Jesus, The Christ, Is God (Without Human-reasoning or Approval)

24

Comments

  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675

    @Dave_L said:
    If Jesus was man only, your assessment would be true. But he was Also God.

    The first thing to note about your response, Dave, is that it addresses NONE of the specific verses/passages I included in my response to you. Each of those verses/passages contributed to my post's larger point: that the Greek word "kyrios" is used in multiple ways in the Bible, and not always in reference to God. That is, contrary to your previous assertion, "kyrios" does NOT always = YHWH in the Septuagint.

    Now I will address each of the verses you quoted:

    “Now I desire to remind you (even though you have been fully informed of these facts once for all) that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, later destroyed those who did not believe.” (Jude 5) (NET)

    Other manuscripts say "God" or "the Lord" saved the people out of Egypt. In fact, the vast majority of the translations in my Logos collection use "Lord," not "Jesus." In the context of the passage, given its reference to the exodus, "God" is most likely the original referent.

    “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)

    The writer makes a clear distinction between God and Jesus in the opening verses of his letter:

    Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness, 2 in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began 3 and at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by the command of God our Savior;
    4 To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

    The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Tt 1:1–4). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

    • The writer is an apostle of Jesus for the sake of God's - not his own - elect.
    • The writer offers grace from God, who is the Father, and from Christ Jesus, who is our Savior.
    • Then there's the interesting question of who the writer believes is savior. It seems to me he argues God saves through the human "savior" Jesus. V.3 says God is savior. V.4 says Jesus is savior. Titus 3.4-7 breaks the tie:

    4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

    The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Tt 3:3–7). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

    God poured out grace through Jesus. Hence, Jesus was the Christ - the anointed one - who delivered God's saving grace to the world.

    “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) (NET)

    Peter makes a clear distinction between Jesus and God in the very next verse, 2 Peter 1.2:

    May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

    The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (2 Pe 1:2). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

    Peter hopes for his reader's knowledge of God and knowledge of Jesus. A clear distinction between the two.

    According to the NRSV, an alternative rendering of v.1 is "...of our God and THE Savior Jesus Christ," seeming to refer to two different agents, God and the Savior.


    In many posts, I have made clear my view that there ARE a small number of verses that CAN be interpreted to support a trinitarian view. But upon further review, as demonstrated in this post, and in the broader context of the dozens and dozens of verses that make a clear distinction between God and Jesus - verses in which both Jesus and his apostles make the distinction - that small number of verses do not stand as the final word on the issue.

  • Dave_L
    Dave_L Posts: 2,362

    We can cut to the chase, by refuting the three passages I posted from commonly use bibles that say Jesus is God. This is the most efficient way to prove your point.

  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @Wolfgang said:

    @reformed said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    How creepy was it that Peter raised Dorcas from the dead?

    Peter didn't. God did.

    How creepy was Elisha raising a child from the dead?

    Elisha didn't, God did.

    Well, you can say the very same concerning Jesus .... Jesus didn't, God did.

    Except Jesus is God.

  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675
    edited May 2018

    @Dave_L said:
    We can cut to the chase, by refuting the three passages I posted from commonly use bibles that say Jesus is God. This is the most efficient way to prove your point.

    Again you choose not to address ANY of the six verses/passages I cited in my post before last, or the point I contend they made. In my last post, I dealt directly with the three passages you cited, and added three other verses for your consideration. Again, you chose not to address ANY of the verses I cited.

    In my view, it is telling that I address directly the verses/passages you cite, and you don't address (or even mention!) the verses/passages I cite, Dave. I figure, if you disputed my interpretation of any of the nine verses/passages I've offered to you or the three you offered to me, you'd say so. You haven't, at least not yet.

    As for proving my point, I have provided nine verses/passages in our current exchange and dozens of passages in CD posts over the years. It is another point of mine which you have never disputed that the total number of verses in the NT that make a clear distinction between God and Jesus is FAR larger than the number of verses that can be interpreted to support a trinitarian view.

  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @Dave_L said:
    We can cut to the chase, by refuting the three passages I posted from commonly use bibles that say Jesus is God. This is the most efficient way to prove your point.

    Again you choose not to address ANY of the six verses/passages I cited in my post before last, or the point I contend they made. In my last post, I dealt directly with the three passages you cited, and added three other verses for your consideration. Again, you chose not to address ANY of the verses I cited.

    In my view, it is telling that I address directly the verses/passages you cite, and you don't address (or even mention!) the verses/passages I cite, Dave. I figure, if you disputed my interpretation of any of the nine verses/passages I've offered to you or the three you offered to me, you'd say so. You haven't, at least not yet.

