Is Jesus Deity?
Comments
-
Bill and Wolfgang, would you please provide a list of your favorite proof texts that disprove Christ's divinity. It would help if you omit comments and provide only the scriptures. I would like to see these if you don't mind.
-
@reformed said:
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.In my daily Bible reading today, reformed, I encountered a scene in John 16 which sure seems like a moment of revelation for Jesus' disciples. I quote it in fuller context, highlighting the disciples' response to what they hear from Jesus:
25 “I have said these things to you in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about the Father. >26 In that day you will ask in my name, and I do not say to you that I will ask the Father on your behalf; 27 for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. 28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”
29 His disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech! 30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.” 31 Jesus answered them, “Do you now believe? 32 Behold, the hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home, and will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me. 33 I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Jn 16:25–33). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
Jesus tells his disciples that he is about to leave the world and go to the Father. His disciples tell him they NOW understand what he's been trying to tell them. NOW they understand that he came from God. The disciples don't say, "Now we know you've been trying to tell us that you ARE God"! They say they now realize that Jesus CAME FROM God.
And does Jesus object to their conclusion? Does he correct their record? Does he say, "Almost, guys. But the truth is more than that. I didn't just COME FROM God"? No. In effect, Jesus tells them they're right. He's been trying to tell them that he came from God.
It's really, really hard to believe Jesus chose not to contest their conclusion that he had COME FROM God on the grounds that they would somehow realize that his COMING FROM God meant he actually WAS God. The former premise has no necessary connection to the latter.
-
@Dave_L said:
Bill and Wolfgang, would you please provide a list of your favorite proof texts that disprove Christ's divinity. It would help if you omit comments and provide only the scriptures. I would like to see these if you don't mind.Please convince me, Dave, that there's reasonable cause for us to fulfill your request for our "favorite proof texts" given your past and predictable history of refusing to engage any of the texts we've offered. The last time I asked you to engage texts I offered, you declined, declaring that Wolfgang and I aren't able to "grasp" passages.
Given your past and proven unwillingness to engage the texts we cite, why should we offer more texts... that you won't engage.
-
Ok, then, Bill. Do it for me.
Or maybe you don’t think anyone here will engage your nonexistent texts. -
@GaoLu said:
Ok, then, Bill. Do it for me.
Or maybe you don’t think anyone here will engage your nonexistent texts.In a review of my posts on the most recent 8-10 pages of this thread, Gao Lu, I found that I had cited the following 22 verses/passages:
Matthew 12.15-18
Matthew 26.36-46
Matthew 27.46
Mark 10.18
John 5.19
John 5.30
John 5.31
John 6.27
John 6.29
John 7.17
John 7.14-19, particularly John 7.16-18
John 8.54
John 13.3
John 14.28
John 17.3
John 20.17
John 8.28-29
John 8.42
John 16:25–33
John 20.17
Acts 2.22-24
Revelation 1.5b-6What I didn't find in those 8-10 pages was your direct engagement with any of the cited texts. But now that in two threads(!) you have asked me to cite texts, I have great hope that you will directly engage each of them. I look forward to your views.
-
I will be happy to engage proof texts that disprove the divinity of Christ. I don’t see any above which remottely have anything to say that can be used to disprove the divinity of Christ, while the same authors clearly and repeatedly affirm the divinity of Christ as has been demonstrated time and again.
Any plausible challenge to the statement above is welcome. -
@GaoLu said:
I will be happy to engage proof texts that disprove the divinity of Christ. I don’t see any above which remottely have anything to say that can be used to disprove the divinity of Christ, while the same authors clearly and repeatedly affirm the divinity of Christ as has been demonstrated time and again.
Any plausible challenge to the statement above is welcome.It is plausible regarding these and other texts that one of us can't read what is written, or one of us refuses to read what is written, or one of us does not believe what is written in favor of a theology to which we hold, or one of us does not understand most simple statements, or one of us is plain ignorant and stupid, or one of us is mentally handicapped in regards to mental capabilities such as as logic and reason, or one of us is silly, or one of us is perhaps something else?
It is also plausible that you are just playing the "smarty game", thinking you made a real intelligent attempt to dodge, evade, drop and cop out comment without being called on it.
It looks like I should be saying "Goodbye" to you as well, although I did in the past have a different opinion regarding you and your posts ?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
Bill and Wolfgang, would you please provide a list of your favorite proof texts that disprove Christ's divinity. It would help if you omit comments and provide only the scriptures. I would like to see these if you don't mind.Please convince me, Dave, that there's reasonable cause for us to fulfill your request for our "favorite proof texts" given your past and predictable history of refusing to engage any of the texts we've offered. The last time I asked you to engage texts I offered, you declined, declaring that Wolfgang and I aren't able to "grasp" passages.
Given your past and proven unwillingness to engage the texts we cite, why should we offer more texts... that you won't engage.
I said nothing about engaging your texts. I only want to see them and try to understand what you see in them. But I'll use Gaolu's assortment for now.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@GaoLu said:
Ok, then, Bill. Do it for me.
