Is Jesus God?

Stefcui · Feb 6, 2012

This question has always been considered as a trick question. Not because the question is wrong, but because the explanation is not easily explained on first encounter...

Does the word 'God' mean the same thing as the father? No.

Is the father God? Yes.

The word God has a plural meaning (i.e., Father, Son and Holy Spirit); whereas the word Father has a singular meaning. In other words, the meaning of God is plural... "Let us make man in our image". Asking if Jesus (singular) is God (plural) does not compute. That is why most people get stuck on this subject of the divinity of Christ. Most people assume that God is singular because scripture says that "God is one". God is singular in purpose; but God is plural in identities. Adam and Eve were also one. This is the same meaning. They were one in purpose; yet two different identities. Jesus and the Father are one in purpose; yet two different identities.

The word God describes their one singular purpose. It is not that difficult; it depends how you see it. Most theologians try to make it more complicated than what it really is for two basic reasons: 1. They do not fully understand it themselves, and 2., they cover their ignorance by making it sound very technical. This makes the theologian sound smarter than what he actually is.

God Bless
Steve

Lively Stone · Feb 6, 2012

veteran said:
Jesus Christ is the "express image" of The Father...

Heb 1:1-3
1 God, Who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, Whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by Whom also He made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
(KJV)

Express image? Brightness of His glory? By Whom God created all things? That's showing Christ's direct relationship as The Father also, but in a different aspect or manifestation.

Jesus in English comes from Greek Iesous, which originates from Hebrew Yehoshua, which means 'Yahaveh is Salvation'.

So even when we say the name Jesus with the word Christ (from Greek Christos which is from Hebrew for Messiah), we cannot get away from including The Father's Name within it at the same time.

Yet notice the Heb.1:3 verse refers to our Lord Jesus by Himself purging our sins, pointing to His crucifixion and resurrection and ascending to the right hand of The Father's Throne in Heaven. The Father is not specifically included in that, even though He is included by the Name Jesus Christ.

John 14:8-9
8 Philip saith unto Him, "Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us."
9 Jesus saith unto him, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip? he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, 'Shew us the Father?' "
(KJV)

Simple, our Lord Jesus Christ, even on earth having been born in the flesh to die on the cross, was the express image of The Father.

And our Lord Jesus gave us The Holy Spirit Comforter through Faith on Him, which is also a different working.

That's pointing to The Godhead as being Three manifestions or workings, but at the same time remaining as One.

Excellent.

Groundzero · Feb 9, 2012

Steve said:
The word God has a plural meaning (i.e., Father, Son and Holy Spirit); whereas the word Father has a singular meaning. In other words, the meaning of God is plural... "Let us make man in our image". Asking if Jesus (singular) is God (plural) does not compute. That is why most people get stuck on this subject of the divinity of Christ. Most people assume that God is singular because scripture says that "God is one". God is singular in purpose; but God is plural in identities. Adam and Eve were also one. This is the same meaning. They were one in purpose; yet two different identities. Jesus and the Father are one in purpose; yet two different identities.

The word God describes their one singular purpose. It is not that difficult; it depends how you see it. Most theologians try to make it more complicated than what it really is for two basic reasons: 1. They do not fully understand it themselves, and 2., they cover their ignorance by making it sound very technical. This makes the theologian sound smarter than what he actually is.

God Bless
Steve

Scriptures that support the Son being God? As far as Scriptures declare, the Son was not god. The Son was referring to the humanity of Jesus.

Also, if anything, I believe that seeing Jesus as the ONE and ONLY God is simple. You can't get more simple than that.

Also in regards to likening Jesus and the Father to Adam and Eve . . .
Jesus said that, "If you have seen me, you have SEEN the FATHER." Can a husband say that of his wife? No! That's lunacy!
Jesus could say that, because he was the FAther literally.

Joh_14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Something else:
When Jesus gave the Great Commission, he made it clear that there was ONE name for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. It stands to reason that if they all had the same name, it was because they were all the same person.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Ground000 aka editor, son, and register attendant

Stefcui · Feb 9, 2012

Groundzero said:
I believe that seeing Jesus as the ONE and ONLY God is simple.

Hi Groundzero, my hot-headed and impatient seventeen year-old friend.

You are entitled to believe whatever you like. This is not the inquisitions… I am not going to force you to renounce your heresy or else burn you at the stake.

God Bless
Steve

HeRoseFromTheDead · Feb 9, 2012

aspen said:
Modalism is heathenism.

While researching modalism, I came across these interesting facts:

* Tertullian is considered to be the father of the trinity doctrine.