    As for proving my point, I have provided nine verses/passages in our current exchange and dozens of passages in CD posts over the years. It is another point of mine which you have never disputed that the total number of verses in the NT that make a clear distinction between God and Jesus is FAR larger than the number of verses that can be interpreted to support a trinitarian view.

    Here is a question I have for you Bill, is there any verse that explicitly says that Jesus is not God, or implies that Jesus is not God, that would leave out the possibility of the Trinitarian dual nature?

    To me, I don't see any verse that does that, but I do see verses and chapters that very clearly state that He is God. Does that make any sense what I am asking/saying?

  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675

    @reformed said:
    Here is a question I have for you Bill, is there any verse that explicitly says that Jesus is not God, or implies that Jesus is not God, that would leave out the possibility of the Trinitarian dual nature?

    There is no verse that says explicitly "Jesus is not God;" but then again, there is no verse that explicitly says Jesus was not a pumpkin, either. In my view, the Bible doesn't have to rule out every thing or role Jesus played in order for us to conclude what/who he wasn't.

    There are dozens and dozens of verses that make a clear distinction between God and Jesus. I have revisited them many, many times in CD threads, but here are four:

    • Matthew 26.39 - Jesus wants God's will, not his own will, to be done. Were he God, his will could not have contradicted God's will, and Jesus would not have had to vouch for the supremacy of God's will over his own.
    • Acts 3.13-15 - Peter says God glorified Jesus, who is God's servant. Jesus is the righteous and holy one they had killed, but God had raised.
    • Acts 4.10 - Peter says people killed Jesus, but God raised him.
    • Acts 10.39-43 - Peter says they killed Jesus, but God raised him; that God made the resurrected Jesus appear, first to the disciples; that Jesus is the one appointed by God to be judge of all.
    • Romans 4.22-25 - Paul says our faith will be counted to us as righteousness when we believe in the one (God) who raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus died for our sins, and WAS RAISED for our justification. (I recommend a study on the number of times in the NT that resurrection or raising is something done TO Jesus - that is, where he is the object of the raising, not its cause. Compare that to the number of times Jesus rose (as perhaps the cause of his own rising). In the VAST majority of times, I contend, God (the cause) raises Jesus (the recipient). Jesus was raised. Another clear distinction.)

    In my view, the most common sense rationale for Jesus' prayer in the garden is that he didn't see himself as God. And the most common sense rationale for Peter's attestation that God appointed, glorified, and raised Jesus is that Peter believed Jesus was not God. I find no sense in any of those passages - or the many others I could cite - that though the speakers and writers appear to assume Jesus is not God, they actually believe he was God... but just choose not to mention their belief, even though by not mentioning it, they leave their audiences with the contrary impression.

    Reformed, I'll ask you the question I've never been able to get a Trinity advocate to address: When in Acts (see above) Peter tells his audience that God had appointed, raised, and glorified Jesus, what does Peter seem to believe as to whether Jesus was God? Please cite specific verses within those passages if you believe in them Peter understands Jesus to be God.

  • @reformed said:
    Here is a question I have for you Bill, is there any verse that explicitly says that Jesus is not God, or implies that Jesus is not God, that would leave out the possibility of the Trinitarian dual nature?

    (1) as for "explicitly says that Jesus is not God" ... In order for Jesus NOT to be someone or something, does there have to be a verse that explicitly says so? I would claim that Jesus is not Peter, would you agree? which verse would you say explicitly says that Jesus is not Peter?
    (2) as for "implies that Jesus is not God" ... the whole of the Bible implies that
    (3) as for "that would leave out the possibility of the Trinitarian dual nature" ... the whole Bible says nothing of a "Trinitarian" anything anywhere; the whole Bible says nothing about a "dual nature".
    You, with your supposedly qualifying addition about "possibility of the Trinitarian dual nature", try to nullify and reverse what the answer to your question actually is. The trouble is, that you are using a non-existent illogical, loony tunes fantasy assumption, (the existence of a "Trinitarian dual nature").
    Now, forget your invalid assumption and things will be very plain and clear.

    To me, I don't see any verse that does that, but I do see verses and chapters that very clearly state that He is God.

    And which verses and chapters would that be which very clearly state that Jesus is God?

    Now, to save you some time, please don't answer "John 1", because John 1 does NOT state cleary - and not even unclearly - that Jesus is God ... rather it states plainly in the words of John the baptist, that Jesus was A HUMAN BEING, a MAN.