Or maybe you don’t think anyone here will engage your nonexistent texts.In a review of my posts on the most recent 8-10 pages of this thread, Gao Lu, I found that I had cited the following 22 verses/passages:
Matthew 12.15-18
Matthew 26.36-46
Matthew 27.46
Mark 10.18
John 5.19
John 5.30
John 5.31
John 6.27
John 6.29
John 7.17
John 7.14-19, particularly John 7.16-18
John 8.54
John 13.3
John 14.28
John 17.3
John 20.17
John 8.28-29
John 8.42
John 16:25–33
John 20.17
Acts 2.22-24
Revelation 1.5b-6What I didn't find in those 8-10 pages was your direct engagement with any of the cited texts. But now that in two threads(!) you have asked me to cite texts, I have great hope that you will directly engage each of them. I look forward to your views.
Your texts are good for showing Christ's humanity. But you need to play them against many other texts that present his divinity. This one verse alone forces a different interpretation onto the verses you provide.
“but of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness. So God, your God, has anointed you over your companions with the oil of rejoicing.” And, “You founded the earth in the beginning, Lord, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They will perish, but you continue. And they will all grow old like a garment, and like a robe you will fold them up and like a garment they will be changed, but you are the same and your years will never run out.”” (Hebrews 1:8–12)
-
@Dave_L said:
I can compile and furnish a list that forces a proper balance on to your texts if you like. But if you consider Christ as being God in Spirit, man in mind or soul, and man in body. much of the balance becomes clear also.
-
@Dave_L said:
@Dave_L said:
@Bill_Coley said:
@GaoLu said:
Ok, then, Bill. Do it for me.
Or maybe you don’t think anyone here will engage your nonexistent texts.In a review of my posts on the most recent 8-10 pages of this thread, Gao Lu, I found that I had cited the following 22 verses/passages:
Matthew 12.15-18
Matthew 26.36-46
Matthew 27.46
Mark 10.18
John 5.19
John 5.30
John 5.31
John 6.27
John 6.29
John 7.17
John 7.14-19, particularly John 7.16-18
John 8.54
John 13.3
John 14.28
John 17.3
John 20.17
John 8.28-29
John 8.42
John 16:25–33
John 20.17
Acts 2.22-24
Revelation 1.5b-6What I didn't find in those 8-10 pages was your direct engagement with any of the cited texts. But now that in two threads(!) you have asked me to cite texts, I have great hope that you will directly engage each of them. I look forward to your views.
Bill, your texts are good for showing Christ's humanity. But you need to play them against many other texts that present his divinity. This one verse alone forces a different interpretation on the verses you provide.
“but of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness. So God, your God, has anointed you over your companions with the oil of rejoicing.” And, “You founded the earth in the beginning, Lord, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They will perish, but you continue. And they will all grow old like a garment, and like a robe you will fold them up and like a garment they will be changed, but you are the same and your years will never run out.”” (Hebrews 1:8–12)
-
@GaoLu said:
I will be happy to engage proof texts that disprove the divinity of Christ. I don’t see any above which remottely have anything to say that can be used to disprove the divinity of Christ, while the same authors clearly and repeatedly affirm the divinity of Christ as has been demonstrated time and again.
Any plausible challenge to the statement above is welcome.I am disappointed but not at all surprised by your response to the texts I listed, Gao Lu. You take a rudimentary and uninsightful approach to expressing your disagreement with my conclusions: You bundle them under the banner judgment that among them you find none that "remotely (has) anything to say that can be used to disprove the divinity of Christ."
In these forums, this is the way Scripture discussion almost always transpires between the two of us, Gao Lu, and between Wolfgang and me - people who dispute Trinitarian theology - and other Trinity advocates: When you folks cite texts, Wolfgang and I engage each of them directly - no substantively vacant umbrella comments such as "None of your texts prove your point." But when we cite texts, you and other Trinity advocates almost always refuse to engage, defending your decision via banner headlines - "NONE OF THOSE SAY WHAT YOU SAY THEY SAY! - below which there is rarely any content.
In your current post, for example, you engage none of the 22 texts I cited, AND you offer no evidence to support your contention that "the same authors clearly and repeatedly affirm the divinity of Christ as has been demonstrated time and again." You could have presented links to some of those "time and again" posts, or you could have done some original work to show how the texts I cited actually support a Trinitarian view. But you, like most Trinity advocates in these forums, chose the easy, forensically lazy, approach.
The result is you offer me basically nothing substantive to respond to. Were I inclined to "do unto others as they have done unto you," I'd write "The texts I cited in fact DO disprove the divinity of Christ, and their authors do NOT "clearly and repeatedly affirm" that divinity," and then I would end my post. That would be a response to your post that offered as little intellectual heft as yours offered to mine; but that's not my approach.
Instead, I invite you to revisit this thread's posts in which I originally presented the 22 texts for a summary of my take on each of them. And I remind you that among my cited texts, in the VAST majority of cases it's NOT the writer's view of Jesus' identity that's expressed, but rather Jesus' view of his own identity. Hence, your claim that "the same authors clearly and repeatedly affirm the divinity of Christ" carries far less consequence than you appear to believe it does.
