Is Jesus Deity?

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:
Jesus was God in a human body.

?? God in a human body ?? why did Jesus not explain that to the woman at the well? or anyone else mentioned in Scripture explain it? My take would be, Jesus did not say anything like it because such would constitute a lie ...

@Dave_L said:
The bodily sacrifice paid for our sins.

God sacrificing Himself ? to Whom did God sacrifice Himself? according to you He sacrificed Himself to Himself ??

Mitchell

@Dave_L said:
How can Jesus' Deity not be the topic of the thread

Who said it wasn't? In fact, I even plainly stated that:

The actual is simply: "Is Jesus Deity?"

Dave_L

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
Jesus was God in a human body.

?? God in a human body ?? why did Jesus not explain that to the woman at the well? or anyone else mentioned in Scripture explain it? My take would be, Jesus did not say anything like it because such would constitute a lie ...

@Dave_L said:
The bodily sacrifice paid for our sins.

God sacrificing Himself ? to Whom did God sacrifice Himself? according to you He sacrificed Himself to Himself ??

Jesus sacrificed his body & blood in death to atone for sins. But spiritually He is God who cannot die. Paul also says we are saved by his life. “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, since we have been reconciled, will we be saved by his life?” (Romans 5:10)

If Christ only paid for our sins we would be in Adam's condition before he sinned. Finite righteousness = finite life. But since Jesus is God, we have his infinite righteousness that merits infinite eternal life.

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:
Jesus sacrificed his body & blood in death to atone for sins. But spiritually He is God who cannot die. Paul also says we are saved by his life. “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, since we have been reconciled, will we be saved by his life?” (Romans 5:10)

If Christ only paid for our sins we would be in Adam's condition before he sinned. Finite righteousness = finite life. But since Jesus is God, we have his infinite righteousness that merits infinite eternal life.

More complicate and confusing talk from you which I don't understand ...
I would like to know why you refused to answer the simple and plain questions I had asked:

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
Jesus was God in a human body.

?? God in a human body ?? why did Jesus not explain that to the woman at the well? or anyone else mentioned in Scripture explain it? My take would be, Jesus did not say anything like it because such would constitute a lie ...

Your simple and plain answer to my questions, please ?

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
The bodily sacrifice paid for our sins.

God sacrificing Himself ? to Whom did God sacrifice Himself? according to you He sacrificed Himself to Himself ??

And your simple answers to these questions, please?

Dave_L

Please restate your question(s) so I know exactly how to answer. Perhaps beginning with your most important question.

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:
Please restate your question(s) so I know exactly how to answer. Perhaps beginning with your most important question.

Dave_L, you must think I am stupid ... have a look at the post to which you replied, and notice the bold print ...
If you are indeed unable to read, I'd suggest you stop replying to posts

Dave_L

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
Please restate your question(s) so I know exactly how to answer. Perhaps beginning with your most important question.

Dave_L, you must think I am stupid ... have a look at the post to which you replied, and notice the bold print ...
If you are indeed unable to read, I'd suggest you stop replying to posts

You need to be specific. We have hundreds of words we already exchanged. Ask your most important question and I'll do my best to provide an answer from scripture.

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:
You need to be specific. We have hundreds of words we already exchanged. Ask your most important question and I'll do my best to provide an answer from scripture.

I regard your reply as an insult ...

Dave_L

We are on the 5th page of this discussion. I cannot wade through everything and hope I am selecting what you have in mind. Simply ask your most important question and I will do my best to provide a biblical solution.

[Deleted User]

Maybe you are unable to read ... I did mention rather plainly and specifically "the post to which you replied" only about 4-5 posts back ... but forget it, as I am done with this kind of game playing or whatever you might call it.

Dave_L

So be it. I was hoping to share how important the Deity of Christ is in relation to the doctrine of Imputation. There is a huge difference between Divine righteousness and human righteousness. It takes divine righteousness to merit eternal life because only God is eternal - without beginning or end.

[Deleted User]

I wonder if anyone else is still interested in the topic of "Is Jesus Deity?" and in replying to various points and questions asked in recent posts ?

Mitchell

@Wolfgang said:
I wonder if anyone else is still interested in the topic of "Is Jesus Deity?" and in replying to various points and questions asked in recent posts?

To the above, I will answer both; Yes and No.
Yes, I am interested in the Topic: "Is Jesus Deity?"
No, I am not particularly interested in the red herrings, ignoratio elenchi, false exclusionary disjuncts, and false dilemmas.