    John 1,29-30 (KJV)
    29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
    30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

    Does that make any sense what I am asking/saying?

    Not really ... see above.

  • @Bill_Coley said:

    @reformed said:
    Here is a question I have for you Bill, is there any verse that explicitly says that Jesus is not God, or implies that Jesus is not God, that would leave out the possibility of the Trinitarian dual nature?

    There is no verse that says explicitly "Jesus is not God;" but then again, there is no verse that explicitly says Jesus was not a pumpkin, either. In my view, the Bible doesn't have to rule out every thing or role Jesus played in order for us to conclude what/who he wasn't.

    Indeed ...
    It should be clear that a tree is a tree and being a tree it is not an animal or something else. It should equally be clear that a man is a man, and being a man it is clear that a human being is not God.
    Fantasizing that a human "could also be" God (or that God could also be a human) is a flat out contradiction and - based on Biblical truth - impossible.

  • GaoLu
    GaoLu Posts: 1,368

    Have nothing to do with people who continue to teach false doctrine after you have warned them once or twice. Titus 3:10.

  • C Mc
    C Mc Posts: 4,463

    @GaoLu said:
    Have nothing to do with people who continue to teach false doctrine after you have warned them once or twice. Titus 3:10.

    GaoLu,

    1. To whom are you referring?
    2. Are they here in CD? If so, should they be:
      • Removed from usage?
      • Ignored? and/or
      • Rebuked publicly?

    The one who teaches "false doctrine" is beyond help or lacks understanding?
    "Have nothing to do with people who continue to teach false doctrine after you have warned them once or twice", is this a form of surrender? What's the way forward? CM

  • Dave_L
    Dave_L Posts: 2,362

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @Dave_L said:
    We can cut to the chase, by refuting the three passages I posted from commonly use bibles that say Jesus is God. This is the most efficient way to prove your point.

    Again you choose not to address ANY of the six verses/passages I cited in my post before last, or the point I contend they made. In my last post, I dealt directly with the three passages you cited, and added three other verses for your consideration. Again, you chose not to address ANY of the verses I cited.

    In my view, it is telling that I address directly the verses/passages you cite, and you don't address (or even mention!) the verses/passages I cite, Dave. I figure, if you disputed my interpretation of any of the nine verses/passages I've offered to you or the three you offered to me, you'd say so. You haven't, at least not yet.

    As for proving my point, I have provided nine verses/passages in our current exchange and dozens of passages in CD posts over the years. It is another point of mine which you have never disputed that the total number of verses in the NT that make a clear distinction between God and Jesus is FAR larger than the number of verses that can be interpreted to support a trinitarian view.

    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)

  • @Dave_L said:
    How many times have we beat this dead horse? I mention Kurios as one of several proofs for Christ's deity.

    Problem is that your interpretation of kyrios is NOT at all a proof for Christ's deity ... and you have been shown clear textual proof as to why it is not. Yet, what do you do? You keep on claiming the same and totally ignore and reject the proof showing the error of your interpretation.

    But scripture stands unchallenged as absolute proof.

    Indeed ... so why do you not adhere to Scripture, for example how Scripture uses and defines the term kyrios?

    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.

    Your obstacles have been addressed by both Bill and myself and have been examined in the light of Scripture and found to be error.
    You, however, apparently do not even look at Scripture but instead throw theological non-sensical and non-textual "arguments" around as obstacles ... why??
    You remind me of the fellow who had a flat tire on his car, and when someone pointed that out to him, he replied, "No, that back wheel on the left side currently shows a different nature of the dual nature rubber from the other three wheels."

    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)

    Do you really expect that someone takes the time and point out to you how to read and apply personal pronouns (he, him) to the proper nouns in light of not only the immediate phrase but the context ??

    “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)

    See above ... do you really not read that this text passage is making a difference and distinction between God and Jesus ?

    “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)

    See above ... ever noticed that this statement is part of a quotation from an OT passage? ever taken the time to learn how quotations are used in Scripture?

    “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)

    See above regarding the previous verses in Heb 1

    “How blessed are the people who experience these things! How blessed are the people whose God is the LORD!” (Psalm 144:15) (NET)

    Do you know that a true interpretation and understanding of any text can only be arrived at if it correctly recognized to whom a statement is addressed and/or about whom it speaks?

    “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)

    Exactly ... so why then are you turning "one Lord, Jesus Christ" into the "one God, the Father"? Why are you making "one God, the Father" into "one God, the Holy Trinity" ???