I invite you to engage my texts as we have always engaged yours. Specifically, I invite you to discern for us Jesus' message - not their writers' message - in each of those texts. And I invite you to post links to the posts that you believe prove your "time and again" claim. In short, I invite you to provide a substantive response to these issues, one that promotes healthy, spirited, and evidence-rooted discourse between us, rather than exchanges of simplistic, dismissive, and unsupported conclusions.
-
@Dave_L said:
Your texts are good for showing Christ's humanity. But you need to play them against many other texts that present his divinity. This one verse alone forces a different interpretation onto the verses you provide.What does it mean to "play" texts against each other? Does your use of that term mean you also believe it necessary to "play" any texts you cite against the 22 texts I cited?
“but of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness. So God, your God, has anointed you over your companions with the oil of rejoicing.” And, “You founded the earth in the beginning, Lord, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They will perish, but you continue. And they will all grow old like a garment, and like a robe you will fold them up and like a garment they will be changed, but you are the same and your years will never run out.”” (Hebrews 1:8–12)
To conclude your post, you return to a Hebrews passage you raised and I directly engaged in THIS POST. Since my take on the Hebrews text today is no different from what it was on May 24, the last time you raised it, I now quote the relevant portion of that post:
“in these last days he has spoken to us in a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he created the world.” (Hebrews 1:2) (NET)
In my view, the writer wants us to know that God spoke through a son, which suggests strongly that the writer believes God is different from the son. [I speak through my cell phone, but I am not my cell phone. I speak through my sermons and newsletter columns, but I am not either of those.]
“And he says of the angels, “He makes his angels spirits and his ministers a flame of fire,”but of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom.” (Hebrews 1:7–8) (NET)
Again, context matters.
- v.3 - The resurrected Jesus sits "at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels" (v.3) The one who sits at the Majesty's right hand is not the Majesty. God would not have to "become" superior to angels.
- v.5 - God says to Jesus, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you," and of the son God says, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son." God cannot beget Godself, nor can God be begotten. God and the Son thus must be fundamentally distinct from each other.
- v.6 - God brings "the firstborn" into the world (see v.15) The writer clearly believes God made Jesus, which to me means the writer does not believe Jesus was God, but rather was one whom God created.
- v.9 - The quoted OT verse ALSO includes "God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness." If the writer believed Jesus was God, then why would the writer quote a text that claims Jesus had a God?
“And, “You founded the earth in the beginning, Lord, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They will perish, but you continue. And they will all grow old like a garment, and like a robe you will fold them up and like a garment they will be changed, but you are the same and your years will never run out.”” (Hebrews 1:10–12) (NET)
This word is consistent with previous verses in this section of Hebrews. Recall that the entire section is about the resurrected Jesus, who lives eternally on high.
/
@Dave_L said:
I can compile and furnish a list that forces a proper balance on to your texts if you like. But if you consider Christ as being God in Spirit, man in mind or soul, and man in body. much of the balance becomes clear also.
So your approach to Bible study on the subject of the Trinity is to "force a proper balance" between texts that present different messages? I am no more familiar with the concept of forcing balance between texts than I am with playing them against each other.
But the second sentence of your paragraph gives away your real approach to Bible study on the Trinity: You START by presuming "Christ (was) God in Spirit, man in mind or soul, and man in body." As long as you begin your study with those presumptions, you will experience the right results.... And if I posted: "Dave, as you study the Bible on the subject of the Trinity if you remember that Jesus wasn't God, your study will come to the proper conclusions," would you question my Bible study methodology? I bet you would. I would too; just as I question the methodology of your Bible study of the Trinity when you begin by presuming the Trinity is true.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
Your texts are good for showing Christ's humanity. But you need to play them against many other texts that present his divinity. This one verse alone forces a different interpretation onto the verses you provide.What does it mean to "play" texts against each other? Does your use of that term mean you also believe it necessary to "play" any texts you cite against the 22 texts I cited?
“but of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness. So God, your God, has anointed you over your companions with the oil of rejoicing.” And, “You founded the earth in the beginning, Lord, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They will perish, but you continue. And they will all grow old like a garment, and like a robe you will fold them up and like a garment they will be changed, but you are the same and your years will never run out.”” (Hebrews 1:8–12)
To conclude your post, you return to a Hebrews passage you raised and I directly engaged in THIS POST. Since my take on the Hebrews text today is no different from what it was on May 24, the last time you raised it, I now quote the relevant portion of that post:
“in these last days he has spoken to us in a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he created the world.” (Hebrews 1:2) (NET)
In my view, the writer wants us to know that God spoke through a son, which suggests strongly that the writer believes God is different from the son. [I speak through my cell phone, but I am not my cell phone. I speak through my sermons and newsletter columns, but I am not either of those.]
“And he says of the angels, “He makes his angels spirits and his ministers a flame of fire,”but of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom.” (Hebrews 1:7–8) (NET)
Again, context matters.