By, yes I mean I would be interested in exploring with others what Scripture actually present concerning the identity of Jesus/Yeshua.

GaoLu

Maybe we could take a look at "Emmanuel," which means "God with us." Mt 1:23.

For reference consider:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . " (John 1:1,14).

For in Him [Jesus] all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form" (Col. 2:9).

How strong is this as proof that Jesus was God?

Bill_Coley

@GaoLu said:
Maybe we could take a look at "Emmanuel," which means "God with us." Mt 1:23.

For reference consider:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . " (John 1:1,14).

For in Him [Jesus] all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form" (Col. 2:9).

How strong is this as proof that Jesus was God?

I propose that John 1.1,14 do not give strong proof that Jesus was God, and in fact, give evidence that John believed Jesus was not God.

• The "Word" of the chapter's first verses is the Logos, the idea that God has in mind for humanity. In my view, the "Word" is not a reference to Jesus.
• John 1.1's proclamation that the Word was both "God" AND "with God" makes for a curious, mystifying rhetorical turn. I propose that John means to say the Word so completely expressed God's intentions for humanity, that the Word could be identified as God.
• John 1.12 asserts that the one who came into the world - an obvious reference to Jesus - gave to those who believed in his name "the right to become children of God," but not children of his own.
• John 1.14 says the Word became or took on flesh - God's pre-existent idea took human form in Jesus. John says we have seen the glory of the Word as the glory of the only Son - we see the Word's embodiment in the person of Jesus.
• John 1.18 presents a translation challenge in that some manuscripts say it is "the only Son" rather than "the only God" who has made God known. In my view, "the only Son" fits better into the verse's flow because it makes less sense to assert that the only God has made God - whom no one has seen - known.

[Deleted User]

@GaoLu said:
Maybe we could take a look at "Emmanuel," which means "God with us." Mt 1:23.

The statement in Mt 1:23 involves a reference to something which occurred many centuries prior during the time of the prophet Isaiah ... at that time, the prophet announced that a sign would be given to the then king, and the sign would involve the birth of a son by a young woman, and was in connection to a deliverance from enemies before the child would really grow up. This son was to be given the name "Emmanuel", which has the meaning of "God [is] with us". The deliverance from those enemies did take place and the sign was fulfilled at the time.

Now, considering the reference application of this event and sign made in Mt 1:23, one must note, the child born to Mary was NOT named "Emmanuel"; as a matter of fact, it is emphasized in the immediate context, that the child was to be given and did receive the name "Jesus". Thus, already we see a deviation from the child involved in the prophecy, that boy child was actually named "Emmanuel".
Even though, the son of Mary was not named "Emmanuel" but rather was named "Jesus", the writer of the gospel describes the event of Jesus' birth as an "that it might be fulfilled" .... how then can this expression be correctly understood in light of the discrepancy with the name? HOW and WHAT was "fulfilled" in reference to the prophecy of Isaiah about "Emmanuel"? The answer is very simple: The meaning of the word "Emmanuel" ("God with us") was a reality in the person Jesus, who was God's only begotten Son.
Notice, God had been WITH His people at other times as well ... even prior to the time of Isaiah ... remember the pillar of fire by night and the cloud by day at the time Israel lefet Egypt?
"God with us" does not mean that the person (or thing) by whom (or by which) God was WITH us, was himself (or itself) God. The young boy at the time of Isaiah was NOT God. but indicated to the king to whom the sign had been given that God was with them. The pillar of fire or the cloud were NOT God, but they indicated that God was with the Israelites. The man Jesus, the only begotten Son of God, was NOT God, but he carried out God's will, spoke and did what God, his Father, wanted spoken and done, and as such in Jesus it was "Emmanuel / God with us".

If the term "Emmanuel" [God with us] makes the person himself God, then the child in Isaiah's time would have been God, and even more so, because he actually had the name "Emmanuel" whereas Jesus was NOT named Emmanuel.

[Deleted User]

@GaoLu said:
For in Him [Jesus] all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form" (Col. 2:9).

How strong is this as proof that Jesus was God?

Just comparing one other statement with "fullness of God" found in Scripture, should answer the question: In Eph 3:19 we read of a prayer that believers may be filled with the fullness of God".

It should be obvious that being filled with the fullness of God or having the fullness of God indwelling does NOT make the person him-/herself to actually be God.

GaoLu

So in short, your positions would be that Emmanuel in no way reference to Jesus.

The context is the birth of Jesus. The text says:

Now **all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord **through the prophet:

23 See, the virgin will become pregnant
and give birth to a son,
and they will name him Immanuel,[h]

which is translated “God is with us.”