  • Dave_L
    Dave_L Posts: 2,362

    I think your biggest problem is in thinking materialistically about God who is Spirit. One God composed of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is impossible if God is physical. That would be three gods. But spiritually, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of the same, single spiritual essence, eternally existing as one God.

  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675

    @Dave_L said:
    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.

    The "horse" called my response to your arguments - including but not limited to the one about the Greek word "kyrios" - is still very much alive primarily because, in my view, you refuse to respond to it. I have dealt directly with the verses/passages you cited, but you have not engaged ANY of the verses/passages I cited. The simplest explanation for your decision not to respond to my texts is that you have no response to them, that through your your silence you offer tacit assent to the conclusions I draw from them.

    In your latest response to me, you offer additional texts, again, without also addressing any of the texts I've cited. And so once again I will engage your texts directly... with little hope that you will return the favor and respond in kind.

    “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)

    I encourage you to read Colossians 1.15-20, the larger context of these two verses. There you will find that the writer says the risen Jesus is "the image of the invisible God", not God Godself (v.15). The writer describes the resurrected Jesus as "the firstborn of all creation" (v.15; was God born?) Finally, the writer says "the fullness of God" dwelled in Jesus (v.19) and that through Jesus God reconciled all things to Godself (v.20) Each of those elements of the broader context of the two verses you cited declares a clear distinction between God and Jesus.

    “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.

    “How blessed are the people who experience these things! How blessed are the people whose God is the LORD!” (Psalm 144:15) (NET)

    There is no necessary connection between OT and NT use of the word "Lord." As I have shown, the Greek word "kyrios" is used variously, and not always with respect to deity. Specifically in this verse, "Lord" clearly refers to God (YHWH); there is no textual indication that the word refers to anyone other.

    “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)

    One God, who is Father, and one Jesus, who is Lord. Two distinct identities. Two distinct roles.


    Once again, Dave, I have dealt directly with every verse/passage you cited. And once again I ask you to provide the same consideration to the many verses/passages I have cited during our exchange.

  • Dave_L
    Dave_L Posts: 2,362

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @Dave_L said:
    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.

    It still remains, the early church would interpret Lord (Kurios) Jesus as YHWH Jesus. This is why the Jews wanted to kill him. Because he did not match your depiction of the Messiah. They held the same beliefs as you.

    The "horse" called my response to your arguments - including but not limited to the one about the Greek word "kyrios" - is still very much alive primarily because, in my view, you refuse to respond to it. I have dealt directly with the verses/passages you cited, but you have not engaged ANY of the verses/passages I cited. The simplest explanation for your decision not to respond to my texts is that you have no response to them, that through your your silence you offer tacit assent to the conclusions I draw from them.

    As I said, we've been over this before. Hence the "dead horse" claim.

    In your latest response to me, you offer additional texts, again, without also addressing any of the texts I've cited. And so once again I will engage your texts directly... with little hope that you will return the favor and respond in kind.

    I've addressed your "proof texts" saying if you realizes Jesus is not only man, but God too, your proof texts will make sense.

    “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)

    Again, if you expand your definition of Jesus from being mere man, the passages harmonize with him being the creator of all. This means he preexisted his humanity.

    I encourage you to read Colossians 1.15-20, the larger context of these two verses. There you will find that the writer says the risen Jesus is "the image of the invisible God", not God Godself (v.15). The writer describes the resurrected Jesus as "the firstborn of all creation" (v.15; was God born?) Finally, the writer says "the fullness of God" dwelled in Jesus (v.19) and that through Jesus God reconciled all things to Godself (v.20) Each of those elements of the broader context of the two verses you cited declares a clear distinction between God and Jesus.

    “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.]

    This is what I'm saying, God spoke through Jesus the man. Indirectly as you would have it? No, directly, as God himself speaking through the man Jesus.

    “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.

    Again, Jesus (YHWH) speaking through his human form.

    • 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.

    His manhood did.

    • 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.

    Speaking of his manhood.

    • 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.

    How can God make himself? He did however make his manhood through Mary.

    • 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?

    This is another reference to the plurality of the Godhead.

    “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)

    “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in the Son” (Colossians 1:19) (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.

    But you must consider how Hebrews defines Jesus, especially as God the creator. And then consider how God took to himself a human body.

    “How blessed are the people who experience these things! How blessed are the people whose God is the LORD!” (Psalm 144:15) (NET)

    Again, only you and the unbelieving Jews didn't recognize Jesus as Lord. Peter knew he was the Messiah by divine revelation.