- v.3 - The resurrected Jesus sits "at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels" (v.3) The one who sits at the Majesty's right hand is not the Majesty. God would not have to "become" superior to angels.
- v.5 - God says to Jesus, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you," and of the son God says, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son." God cannot beget Godself, nor can God be begotten. God and the Son thus must be fundamentally distinct from each other.
- v.6 - God brings "the firstborn" into the world (see v.15) The writer clearly believes God made Jesus, which to me means the writer does not believe Jesus was God, but rather was one whom God created.
- v.9 - The quoted OT verse ALSO includes "God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness." If the writer believed Jesus was God, then why would the writer quote a text that claims Jesus had a God?
“And, “You founded the earth in the beginning, Lord, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They will perish, but you continue. And they will all grow old like a garment, and like a robe you will fold them up and like a garment they will be changed, but you are the same and your years will never run out.”” (Hebrews 1:10–12) (NET)
This word is consistent with previous verses in this section of Hebrews. Recall that the entire section is about the resurrected Jesus, who lives eternally on high.
/
@Dave_L said:
I can compile and furnish a list that forces a proper balance on to your texts if you like. But if you consider Christ as being God in Spirit, man in mind or soul, and man in body. much of the balance becomes clear also.
So your approach to Bible study on the subject of the Trinity is to "force a proper balance" between texts that present different messages? I am no more familiar with the concept of forcing balance between texts than I am with playing them against each other.
But the second sentence of your paragraph gives away your real approach to Bible study on the Trinity: You START by presuming "Christ (was) God in Spirit, man in mind or soul, and man in body." As long as you begin your study with those presumptions, you will experience the right results.... And if I posted: "Dave, as you study the Bible on the subject of the Trinity if you remember that Jesus wasn't God, your study will come to the proper conclusions," would you question my Bible study methodology? I bet you would. I would too; just as I question the methodology of your Bible study of the Trinity when you begin by presuming the Trinity is true.
How do you rightly divide the word of truth if you choose only verses that support your doctrine? How do you know the entirety of an issue without considering all pertinent data?
Here are a few more passages you must balance your list against in order to get a complete picture.
“as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” (Titus 2:13)
“Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28)
“From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours.” (2 Peter 1:1)
-
@Dave_L said:
I said nothing about engaging your texts. I only want to see them and try to understand what you see in them. But I'll use Gaolu's assortment for now.Except in my online pipe dreams, I never expected you to engage texts I cited, Dave. That's a, perhaps THE, fundamental problem in our discussions about Scripture.
My posting history demonstrates that I am willing to engage ANY text presented to me by other forum participants. The sheer number of texts presented at once might result in my being selective, or my taking several posts to get all of them, but you will not find a post in which I summarily dismissed another poster's cited texts. That other poster did the work to find and include texts in his or her post. He or she deserves the respect of a direct reply to each of his or her cited texts. On occasion, you'll find a post in which I acknowledge that a given text could be interpreted to support a point of view other than mine! But you will not find me refusing to engage others' citations.
But your posting history is much different, Dave. You're willing to cite texts for others' consideration. But you're not willing to engage texts presented by others, especially not texts that appear to conflict with your point of view.
In my view, it's really hard for posters who express significantly different levels of willingness to engage each others' adduced texts to experience productive Bible study. Such has certainly been the case for you and me.
-
If you balance your texts with my texts, you will get the whole picture. Why should I allow you to set the rules of engagement when you want to limit them to your pet collection while refusing to look at my texts that clearly prove you wrong?
-
@Dave_L said:
If you balance your texts with my texts, you will get the whole picture. Why should I allow you to set the rules of engagement when you want to limit them to your pet collection while refusing to look at my texts that clearly prove you wrong?I have no history of limiting texts to my pet collection. Remember this post of CM's?
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
In the thread's very next post I responded directly and individually to each of those texts. Was that the conduct of someone who wanted to limit consideration to his or her "pet collection" of verses?
And do you remember this post of yours?
How many times have we beat this dead horse? I mention Kurios as one of several proofs for Christ's deity. But scripture stands unchallenged as absolute proof. You would make your case if you could dislodge it. And save lots of energy trying to reason your way around the other obstacles we place in your way.
Here's some more scripture I collected this morning from my bible reading. I was not looking for it, it was just some of the scripture I read.
“for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him—all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers—all things were created through him and for him. He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him.” (Colossians 1:16–17) (NET)
“in these last days he has spoken to us in a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he created the world.” (Hebrews 1:2) (NET)
“And he says of the angels, “He makes his angels spirits and his ministers a flame of fire,”but of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom.” (Hebrews 1:7–8) (NET)
“And, “You founded the earth in the beginning, Lord, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They will perish, but you continue. And they will all grow old like a garment, and like a robe you will fold them up and like a garment they will be changed, but you are the same and your years will never run out.”” (Hebrews 1:10–12) (NET)
“How blessed are the people who experience these things! How blessed are the people whose God is the LORD!” (Psalm 144:15) (NET)
“yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live.” (1 Corinthians 8:6) (NET)
On the same day that you created that post, both Wolfgang and I responded directly and individually to each of the texts you cited. Was THAT the posting behavior of people who sought to limit consideration to their "pet collection(s)" of verses?