* His ideas were rejected as heresy at first by the church, but were later accepted as orthodoxy (This indicates to me that the trinity doctrine was not orthodoxy as handed down by the apostles)

* He believed that repentant fornicators and murderers should never be admitted into the church under any circumstances (a truly ungodly and unscriptural attitude)

Stefcui · Feb 9, 2012

Before Tertullian, the Trinity was spoken of many times, but not in the exact same manner as is in the Nicene Creed.

Marinus, in the year 112 AD, wrote:

“For this One who put on a body is God, the Son of God, Son of the essence of His Father, and Son of the nature of Him who begat Him: for He is the adorable brightness of His Godhead, and is the glorious manifestation of His majesty, and together with His Father He existed from eternity and from everlasting.” (See Eusebius, Church History, Book 7, Ch 15)

Hegaspius, in the year 130 AD, wrote:

“And so they all together were crowned with martyrdom; and they reign with the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, for ever and ever.” (See the Scillitan Martyrs of Carthage, vs 4)

Justin Martyr, in the year 150 AD, wrote:

“Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove.” (1[sup]st[/sup] Apology to Emperor Antoninus, vs 13)

Melito, in the year 160 AD, wrote:

“We are not those who pay homage to stories, that are without sensation; but of the only God, who is before all and over all, and, moreover, we are worshippers of His Christ, who is veritably God the Word existing before all time.” (The Apology to Antoninus Caesar, vs 5)

Everetus, in the year 165 AD, wrote:

“Therefore also I praise You for all things, I bless You, I glorify You, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Your beloved Son, with whom, to You, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, chapter 14)

Athenagoras, in the year 175 AD, wrote:

“The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an emanation of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit…” (A Plea to Marcus Aurelius, chapter 14)

Theophilus, in 180 AD, wrote:

“God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things.” (The Teaching for Autolycus, Book 2, chapter 10)

Theophilus, in 180 AD, wrote:

“In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.” (The Teaching for Autolycus, Book 2, chapter 15)

There are other references too, but this should suffice.

God Bless
Steve

HeRoseFromTheDead · Feb 9, 2012

Steve said:
Before Tertullian, the Trinity was spoken of many times, but not in the exact same manner as is in the Nicene Creed.

I have no problem with the language of any you listed. It is only when such language devolves into the notion of three separate persons that I cry "foul".

Steve said:
Justin Martyr, in the year 150 AD, wrote:
“Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove.” (1[sup]st[/sup] Apology to Emperor Antoninus, vs 13)

I do take exception with Justin Martyr's description of the triune nature. Doesn't scripture and the spirit itself teach that Christ is third:

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear [the spirit], I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. John 5:30

Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am [he], and [that] I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me [through the spirit], I speak these things. John 8:28

I do particularly like Athenagoras description of the spirit:

Steve said:
Athenagoras, in the year 175 AD, wrote:
“The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an emanation of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit…” (A Plea to Marcus Aurelius, chapter 14)

And the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning. Ezekiel 1:14

Stefcui · Feb 9, 2012

HeRoseFromTheDead said:
I have no problem with the language of any you listed. It is only when such language devolves into the notion of three separate persons that I cry "foul".

Hi,

I have placed these quotes to demonstrate that the understanding of the trinity was explored by many people throughout these years. I am not making any judgment of the accurateness or credibility of their expressions. This assessment will often depend on our own lenses we see through.

God Bless
Steve

Groundzero · Feb 10, 2012

Steve said:
Before Tertullian, the Trinity was spoken of many times, but not in the exact same manner as is in the Nicene Creed.

Marinus, in the year 112 AD, wrote:

“For this One who put on a body is God, the Son of God, Son of the essence of His Father, and Son of the nature of Him who begat Him: for He is the adorable brightness of His Godhead, and is the glorious manifestation of His majesty, and together with His Father He existed from eternity and from everlasting.” (See Eusebius, Church History, Book 7, Ch 15)

Hegaspius, in the year 130 AD, wrote:

“And so they all together were crowned with martyrdom; and they reign with the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, for ever and ever.” (See the Scillitan Martyrs of Carthage, vs 4)

Justin Martyr, in the year 150 AD, wrote:

“Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove.” (1[sup]st[/sup] Apology to Emperor Antoninus, vs 13)

Melito, in the year 160 AD, wrote:

“We are not those who pay homage to stories, that are without sensation; but of the only God, who is before all and over all, and, moreover, we are worshippers of His Christ, who is veritably God the Word existing before all time.” (The Apology to Antoninus Caesar, vs 5)

Everetus, in the year 165 AD, wrote:

“Therefore also I praise You for all things, I bless You, I glorify You, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Your beloved Son, with whom, to You, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, chapter 14)

Athenagoras, in the year 175 AD, wrote:

“The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an emanation of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit…” (A Plea to Marcus Aurelius, chapter 14)

Theophilus, in 180 AD, wrote:

“God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things.” (The Teaching for Autolycus, Book 2, chapter 10)

Theophilus, in 180 AD, wrote:

“In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.” (The Teaching for Autolycus, Book 2, chapter 15)

There are other references too, but this should suffice.