    There is no necessary connection between OT and NT use of the word "Lord." As I have shown, the Greek word "kyrios" is used variously, and not always with respect to deity. Specifically in this verse, "Lord" clearly refers to God (YHWH); there is no textual indication that the word refers to anyone other.

    There is every connection. The early church used the LXX and Lord meant YHWH.

    “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)

    Which means God only presented himself in Lord (YHWH) Jesus.

    One God, who is Father, and one Jesus, who is Lord. Two distinct identities. Two distinct roles.

    But One God.


    Once again, Dave, I have dealt directly with every verse/passage you cited. And once again I ask you to provide the same consideration to the many verses/passages I have cited during our exchange.

    Thanks for taking time with this. I hope what I offered makes sense to you.

  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @reformed said:
    Here is a question I have for you Bill, is there any verse that explicitly says that Jesus is not God, or implies that Jesus is not God, that would leave out the possibility of the Trinitarian dual nature?

    There is no verse that says explicitly "Jesus is not God;" but then again, there is no verse that explicitly says Jesus was not a pumpkin, either. In my view, the Bible doesn't have to rule out every thing or role Jesus played in order for us to conclude what/who he wasn't.

    I would generally agree with this approach, except we do have passages that affirm his deity (I know you disagree with that asessment).

    There are dozens and dozens of verses that make a clear distinction between God and Jesus. I have revisited them many, many times in CD threads, but here are four:

    I agree, there is a distinction between the Father and the Son, but not Jesus and God.

    • Matthew 26.39 - Jesus wants God's will, not his own will, to be done. Were he God, his will could not have contradicted God's will, and Jesus would not have had to vouch for the supremacy of God's will over his own.

    Yes, the human nature of Christ surely did not want to experience what was planned. That speaks to the dual nature of Christ.

    • Acts 3.13-15 - Peter says God glorified Jesus, who is God's servant. Jesus is the righteous and holy one they had killed, but God had raised.

    Consider Peter's audience.

    • Acts 4.10 - Peter says people killed Jesus, but God raised him.

    See above.

    • Acts 10.39-43 - Peter says they killed Jesus, but God raised him; that God made the resurrected Jesus appear, first to the disciples; that Jesus is the one appointed by God to be judge of all.

    Same as above.

    • Romans 4.22-25 - Paul says our faith will be counted to us as righteousness when we believe in the one (God) who raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus died for our sins, and WAS RAISED for our justification. (I recommend a study on the number of times in the NT that resurrection or raising is something done TO Jesus - that is, where he is the object of the raising, not its cause. Compare that to the number of times Jesus rose (as perhaps the cause of his own rising). In the VAST majority of times, I contend, God (the cause) raises Jesus (the recipient). Jesus was raised. Another clear distinction.)

    In my view, the most common sense rationale for Jesus' prayer in the garden is that he didn't see himself as God. And the most common sense rationale for Peter's attestation that God appointed, glorified, and raised Jesus is that Peter believed Jesus was not God. I find no sense in any of those passages - or the many others I could cite - that though the speakers and writers appear to assume Jesus is not God, they actually believe he was God... but just choose not to mention their belief, even though by not mentioning it, they leave their audiences with the contrary impression.

    Reformed, I'll ask you the question I've never been able to get a Trinity advocate to address: When in Acts (see above) Peter tells his audience that God had appointed, raised, and glorified Jesus, what does Peter seem to believe as to whether Jesus was God? Please cite specific verses within those passages if you believe in them Peter understands Jesus to be God.

    The passage does not speak to what Peter believes about Christ's Deity. He is speaking to the Jews and if he just came out and spoke of Jesus as God rather than just proclaiming Him as the Messiah, they would have immediately shut out his message. No citation necessary, that's not the purpose of the passage.

  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675

    @Dave_L said:
    It still remains, the early church would interpret Lord (Kurios) Jesus as YHWH Jesus.

    There is no textual support for your claim, Dave. The early church believed God had glorified Jesus in the resurrection (see Peter's sermons in Acts, sermons to which I have referred, but to which you have chosen not to respond)

    This is why the Jews wanted to kill him. Because he did not match your depiction of the Messiah. They held the same beliefs as you.

    Your claim that the Jews who killed Jesus held the same belief as I do is false, unfounded, and irrelevant.

    As I said, we've been over this before. Hence the "dead horse" claim.

    What we have not "been over...before" are the texts I have cited in our exchange... because you choose not to address them.

    I've addressed your "proof texts" saying if you realizes Jesus is not only man, but God too, your proof texts will make sense.

    This is not authentic engagement with the texts I cited, Dave.