And you think Emmanuel (meaning explicitly "God with us") does not in any way refer to Jesus.

Thanks for sharing your views. Anyone else?

Dave_L

Following is a passage around which obscure passages must yield to.

“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)

[Deleted User]

@GaoLu said:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . " (John 1:1,14).
...
How strong is this as proof that Jesus was God?

In regards to Joh 1, I would consider what the gospel of John overall is about ... an indication is given in Joh 20:31, where we can read that signs mentioned in the book were written so that readers might believe in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God ("But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.")
The gospel of John in particular portrays to us Jesus as the only begotten Son of God, whereas other gospels have other emphasis (Mt => Jesus as king; Mk => Jesus as servant; Lk => Jesus as son of man).

In light of this overall scope of the emphasis given in the gospel of John, I would understand that the "In the beginning ..." in Joh 1:1 may well be a reference to "the beginning of the Christ, the Son of God", rather than what is commonly thought "the beginning of the universe, heaven and earth, etc.

In other words, the Son of God, the Messiah [Christ] started out with the Word, and it is emphasized that this Word was not any man's idea but it was GOD's own idea, His Word, His plan, His concept [gr. logos] ("the Word was with God and the word was God"). This truth is corroborated in 1Pe 1:20, where we read that from even before the foundation of the world, Christ "was foreknown", that is Messiah existed in the form of "word" in the foreknowledge of God ("Who verily was foreordained [foreknown] before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you")

When the time was fulfilled, God's plan and the Divine Word about the man who was to be the Messiah became the reality, in that the man was born of a woman (cp Gal 4:4), and this is then described in Joh 1:14 as "word became flesh".

I consider this simple understanding and interpretation to be accurate and in harmony with the rest of the Biblical Scriptures ... whereas the often heard more philosophical and theologically complicate interpretations seem to almost neglect those scripture passages which I would say address the exact same truths and which I mentioned above.

Dave_L

This is another clear passage of Scripture about the Deity of Christ we should submit our understanding of the less clear passages to.

“Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” (Jude 5) ESV

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:
This is another clear passage of Scripture about the Deity of Christ we should submit our understanding of the less clear passages to.

“Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” (Jude 5) ESV,

This translation is based on a reading of Greek manuscripts which makes for a strange meaning of the statement as a whole. It was obviously not Messiah Jesus who was alive and leading the Israelites out of Egypt but rather God, Jesus' Father, the Lord, YHWH. Thus, a reading and translation which gives such a wrong impression must be incorrect.

Using a different translation based on a different manuscript reading eliminates the apparent contradiction, for example NASB

Jude 5 (NASB95)
5 Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.

Mitchell

The following I believe will provide a little background on Jude 5:

ver. 5 πάντα ὅτι [ὁ] κύριος ἅπαξ {D}

Despite the weighty attestation supporting Ἰησοῦς (A B 33 81 322 323 424c 665 1241 1739 1881 2298 2344 vg copsa, eth Origen Cyril Jerome Bede; ὁ Ἰησοῦς 88 915), a majority of the Committee was of the opinion that the reading was difficult to the point of impossibility, and explained its origin in terms of transcriptional oversight (ΚΧ being taken for ΙΧ). It was also observed that nowhere else does the author employ Ἰησοῦς alone, but always Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. The unique collocation θεὸς Χριστός read by 𝔓72 (did the scribe intend to write θεοῦ χριστός, “God’s anointed one”?) is probably a scribal blunder; otherwise one would expect that Χριστός would be represented also in other witnesses.
The great majority of witnesses read ὁ before κύριος, but on the strength of its absence from א Ψ and the tendency of scribes to add the article, it was thought best to enclose ὁ within square brackets.
[Critical principles seem to require the adoption of Ἰησοῦς, which admittedly is the best attested reading among Greek and versional witnesses (see above). Struck by the strange and unparalleled mention of Jesus in a statement about the redemption out of Egypt (yet compare Paul’s reference to Χριστός in 1 Cor 10:4), copyists would have substituted (ὁ) κύριος or ὁ θεός. It is possible, however, that (as Hort conjectured) “the original text had only ὁ, and that οτιο was read as οτιΙΧ and perhaps as οτιΚΧ” (“Notes on Select Readings,” ad loc.).

Metzger, Bruce Manning, United Bible Societies. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.). London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994. Print.