God Bless
Steve

Does it really matter who said what about the Trinity? Every person in the world could believe in the Trinity, but if God ain't a Trinity, then it still wouldn't change anything!

HeRoseFromTheDead said:
* His ideas were rejected as heresy at first by the church, but were later accepted as orthodoxy (This indicates to me that the trinity doctrine was not orthodoxy as handed down by the apostles)

Exactly correct. No where in Scripture do the apostles mention the Trinity. They talked about ONE God, Jesus.

aspen · Feb 10, 2012

Groundzero

The same can be said about your opinion. If God is a Trinity, you opinion is not only worthless but heresy. So why should we go against the Bible (God is One; The Father, Son, and HS are God) and believe your opinion - especially when it contradicts 2000 years of orthodox teachings?

Stefcui · Feb 10, 2012

Groundzero said:
Does it really matter who said what about the Trinity?

Of course it matters. By examining the history of an idea, and who stated it, you can determine the point of origin. We need to do this to examine statements by people like you who try to introduce new teachings that are not found in the bible or history, except by heretics. This is the value of studying the history of ideas.

The word Trinity does not exist in the bible because it was a word coined to describe what was clearly taught in scripture. It is a descriptive word. It is a description of existing bible expressions. No single man made up these expressions; they are found in God’s word. The earliest Christians simply tried to understand these expressions in a clear concise manner. This is how the word trinity was formed.

We do the same thing with words to describe things all the time: where did the word photosynthesis come from? Where did the word Heliocentric come from? Where did the word Atom come from? Where did the word Agnostic come from? Your argument of word origins is useless. It shows you are being a provocateur without having any real evidence to stand on. It is not even logical.

You have been corrupted by the heresies of Jehovah’s Witnesses. If you read church history you would know that the earliest Christians used terms to manifest the awe of Christ’s divinity. The ones who did not were covert Gnostics who intended to cause doubt and divisions, like you are doing now. Many of the earliest writings of Christians have only been available for the last 50 years; so people like Charles Russell and Ellen White formed their heresies without being able to check if their information was historically true or not.

It is clear that you are not well read; and that you have listened to and believed in anti-trinity propaganda. It is clear that you are trying to spread these views among Christians to cause them to doubt as you have doubted. These are the strategies a spy would use, not a Christian. If heresy teachings are so correct, how come the heretics always use devilish tactics to persuade their audience? How come they always manipulate and mis-represent history or facts?

Steve

HeRoseFromTheDead · Feb 10, 2012

HeRoseFromTheDead · Feb 10, 2012

Steve said:
It is clear that you are not well read; and that you have listened to and believed in anti-trinity propaganda. It is clear that you are trying to spread these views among Christians to cause them to doubt as you have doubted. These are the strategies a spy would use, not a Christian. If heresy teachings are so correct, how come the heretics always use devilish tactics to persuade their audience? How come they always manipulate and mis-represent history or facts?

Strong words. What is your definition of the trinity?

Stefcui · Feb 10, 2012

HeRoseFromTheDead said:
Strong words. What is your definition of the trinity?

Hi,

I hold to the Apostles Creed.

I BELIEVE in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.

He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.

Amen.

In my opinion the definitions given in the 2[sup]nd[/sup] century are superior to later definitions. The Trinity doctrine evolved with time, and eventually became fixed by the Emperor. I do not agree that this was beneficial. The Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed both define the trinity differently to the Apostles Creed. I think these definitions were unfortunate. The basic creed of the Apostles was and is sufficient for all believers. All who have agreement of this creed follow orthodox Christianity. Any further definitions are not required; but are often maintained and bring about division. The term catholic Church is not referring to Roman Catholics. It was the term the very first Christians used to describe the universal church before the papal church developed.

God Bless
Steve

HeRoseFromTheDead · Feb 10, 2012

Steve said:
The basic creed of the Apostles was and is sufficient for all believers. All who have agreement of this creed follow orthodox Christianity. Any further definitions are not required; but are often maintained and bring about division.