    Your argument seems to be this: Any text that seems to say that Jesus was not God actually means Jesus WAS God because... Jesus was God. That is, you argue that the conclusion - Jesus is God - interprets any texts that speak to that conclusion! Why explore Scripture at all if your conclusion will decide the meaning of any texts you explore? In my view, the meaning of Scripture texts should decide our interpretive conclusions about them, and not the other way around.

    What reaction would you have had were I to have responded to your many cited texts with only the following: "When you remember that Jesus wasn't God, Dave, your "proof texts" become clear"? I can't imagine you would have thought that was substantive engagement with your texts.

    So I renew - for the fourth time - my request that you directly engage the several texts I have cited in our exchange, as I have directly engaged the texts you've cited.

    Again, if you expand your definition of Jesus from being mere man, the passages harmonize with him being the creator of all. This means he preexisted his humanity.

    Jesus was a man. (1 Timothy 2.5) The Hebrews text says he was "begotten" and the "firstborn of creation." It was the "Word" (logos - John 1) that became flesh and pre-existed Jesus' humanity.

    This is what I'm saying, God spoke through Jesus the man. Indirectly as you would have it? No, directly, as God himself speaking through the man Jesus.

    God spoke through the man, Jesus, yes. Hebrews 1.1 says God also spoke through the prophets. Does that mean the prophets were also God? No. If I speak through a PA system, does that mean the PA system is me? Of course not. Likewise, God's speaking through Jesus does not mean Jesus was God; in fact, it means God was distinct from Jesus.

    His manhood did.

    That's not what the text says.

    Speaking of his manhood.

    The text doesn't speak of "manhood." The text speaks of the being known as "the Son."

    How can God make himself? He did however make his manhood through Mary.

    If you assume Jesus was God, yes. But again, that's allowing a conclusion to interpret texts.

    This is another reference to the plurality of the Godhead.

    There is no textual support for your assertion, Dave. The text makes no reference to a godhead. The text says God says to Jesus things God doesn't say to angels or others; iHebrews 1.5 makes that clear.

    But you must consider how Hebrews defines Jesus, especially as God the creator. And then consider how God took to himself a human body.

    The Hebrews text does not define Jesus as "God the creator." Hebrews 1.2 says God created the universe "through" the Son, not "as" the Son.

    Again, only you and the unbelieving Jews didn't recognize Jesus as Lord. Peter knew he was the Messiah by divine revelation.

    "Messiah," yes, but not God. There is no textual support in the Acts texts I cited for the view that Peter believed Jesus was God. If I'm wrong, please cite the verses that say he did.

    There is every connection. The early church used the LXX and Lord meant YHWH.

    As I have shown, there is overwhelming textual support for my view that Jesus' disciples (and Jesus himself) did NOT refer to Jesus as "Lord" because they believed him to be God. They referred to Jesus as Lord in the sense of master and teacher, the one to whom they were bound.

    Which means God only presented himself in Lord (YHWH) Jesus.

    I don't know what this means.

    But One God.

    Here we agree. One God.

  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675

    @reformed said:
    I agree, there is a distinction between the Father and the Son, but not Jesus and God.

    When in his Acts 2 sermon Peter tells the Jews God had raised the Jesus they had killed, the ONLY distinction drawn is between God and Jesus.

    I count 24 NT verses that refer to God as Father AND to Jesus as Lord. In none of those 24 verses is there an indication that God's "fatherhood" is part of a larger godhead/trinity. Those verses seem to me clearly to use "Father" as a title/role of God's, and "Son" as a report of the relationship between God and Jesus.

    Yes, the human nature of Christ surely did not want to experience what was planned. That speaks to the dual nature of Christ.

    So do you take Jesus' desire not to experience what God wanted him to experience as a sign of imperfection? Or was Jesus perfect even if he didn't always agree with God's will for him?

    The larger question is, if Jesus was God, how could he have had a will that conflicted with God's will in any way? It still sounds to me as if you're saying Jesus' human side was imperfect.

    Consider Peter's audience.
    See above.
    Same as above.
    The passage does not speak to what Peter believes about Christ's Deity. He is speaking to the Jews and if he just came out and spoke of Jesus as God rather than just proclaiming Him as the Messiah, they would have immediately shut out his message. No citation necessary, that's not the purpose of the passage.

    In his Acts 2 sermon, Peter tells the Jews that theirs were the "lawless hands" that had crucified Jesus. (Acts 2.23) If he was willing to tell them they had killed Jesus, I think it's reasonable to assume he would have been willing to tell them Jesus was God, if he actually believed it.