To prove me wrong about YOUR posting behavior, Dave, post links to one or more of YOUR posts in which YOU directly and individually addressed each of the texts on the subject of the Trinity cited in a post by either Wolfgang or me. Show me - don't tell me! - that YOU don't want to limit consideration to YOUR "pet collection" while refusing the texts others believe prove YOU wrong.**
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
If you balance your texts with my texts, you will get the whole picture. Why should I allow you to set the rules of engagement when you want to limit them to your pet collection while refusing to look at my texts that clearly prove you wrong?I have no history of limiting texts to my pet collection. Remember this post of CM's?
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
In the thread's very next post I responded directly and individually to each of those texts. Was that the conduct of someone who wanted to limit consideration to his or her "pet collection" of verses?
And do you remember this post of yours?
How many times have we beat this dead horse? I mention Kurios as one of several proofs for Christ's deity. But scripture stands unchallenged as absolute proof. You would make your case if you could dislodge it. And save lots of energy trying to reason your way around the other obstacles we place in your way.
Here's some more scripture I collected this morning from my bible reading. I was not looking for it, it was just some of the scripture I read.
“for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him—all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers—all things were created through him and for him. He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him.” (Colossians 1:16–17) (NET)
“in these last days he has spoken to us in a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he created the world.” (Hebrews 1:2) (NET)
“And he says of the angels, “He makes his angels spirits and his ministers a flame of fire,”but of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom.” (Hebrews 1:7–8) (NET)
“And, “You founded the earth in the beginning, Lord, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They will perish, but you continue. And they will all grow old like a garment, and like a robe you will fold them up and like a garment they will be changed, but you are the same and your years will never run out.”” (Hebrews 1:10–12) (NET)
“How blessed are the people who experience these things! How blessed are the people whose God is the LORD!” (Psalm 144:15) (NET)
“yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live.” (1 Corinthians 8:6) (NET)
On the same day that you created that post, both Wolfgang and I responded directly and individually to each of the texts you cited. Was THAT the posting behavior of people who sought to limit consideration to their "pet collection(s)" of verses?
To prove me wrong about YOUR posting behavior, Dave, post links to one or more of YOUR posts in which YOU directly and individually addressed each of the texts on the subject of the Trinity cited in a post by either Wolfgang or me. Show me - don't tell me! - that YOU don't want to limit consideration to YOUR "pet collection" while refusing the texts others believe prove YOU wrong.**
If you pick out your favorite text, I will balance it with other scriptures demonstrating how its done. You want to limit others to your pet collection while ignoring their texts that prove you wrong, saving lots of time. It's like asking them to use only a shovel and leave their bulldozer parked.
-
I sit back ... and have a good laugh ... there is indeed "a bulldozer" in town ... and, of course, bulldozers can only do what bulldozers can do ... whether they claim to not be a bulldozer doesn't matter, as deeds speak louder than words
-
You cannot play cards without a full deck properly shuffled and dealt. If only one scripture says Jesus is God, and there are many, then it proves you do not know what the verses you present - mean.
-
@Bill and @Wolfgang There is one problem that you have yet to solve. Here is the problem:
Nowhere, does Jesus say that he is not God, nor does he say anything that would 100% eliminate him from being God. Yet the Bible DOES say that He is God.
That leads you to only one conclusion. He must be God OR the Bible has errors.
Bill, from what I gather, you believe the Bible could have errors, is that correct? Wolfgang, I'm not sure of your position.
-
To prove me wrong about YOUR posting behavior, Dave, post links to one or more of YOUR posts in which YOU directly and individually addressed each of the texts on the subject of the Trinity cited in a post by either Wolfgang or me. Show me - don't tell me! - that YOU don't want to limit consideration to YOUR "pet collection" while refusing the texts others believe prove YOU wrong.**
@Dave_L said:
If you pick out your favorite text, I will balance it with other scriptures demonstrating how its done. You want to limit others to your pet collection while ignoring their texts that prove you wrong, saving lots of time. It's like asking them to use only a shovel and leave their bulldozer parked.Dave, you continue to promote the falsehood that I am "ignoring" texts. In my last post, I linked to and quoted from one of your posts and a post from CM, each which offered several texts in support of your respective Trinitarian views. I then noted that to EACH AND ALL of the texts cited in those two posts, Wolfgang and I responded individually and directly. YOUR CLAIM THAT I'VE IGNORED TEXTS IS DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. Stop making it... or prove that I have done so.
And while you're at it, prove that YOU aren't the one ignoring texts that dispute your views! In the last month or so, I've cited and provided my take on more than 20 texts that dispute YOUR Trinitarian views. By my count, you have responded individually and directly to exactly NONE of them. Please show how it's not the case that YOU'RE THE THE ONE WHO'S IGNORED TEXTS, not I.