Dave_L

Jude 5 in Nestle Aland 27 used Kurios for Lord with the critical apparatus note translating it Jesus. So NA 28 just went ahead and said Jesus. This is a solid translation since kurios is also the exact word for YHWH in the LXX.

Dave_L

This might be of interest. Paul in Titus also calls Jesus God.

“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 (NET)

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:
This might be of interest. Paul in Titus also calls Jesus God.
“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 (NET)

Did Paul call Jesus God? or do trinity dogma influenced translators translate the passage in Tit 2:13 in a certain manner which is not of necessity the only way to translate it and which might make it appear as if Paul called Jesus God?
Why would Paul in one place supposedly call Jesus God, when in numerous other places in his writings he clearly and plainly distinguishes Jesus from God and views the two as independent of each other and furthermore calls Jesus A MAN ??

1Tim 2:5
For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1Co 8:6
But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.

Paul even stated that God was not only Jesus' Father, but also Jesus' God

Eph 1,3
Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:

I would suggest to take a closer look at Tit 2:13 and detect for yourself where the problem is which makes you to arrive at an interpretation which would make Paul to be a writer contradicting himself in his writings.

Dave_L

How can Paul not say Jesus is God?

“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 (NET)

Also if you consider Granville Sharp's rule, this passage says the same no matter the translation.

dct112685

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
This might be of interest. Paul in Titus also calls Jesus God.
“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 (NET)

Did Paul call Jesus God? or do trinity dogma influenced translators translate the passage in Tit 2:13 in a certain manner which is not of necessity the only way to translate it and which might make it appear as if Paul called Jesus God?
Why would Paul in one place supposedly call Jesus God, when in numerous other places in his writings he clearly and plainly distinguishes Jesus from God and views the two as independent of each other and furthermore calls Jesus A MAN ??

1Tim 2:5
For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1Co 8:6
But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.

Paul even stated that God was not only Jesus' Father, but also Jesus' God

Eph 1,3
Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:

I would suggest to take a closer look at Tit 2:13 and detect for yourself where the problem is which makes you to arrive at an interpretation which would make Paul to be a writer contradicting himself in his writings.

Contradicting himself in the box that Wolfgang puts God in. His ways are not our ways.

[Deleted User]

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Wolfgang said:
I would suggest to take a closer look at Tit 2:13 and detect for yourself where the problem is which makes you to arrive at an interpretation which would make Paul to be a writer contradicting himself in his writings.

Contradicting himself in the box that Wolfgang puts God in. His ways are not our ways.

I had nothing to do with Paul writing his epistles and writing what he wrote ... neither do I put God in a box, I just read what is written ... and I do endeavor to not produce contradictions within Scripture by my interpretation because I am of the opinion and hold to the principle that Scripture will not contradict itself.
Are you going by a different principle, such as God inspired Scripture can and does contradict itself?

Did Paul write in Eph 1:3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ ..." calling God not only Jesus' Father but also Jesus' God? How could Paul then in Tit 2:13 have called Jesus himself to be that God?

Did Paul plainly call Christ Jesus a man in 1Ti 2:5? How could Paul then have called Jesus to be God, when in a different epistle he called Jesus a man?

You may want to take into consideration that Paul had no idea about any Trinity Godhead dogma ... as such a theology and dogma was only invented some time later ... quite a while after Paul's death.

dct112685

@Wolfgang said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Wolfgang said:
I would suggest to take a closer look at Tit 2:13 and detect for yourself where the problem is which makes you to arrive at an interpretation which would make Paul to be a writer contradicting himself in his writings.

Contradicting himself in the box that Wolfgang puts God in. His ways are not our ways.

I had nothing to do with Paul writing his epistles and writing what he wrote ... neither do I put God in a box, I just read what is written ... and I do endeavor to not produce contradictions within Scripture by my interpretation because I am of the opinion and hold to the principle that Scripture will not contradict itself.
Are you going by a different principle, such as God inspired Scripture can and does contradict itself?

No. My interpretation doesn't have contradictions and harmonizes perfectly.

Did Paul write in Eph 1:3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ ..." calling God not only Jesus' Father but also Jesus' God? How could Paul then in Tit 2:13 have called Jesus himself to be that God?

Three persons. No big deal with that.

Did Paul plainly call Christ Jesus a man in 1Ti 2:5? How could Paul then have called Jesus to be God, when in a different epistle he called Jesus a man?

He was both after John 1. The Word became flesh.

You may want to take into consideration that Paul had no idea about any Trinity Godhead dogma ... as such a theology and dogma was only invented some time later ... quite a while after Paul's death.

That is your assumption actually. I contend he did know.