    Review the Peterine letters. Where is Peter's trinitarian view?

    • 1 Peter 3.18 - Christ suffered to bring us to God. Clear distinction.
    • 1 Peter 1.3 - Peter offers blessing to God, who is the Father of Jesus, who is our Lord. No indication of equality.
    • 1 Peter 1.21 - Peter's audience believes in God through Christ. God raised Jesus and gave Jesus glory so that they could have faith and hope in God. The SAME distinction Peter makes in his Acts 2 sermon.
    • 2 Peter - Count the numerous times he refers to Jesus as "Lord and Savior." Notice the absence of references to Jesus as part of a godhead.

    I repeat my contention that for Peter, according to the words he preached and wrote, Jesus is not God, but rather God's resurrected son, the Lord and Savior of the world. I invite you to cite Peterine texts that negate the many verses, which I contend, offer the same consistent commentary about Jesus.

  • @Dave_L said:
    I think your biggest problem is in thinking materialistically about God who is Spirit. One God composed of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is impossible if God is physical. That would be three gods. But spiritually, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of the same, single spiritual essence, eternally existing as one God.

    I am not thinking materialistically about God at all ... I am thinking Biblically about "God", "One", "Three", "Father", "His Son", "Spirit", etc.
    Seems more that you have a big problem not thinking Biblically, but rather in a fantasizing manner which you seem to think is "spiritual" ?
    So you are saying that the term "God" describes and is "a spiritual essence"?? where in Scripture is such an idea about "spiritual essence" mentioned?

  • Dave_L
    Dave_L Posts: 2,362

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Dave_L said:
    I think your biggest problem is in thinking materialistically about God who is Spirit. One God composed of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is impossible if God is physical. That would be three gods. But spiritually, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of the same, single spiritual essence, eternally existing as one God.

    I am not thinking materialistically about God at all ... I am thinking Biblically about "God", "One", "Three", "Father", "His Son", "Spirit", etc.
    Seems more that you have a big problem not thinking Biblically, but rather in a fantasizing manner which you seem to think is "spiritual" ?
    So you are saying that the term "God" describes and is "a spiritual essence"?? where in Scripture is such an idea about "spiritual essence" mentioned?

    Your view of God is materialistic when you cannot grasp Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one spiritual essence called God, YHWH, Lord etc.

  • @Dave_L said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    So you are saying that the term "God" describes and is "a spiritual essence"?? where in Scripture is such an idea about "spiritual essence" mentioned?

    Your view of God is materialistic when you cannot grasp Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one spiritual essence called God, YHWH, Lord etc.

    Why are you not answering the questions you were asked? You have no answers, do you? and the answers that would be appropriate you immediately reveal the error of your claims, wouldn't they?

  • Dave_L
    Dave_L Posts: 2,362

    All of your passages are fine, but not balanced against the passages showing Christ's divinity that I already posted.

  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    So you are saying that the term "God" describes and is "a spiritual essence"?? where in Scripture is such an idea about "spiritual essence" mentioned?

    Your view of God is materialistic when you cannot grasp Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one spiritual essence called God, YHWH, Lord etc.

    Why are you not answering the questions you were asked? You have no answers, do you? and the answers that would be appropriate you immediately reveal the error of your claims, wouldn't they?

    RC Sproul writes about this in his Crucial Questions series about God being one in essence and three in person.

  • @Dave_L said:
    All of your passages are fine, but not balanced against the passages showing Christ's divinity that I already posted.

    You still did not answer the questions asked ....

  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited May 2018

    @reformed said:
    RC Sproul writes about this in his Crucial Questions series about God being one in essence and three in person.

    So what? Did I ask RC Sproul? I don't think so .... IF he was on this forum and had written, I would have asked him ... Why should I read what he said, when I don't have a conversation with him and he can't answer men nor explain things to me?

  • Acts 10:38
    How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

    What does the text here say about what Peter stated here about Jesus? What kind of human reasoning does it take to interpret this text as saying Jesus, the Christ, is God?

  • Dave_L
    Dave_L Posts: 2,362

    @Wolfgang said:

    @Dave_L said:
    All of your passages are fine, but not balanced against the passages showing Christ's divinity that I already posted.

    You still did not answer the questions asked ....

    The problem is, as long as you see Christ as the unbelieving Jews did, man only, you will not be able to understand scripture any more than they did. Once you grasp the Trinity Doctrine, and the Deity of Christ, you will understand the human aspects of your proof texts and how they compliment the other scriptures denoting Christ's divinity.