You cannot play cards without a full deck properly shuffled and dealt. If only one scripture says Jesus is God, and there are many, then it proves you do not know what the verses you present - mean.
In your view, does the same hypothetical hold when offered from the other side of the argument? Namely, "If only one scripture says Jesus is NOT God, and there are many, then it proves you do not know what the verses you present - mean"?
I know you claim no text says Jesus is not God, but I'm not asking about that. I'm only asking whether you permit the hypothetical you set up to be used by both sides of the argument.
-
I’m looking for any passage to be offered that proves or even could be taken to indicate that Jesus is anything other than fully God. It doesn’t exist of course. I will readily engage such a passage. Nothing like that has been offered.
-
Reformed, does the fact that the nowhere does the Bible say anything that would 100% eliminate Jesus from having been a ballet dancer, a plumbing contractor, or the dean of a local university in your view mean that Jesus was all of those things? Must the Bible explicitly rule out a given position, title, role, or office in order for you to agree that Jesus did not hold it? So unless the Bible says, "Jesus was not a horse trainer," you assume that he was?
As for the biblical witness on Jesus' identity, no, there is no verse that says "Jesus is not God." But I don't contend there is such a verse; nor do I contend that such a verse is necessary. Instead, I contend that the CUMULATIVE WITNESS of literally dozens/scores of verses - many that quote Jesus himself - is that Jesus did not think of himself as God, and apostles such as Peter and Paul did not think of him as God. (I've cited 22 such verses/passages in just the last month or so of this thread's life, and those mostly from John's Gospel, not the Synoptics, where reside the vast majority of texts supportive of my view)
The logical problem that YOU "have yet to solve," reformed, is how could Jesus, Peter, and Paul have believed Jesus was God AND YET have said things that to any common sense listener sounded like they believed he was NOT God? Do you commonly say things that seem contrary to your own points of view, somehow expecting that your audience will know you meant the opposite of what you appeared to say, perhaps because you might have said something different in another setting, to another audience? I don't, and I strongly suspect you don't either. But time and again Jesus, Peter, and Paul say things -and I've cited dozens of them over my CD years - whose most sensible interpretation is Jesus is not God.
When Peter says this in Jerusalem... (emphasis added)
22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ac 2:22–24). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
How is the most common sense hearing of those words NOT that Jesus is not God?
One recurring response of yours to questions like that is we have interpret Scripture with Scripture. That's a sounds like good policy, but the problem is Peter spoke those words to a specific and time-defined group of people, people who did not have access to, could not have possibly have known to expect, the first chapter of John's Gospel or the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, or any other NT Scripture.
TO THE PEOPLE TO WHOM PETER ADDRESSED THOSE WORDS, there was no other NT Scripture! Their ONLY frame of reference was what Peter told them, and he told them that Jesus was a man through whom God did mighty works, a man they killed but God raised. That's ALL his audience knew, which means the most common sense interpretation of WHAT THEY HEARD, was that Jesus was not God.
So the question for you and all Trinity advocates is this: What message about Jesus' identity did Peter give his audience that day in Jerusalem (remember, they had NO access to ANY other NT Scripture! They knew ONLY what Peter told them) and was Peter's message in any way inaccurate or misleading?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
To prove me wrong about YOUR posting behavior, Dave, post links to one or more of YOUR posts in which YOU directly and individually addressed each of the texts on the subject of the Trinity cited in a post by either Wolfgang or me. Show me - don't tell me! - that YOU don't want to limit consideration to YOUR "pet collection" while refusing the texts others believe prove YOU wrong.**
@Dave_L said:
If you pick out your favorite text, I will balance it with other scriptures demonstrating how its done. You want to limit others to your pet collection while ignoring their texts that prove you wrong, saving lots of time. It's like asking them to use only a shovel and leave their bulldozer parked.Dave, you continue to promote the falsehood that I am "ignoring" texts. In my last post, I linked to and quoted from one of your posts and a post from CM, each which offered several texts in support of your respective Trinitarian views. I then noted that to EACH AND ALL of the texts cited in those two posts, Wolfgang and I responded individually and directly. YOUR CLAIM THAT I'VE IGNORED TEXTS IS DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. Stop making it... or prove that I have done so.
And while you're at it, prove that YOU aren't the one ignoring texts that dispute your views! In the last month or so, I've cited and provided my take on more than 20 texts that dispute YOUR Trinitarian views. By my count, you have responded individually and directly to exactly NONE of them. Please show how it's not the case that YOU'RE THE THE ONE WHO'S IGNORED TEXTS, not I.
You cannot play cards without a full deck properly shuffled and dealt. If only one scripture says Jesus is God, and there are many, then it proves you do not know what the verses you present - mean.
In your view, does the same hypothetical hold when offered from the other side of the argument? Namely, "If only one scripture says Jesus is NOT God, and there are many, then it proves you do not know what the verses you present - mean"?
I know you claim no text says Jesus is not God, but I'm not asking about that. I'm only asking whether you permit the hypothetical you set up to be used by both sides of the argument.
