answer if you choose to do so. I am sure, others in CD may be interested. CM
-
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley Jesus never claims to not be God. He only claims to not be the Father. If you are going to keep using those statements of Christ please use them correctly and precisely.@Reformed ... so you are saying that the Father is NOT God ? what else is your statement of "never claims to not be God, he only claims not to be the Father" to mean? Is God not the Father?
-
@C_M_ said:
Wolfgang,
Believing in God or even confessing His power isn't enough. One needs to know the Lord (John 17:3).and what do YOU mean to tell us with this statement? How do you know the Lord (John 17:3) ?
This is a crucial distinction. Knowing God is more than just knowing propositional truths about Him. The most unregenerate degenerate can believe in God's eternal nature, His creative power, and even His atoning death.
On what do you base your claim? and how would you distinguish between "the most unregenerate degenerate" and "the sincere and honest of heart believer" who believes in God's eternal nature, His creative power, and even His atoning death ??
You are familiar with the text of James 2:19 (KJV), "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." [To avoid misunderstanding, this is a statement of principle and not an underhanded means to name call].
Are you just taking this out of context for some claim you try to make?
It's one thing to know of Christ, it's another thing to know Him as your Lord and Savior. Do you simply believe in God, or do you know Him (John 17:3)?
See above ... how do you know him? what do you mean with you know him? Did you have a meeting and personal conversation with him? Is a revelatory vision as happened to Saul near Damascus after which a person can say that they know the Lord?
On what grounds to you think you know him and others do not know him?- This is a question of internal reflection and not one to insult or to embarrass. However, you are free to answer if you choose to do so. I am sure, others in CD may be interested. CM
Since you are sure others on CD might be interested, perhaps you care to clarify what you were talking about by answering in detail the questions I asked above regarding the different points you mentioned .... I am sure, others would appreciate that
-
Wolfgang,
We seemed to have missed the point. I don't know if it's your custom to answer an optional question with questions or you were seeking information for clarification.
Regardless, a friendly reminder, this thread is about the Deity of Jesus, the Christ. What he says of himself, what was revealed and what is believed from the Bible.
Your questions, however, sincere (if you're not demanding an answer), can be given at another time and on another thread, given your seeming perception on my question to you.
Until next time, into the Word, I go, in understanding Christ. CM
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley Jesus never claims to not be God. He only claims to not be the Father. If you are going to keep using those statements of Christ please use them correctly and precisely.@Reformed ... so you are saying that the Father is NOT God ? what else is your statement of "never claims to not be God, he only claims not to be the Father" to mean? Is God not the Father?
No. You keep trying, again and again, to say I say that but I do not.
-
@C_M_ said:
Regardless, a friendly reminder, this thread is about the Deity of Jesus, the Christ. What he says of himself, what was revealed and what is believed from the Bible.
Your questions, however, sincere (if you're not demanding an answer), can be given at another time and on another thread, given your seeming perception on my question to you.
Until next time, into the Word, I go, in understanding Christ. CMFrom what you post here, I admit I am confused and really have no clue what a "discussion forum" is to YOU.
Your post appears to me as a clear drop out / cop out / evasion comment ... thus I really can only say "Goodbye, C_M", as I don't see how there could be or why there should be a "next time" or "another time on another thread".
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley Jesus never claims to not be God. He only claims to not be the Father. If you are going to keep using those statements of Christ please use them correctly and precisely.@Reformed ... so you are saying that the Father is NOT God ? what else is your statement of "never claims to not be God, he only claims not to be the Father" to mean? Is God not the Father?
No. You keep trying, again and again, to say I say that but I do not.
Well ... if there is no true engagement with a text and refusal to answer questions, there is no sense in continuing the exchange ... as there is clearly no interest in discussion or exchange for the purpose of learning together.
Thus, I will also wish you a "Goodbye, reformed" ... you most likely achieved what you intended
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley Jesus never claims to not be God. He only claims to not be the Father. If you are going to keep using those statements of Christ please use them correctly and precisely.@Reformed ... so you are saying that the Father is NOT God ? what else is your statement of "never claims to not be God, he only claims not to be the Father" to mean? Is God not the Father?
No. You keep trying, again and again, to say I say that but I do not.
Well ... if there is no true engagement with a text and refusal to answer questions, there is no sense in continuing the exchange ... as there is clearly no interest in discussion or exchange for the purpose of learning together.
Thus, I will also wish you a "Goodbye, reformed" ... you most likely achieved what you intended
I've answered your questions.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@C_M_ said:
Regardless, a friendly reminder, this thread is about the Deity of Jesus, the Christ. What he says of himself, what was revealed and what is believed from the Bible.
Your questions, however, sincere (if you're not demanding an answer), can be given at another time and on another thread, given your seeming perception on my question to you.
Until next time, into the Word, I go, in understanding Christ. CMFrom what you post here, I admit I am confused and really have no clue what a "discussion forum" is to YOU.
Your post appears to me as a clear drop out / cop out / evasion comment ... thus I really can only say "Goodbye, C_M", as I don't see how there could be or why there should be a "next time" or "another time on another thread".
Thanks for your response. CM
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