I think those who make the trinity a divisive issue are themselves being divisive. You had some fairly harsh words for Groundzero that I think are unwarranted. We all see through a glass darkly, and I see nothing in his opinion that is anti-Christ, or even rebukeable.

aspen · Feb 10, 2012

The doctrine of the Trinity is the foundational belief in Christianity. It contains all the knowledge we know about God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit - including the doctrine of the Incarnation. Without the doctrine of the Trinity, we take away from the core of the NT.

Stefcui · Feb 10, 2012

HeRoseFromTheDead said:
I think those who make the trinity a divisive issue are themselves being divisive. You had some fairly harsh words for Groundzero that I think are unwarranted. We all see through a glass darkly, and I see nothing in his opinion that is anti-Christ, or even rebukeable.

Groundzero seems willing and able to speak for himself. He is challenging the Christian faith when he introduces modalism for his beliefs. Modalism identifies God with masks… one person, three masks. It’s God’s party trick! Now you see me, now you don’t. The earliest Christians rightly labelled this a heresy. Groundzero needs to be fully aware that such a view pits him against 2000 years of Christian teaching. This is a very serious matter.

Christians will always be offended by such statements. Groundzero is playing with fire by spreading such ideas when 99% of all Christian denominations hold this view to be heresy. We are not going to stone him to death. If he was a Muslim, though, spreading such teachings about Allah he might find himself decapitated. Christianity is tolerant; but we still have a duty to identify and correct false teachings if you know something to be false.

“Avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, quarrels, and fights about the law, because they are useless and empty. Reject a divisive person after one or two warnings.” (Titus 3:9, 10)

“Avoid the profane chatter and absurdities of so-called “knowledge.” By professing it, some have strayed from the faith.” (1 Timothy 6:19)

“Rebuke them sharply that they may be healthy in the faith and not pay attention to Jewish myths and commands of people who reject the truth.” (Titus 1:13)

“Those guilty of sin must be rebuked before all, as a warning to the rest.” (1 Timothy 5:20)

“Preach the message, be ready whether it is convenient or not, reprove, rebuke, exhort with complete patience and instruction.” (2 Timothy 4:2)

“These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority.” (Titus 2:15)

“As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.” (Revelation 3:19)

Now, Groundzero replied to me after I gave him good reason why we believe in the trinity. He “rebuked” me by stating that the fathers were irrelevant, even though I was talking to you, not him. I did not need to think long about how I should address him. I am sorry you disagree with me.

God Bless
Steve

veteran · Feb 11, 2012

Steve said:
Hi,

I hold to the Apostles Creed.

I BELIEVE in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.

He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.

Amen.

In my opinion the definitions given in the 2[sup]nd[/sup] century are superior to later definitions. The Trinity doctrine evolved with time, and eventually became fixed by the Emperor. I do not agree that this was beneficial. The Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed both define the trinity differently to the Apostles Creed. I think these definitions were unfortunate. The basic creed of the Apostles was and is sufficient for all believers. All who have agreement of this creed follow orthodox Christianity. Any further definitions are not required; but are often maintained and bring about division. The term catholic Church is not referring to Roman Catholics. It was the term the very first Christians used to describe the universal church before the papal church developed.

God Bless
Steve

An old twist, the RCC is different from the original meaning of the word 'catholic'!?!

The early Protestants that broke off from the Catholic system surely noted that twist also.

Stefcui · Feb 11, 2012

Veteran,

If you were as well read on history as you presume to be you would know that the Roman Catholics had borrowed their name from the original earliest churches who called themselves catholic Church. You would also realise that Luther understood this distinction. Luther was well read on these earliest christians.

While you act as if Christianity is a verbal competition between rival football clubs, you miss the point entirely. You would do well to be more educated on these subjects before you speak about things you know nothing about.

Steve

aspen · Feb 11, 2012

veteran said:
An old twist, the RCC is different from the original meaning of the word 'catholic'!?!

The early Protestants that broke off from the Catholic system surely noted that twist also.

When the Creed was written the RCC was the universal church.

Is Jesus God?

Is Jesus God?

Yes

No

New Member

New Member

Not Afraid To Stand

New Member

Not So Advanced Member

New Member

Not So Advanced Member

New Member

Not Afraid To Stand

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few

New Member

Not So Advanced Member

Not So Advanced Member

New Member

Not So Advanced Member

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few

New Member

New Member

New Member

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few

Similar threads