The problem with your approach is that it limits my response to dealing with your pet collection of proof texts that you do not understand yourself. If I present only one text saying Jesus is God, it unravels your entire platform and saves a lot of time.
Notice Christ's deity in the verses I stumbled across in my bible reading yesterday.
“When Jesus heard this, he said, “This sickness will not lead to death, but to God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.”(Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.)” (John 11:4–5)
“And the person who keeps his commandments resides in God, and God in him. Now by this we know that God resides in us: by the Spirit he has given us.” (1 John 3:24)
“When they came to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them to do this,” (Acts 16:7)
“for I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.” (Philippians 1:19)
Plus many more direct references on request.
-
@Dave_L
So what you are saying is that...- The Bible is so full of clarity about the deity of Christ that we stumble over it constantly
- Passages that some people wrest from surrounding context that speak of specific attributes of God should be understood in light of a plethora of other crisp, clear passages. Even the isolated passages then snap into focus as expressing Jesus' divinity.
Do I have that right?
Thanks.
-
@GaoLu said:
@Dave_L
So what you are saying is that...- The Bible is so full of clarity about the deity of Christ that we stumble over it constantly
- Passages that some people wrest from surrounding context that speak of specific attributes of God should be understood in light of a plethora of other crisp, clear passages. Even the isolated passages then snap into focus as expressing Jesus' divinity.
Do I have that right?
Thanks.
At first glance, yes. The new translations incorporate a knowledge of the ancient languages the KJV and others did not have. For instance, Granville Sharp's rule that spells out Christ's deity in the clearest ways. And other proofs any open minded person can see.
-
@Dave_L said:
The problem with your approach is that it limits my response to dealing with your pet collection of proof texts that you do not understand yourself. If I present only one text saying Jesus is God, it unravels your entire platform and saves a lot of time.No, Dave. The "problem" with my approach is that I ask you questions you refuse to address, the latest example of which is the question of "pet collections" of verses and whether, as you claim, I "(ignore) texts that prove (me) wrong." Twice, now, I have demonstrated the falsehood of your claims about my refusal to engage texts not of my choosing. Twice I have reminded you of the posts in which I INDIVIDUALLY AND DIRECTLY engaged ALL the texts YOU and CM offered. And twice you have abjectly refused even to mention, let alone acknowledge, that engagement.
The "problem" with my approach, Dave, is that it proves beyond doubt and to your complete silence the falsehood of your claims about my "pet collections" and ignoring of verses.
Now I'd ask you to defend your claim that I "do not understand" my "pet collection of proof texts," but to do so, you'd have to engage the texts of my "pet collection," which clearly is something you're unwilling to do. Hence, I won't ask you to defend your claim. I will simply say it is false.
Notice Christ's deity in the verses I stumbled across in my bible reading yesterday.
YET AGAIN, I will engage individually and directly with the verses of YOUR "pet collection:"
“When Jesus heard this, he said, “This sickness will not lead to death, but to God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.”(Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.)” (John 11:4–5)
Notice that Jesus makes a clear, unmistakable, distinction between "God" and "the Son of God." In the verse, "...so that the Son of God" is NOT an appositional phrase; it is an independent clause that refers to a different subject than does the "to God's glory" phrase." The meaning of the verse, therefore, is that Jesus believes his trip to see Lazarus will bring glory to God and will glorify the Son of God.
“And the person who keeps his commandments resides in God, and God in him. Now by this we know that God resides in us: by the Spirit he has given us.” (1 John 3:24)
Pronoun referents matter here. In the larger context of 1 John 3.21-24, those referents are clear:
- v.21 - If our hearts don't condemn us, we have confidence before God
- v.22 - Whatever we ask of him (God) we receive because of our obedience
- v.23 - His (God's) command is that we believe in the name of his (God's) Son, Jesus Christ and love one another as he (Jesus Christ) has commanded
- v.24 - Whoever keeps his (Jesus Christ's) commands abides in God. By this we know he (Jesus Christ) abides in us by the spirit he (Jesus Christ) has given us.
Once the pronoun referents in these verses are correctly identified, the distinction between God and Jesus they assume is clear.
“When they came to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them to do this,” (Acts 16:7)
There is nothing about the phrase "the Spirit of Jesus" that says Jesus is God. Recall that the resurrected Jesus told his disciples that he would be with them to the close of the age (Matthew 28.20)
“for I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.” (Philippians 1:19)
See my previous response for a comment about "the Spirit of Jesus Christ."
In context, Paul makes clear a distinction between God and Jesus. Philippians 1.2 says...
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Php 1:2). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
Paul issues grace and peace from two distinct beings: God, whom he calls "Father," and Jesus Christ, whom he calls "the Lord." The separation between the two is equally clear in Philippians 1.6:
And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Php 1:6). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
God will complete a good work at the day of Jesus Christ.
Plus many more direct references on request.
What I "request," Dave, is that you respond directly to the questions I pose to you. Your posts make clear that you won't do so, but it IS what I "request."