    Following is an example:

    “Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, he likewise shared in their humanity, so that through death he could destroy the one who holds the power of death (that is, the devil),” (Hebrews 2:14) (NET)

    If Jesus was merely human, how could he share in humanity? It's like saying a man shares in being a man which is meaningless. It only has meaning if God shares in humanity.

    “Therefore he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people.” (Hebrews 2:17) (NET)

    How would you, being made like your relatives in every respect need mention as being something unusual? Isn't that a given that you share in their nature? And how could any of your relatives die for the sins of the world if they are the world? This makes sense only if God is the subject who becomes human.

  • @Dave_L said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    You still did not answer the questions asked ....

    The problem is, as long as you see Christ as the unbelieving Jews did, man only, you will not be able to understand scripture any more than they did.

    You still don't answer the questions and instead try to detour by making generalizing assumptions and stating them as if they were fact.
    Dave_L, are you unable to answer a straight forward question?

    As far as your above assumption goes, I do NOT see Christ as the unbelieving Jews did ...to the contrary, I see him as the believing Jews did!! The unbelieving Jews refused to believe and rejected that Jesus was that man who had been sent by God as the Messiah. I do believe that Jesus was that man who had been sent by God as the Messiah!

    As for "man only", every human being is "man {[human] only", this is the way in which God has set up things from the very beginning. Women give birth to HUMANs (living beings who are "man only" ... or have you ever seen or heard of a woman giving birth to a "both man and monkey" living being? perhaps a "dog and man" living being?

    Once you grasp the Trinity Doctrine, and the Deity of Christ, you will understand the human aspects of your proof texts and how they compliment the other scriptures denoting Christ's divinity.

    I grasped the Trinity doctrine for more than a decade of my life ...and it contradicted constantly what I was reading in the Bible! After almost 20 years of Trinity indoctrination, I finally came to realize that it was not my reading which caused the problem but that the Trinity dogma is what was false and contradictory.
    As long as I was reading the Bible with "Trinity-colour" glasses, the Bible seemed to be filled with non-sense contradictions regarding God and Jesus Christ, etc ... take those glasses off, and all of a sudden "God" is actually "God" and "man" is actually "man" and the Trinitarian "God-man" (funny enough, they never called it "man-God"?) fiction fantasy becomes what it indeed is => the fiction of some theologically warped minds.

    Following is an example:
    “Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, he likewise shared in their humanity, so that through death he could destroy the one who holds the power of death (that is, the devil),” (Hebrews 2:14) (NET)

    If Jesus was merely human, how could he share in humanity? It's like saying a man shares in being a man which is meaningless. It only has meaning if God shares in humanity.

    No ... it is each man and woman who share in humanity, God is NOT a human and therefore does NOT share in humanity.

    “Therefore he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people.” (Hebrews 2:17) (NET)

    This verse simply emphasizes that Jesus was a human being like his "brothers and sisters" pointing out that he was NOT a "God-man" or "angel-man" or whatever, just as other human beings are NOT "god-man" or whatever "more or less than humans".

    Isn't that a given that you share in their nature? And how could any of your relatives die for the sins of the world if they are the world? This makes sense only if God is the subject who becomes human.

    Simple problem => the idea of "God becomes human" is a flat out contradiction to everything which the Bible has to say about God. God is NOT a man, and neither does God become a man.

    You display how effective the Trinity dogma has been in deceiving people honestly seeking to know and walk with God .... and instead of believing Scripture, they believe the lie which later church council dogmas have propagated as if the lie were the truth.

  • Dave_L
    Dave_L Posts: 2,362

    If you do not understand the Trinity, or the Deity of Christ, you will never understand scripture. We can pick at verses here and there, which we've done for years to no avail, the outcome will remain the same. This following one of several verses cripples your position to the point that any further debate is useless.

    “Now I desire to remind you (even though you have been fully informed of these facts once for all) that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, later destroyed those who did not believe.” (Jude 5) (NET)

  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675

    @Dave_L said:
    This following one of several verses cripples your position to the point that any further debate is useless.

    “Now I desire to remind you (even though you have been fully informed of these facts once for all) that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, later destroyed those who did not believe.” (Jude 5) (NET)

    Earlier in this thread, I responded specifically to your use of Jude 5. Here's what I posted:

    Other manuscripts say "God" or "the Lord" saved the people out of Egypt. In fact, the vast majority of the translations in my Logos collection use "Lord," not "Jesus." In the context of the passage, given its reference to the exodus, "God" is most likely the original referent.

    You chose not to respond to those observations at the time I originally posted them, Dave. Perhaps you will respond to them now.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Who's Online 0