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
The problem with your approach is that it limits my response to dealing with your pet collection of proof texts that you do not understand yourself. If I present only one text saying Jesus is God, it unravels your entire platform and saves a lot of time.No, Dave. The "problem" with my approach is that I ask you questions you refuse to address, the latest example of which is the question of "pet collections" of verses and whether, as you claim, I "(ignore) texts that prove (me) wrong." Twice, now, I have demonstrated the falsehood of your claims about my refusal to engage texts not of my choosing. Twice I have reminded you of the posts in which I INDIVIDUALLY AND DIRECTLY engaged ALL the texts YOU and CM offered. And twice you have abjectly refused even to mention, let alone acknowledge, that engagement.
The "problem" with my approach, Dave, is that it proves beyond doubt and to your complete silence the falsehood of your claims about my "pet collections" and ignoring of verses.
Now I'd ask you to defend your claim that I "do not understand" my "pet collection of proof texts," but to do so, you'd have to engage the texts of my "pet collection," which clearly is something you're unwilling to do. Hence, I won't ask you to defend your claim. I will simply say it is false.
Notice Christ's deity in the verses I stumbled across in my bible reading yesterday.
YET AGAIN, I will engage individually and directly with the verses of YOUR "pet collection:"
“When Jesus heard this, he said, “This sickness will not lead to death, but to God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.”(Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.)” (John 11:4–5)
Notice that Jesus makes a clear, unmistakable, distinction between "God" and "the Son of God." In the verse, "...so that the Son of God" is NOT an appositional phrase; it is an independent clause that refers to a different subject than does the "to God's glory" phrase." The meaning of the verse, therefore, is that Jesus believes his trip to see Lazarus will bring glory to God and will glorify the Son of God.
“And the person who keeps his commandments resides in God, and God in him. Now by this we know that God resides in us: by the Spirit he has given us.” (1 John 3:24)
Pronoun referents matter here. In the larger context of 1 John 3.21-24, those referents are clear:
- v.21 - If our hearts don't condemn us, we have confidence before God
- v.22 - Whatever we ask of him (God) we receive because of our obedience
- v.23 - His (God's) command is that we believe in the name of his (God's) Son, Jesus Christ and love one another as he (Jesus Christ) has commanded
- v.24 - Whoever keeps his (Jesus Christ's) commands abides in God. By this we know he (Jesus Christ) abides in us by the spirit he (Jesus Christ) has given us.
Once the pronoun referents in these verses are correctly identified, the distinction between God and Jesus they assume is clear.
“When they came to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them to do this,” (Acts 16:7)
There is nothing about the phrase "the Spirit of Jesus" that says Jesus is God. Recall that the resurrected Jesus told his disciples that he would be with them to the close of the age (Matthew 28.20)
“for I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.” (Philippians 1:19)
See my previous response for a comment about "the Spirit of Jesus Christ."
In context, Paul makes clear a distinction between God and Jesus. Philippians 1.2 says...
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Php 1:2). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
Paul issues grace and peace from two distinct beings: God, whom he calls "Father," and Jesus Christ, whom he calls "the Lord." The separation between the two is equally clear in Philippians 1.6:
And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Php 1:6). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
God will complete a good work at the day of Jesus Christ.
Plus many more direct references on request.
What I "request," Dave, is that you respond directly to the questions I pose to you. Your posts make clear that you won't do so, but it IS what I "request."
I invited you to post your favorite proof text, and I will show you how to balance it with others you ignore. Only one of my deity scriptures proves you do not understand the scriptures you stake your claims on.
-
@Dave_L said:
I invited you to post your favorite proof text, and I will show you how to balance it with others you ignore. Only one of my deity scriptures proves you do not understand the scriptures you stake your claims on.Your refusal to explore the texts I offered, respond to the questions I posed, or, frankly, even to mention, let alone engage, the content of the responses I have made to your posts, reveals the central differences between your and my approaches to issue debates, Dave.
- When you cite Bible texts as a challenge to my views, I engage each of those texts directly. When I cite Bible texts as a challenge to your views, you refuse even to acknowledge them.
- When you ask questions to gain clarity or to challenge my position, I address each question directly. When I ask questions to gain clarity or to challenge your position, you refuse even to acknowledge them.
- When I challenge the meaning and consequence of the texts you cite to support your views on the Trinity, you refuse even to acknowledge my analysis. And when you challenge the meaning and consequence of the texts I cite to support my views on the Trinity.... sorry; you refuse even to acknowledge the texts I cite, so you couldn't possibly challenge their meaning or consequence.
In my experience, refusal to engage others' points of view is NOT a strong debate tactic, Dave; it is instead most sensibly understood as a sign of weakness. You have no rebuttal response to any the texts or analysis I offer, so you offer none, and do so in the weakest, most disrespectful manner possible: You refuse even to mention the texts or that analysis.
These are FACTS, Dave:
- I have regularly and directly engaged the texts you cited in support your views.
- You have regularly and absolutely refused to mention, let alone engage, the texts I cited in support of my views.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
