Jesus Is God: Part 2

[Hidden In Him]

Greetings again. Part 1 of this series was posted here:
Jesus Is God: Part 1

But I also thought I'd comment on another passage while I had a little time. As recorded in John's gospel, Thomas called Jesus God when He saw Him after the resurrection:

Then He said to Thomas, “Reach forth your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach forth your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.” And Thomas answered and said unto him, "My Lord, and my God." (John 20:27-28)

The following is the non-Trinitarian argument as put forward by Biblical Unitarian concerning this passage:

1. Jesus never referred to himself as “God” in the absolute sense, so what precedent then did Thomas have for calling Jesus “my God”? The Greek language uses the word theos, (“God” or “god”) with a broader meaning than is customary today. In the Greek language and in the culture of the day, “GOD” (all early manuscripts of the Bible were written in all capital letters) was a descriptive title applied to a range of authorities, including the Roman governor (Acts 12:22), and even the Devil (2 Corinthians 4:4). It was used of someone with divine authority. It was not limited to its absolute sense as a personal name for the supreme Deity as we use it today.

Again this strikes me as a weak argument. In Acts 12, these were pagan people suggesting that King Herod's voice was "as the voice of a god." The pagan peoples did worship men as if they were gods on occasion. The Samaritans did so with Simon the magician in Acts 8:10, for instance, as did many ancient empires with their kings. But if this is what Thomas was doing - making Jesus out to be a "god" when he was not - he was worshipping a false god in front of the rest of the disciples, yet nowhere did any of them corrected him for doing this.

Thomas did not say to Jesus, "My Lord, you are as God, having divine authority." He said, "My Lord and my God." Again, one has to manipulate the text in order to make the non-Trinitarian argument work.

Blessings in Christ,
Hidden In Him

 

[Abaxvahl]

Greetings again. Part 1 of this series was posted here:
Jesus Is God: Part 1

But I also thought I'd comment on another passage while I had a little time. As recorded in John's gospel, Thomas called Jesus God when He saw Him after the resurrection:

Then He said to Thomas, “Reach forth your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach forth your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.” And Thomas answered and said unto him, "My Lord, and my God." (John 20:27-28)

The following is the non-Trinitarian argument as put forward by Biblical Unitarian concerning this passage:

1. Jesus never referred to himself as “God” in the absolute sense, so what precedent then did Thomas have for calling Jesus “my God”? The Greek language uses the word theos, (“God” or “god”) with a broader meaning than is customary today. In the Greek language and in the culture of the day, “GOD” (all early manuscripts of the Bible were written in all capital letters) was a descriptive title applied to a range of authorities, including the Roman governor (Acts 12:22), and even the Devil (2 Corinthians 4:4). It was used of someone with divine authority. It was not limited to its absolute sense as a personal name for the supreme Deity as we use it today.

Again this strikes me as a weak argument. In Acts 12, these were pagan people suggesting that King Herod's voice was "as the voice of a god." The pagan peoples did worship men as if they were gods on occasion. The Samaritans did so with Simon the magician in Acts 8:10, for instance, as did many ancient empires with their kings. But if this is what Thomas was doing - making Jesus out to be a "god" when he was not - he was worshipping a false god in front of the rest of the disciples, yet nowhere did any of them corrected him for doing this.

Thomas did not say to Jesus, "My Lord, you are as God, having divine authority." He said, "My Lord and my God." Again, one has to manipulate the text in order to make the non-Trinitarian argument work.

Blessings in Christ,
Hidden In Him

This argument from the anti-Christian is a bit better but still fails, for while it is true that many may be called "god" in a broad sense in the Hebrew/Greek Scriptures and beyond, the context ultimately determines what St. Thomas meant here: one of the main points of St. John's Gospel is that Jesus is God, not merely with divine authority, but is the natural Son of God (that is a son by nature), which is the Eternal Logos. This point is also driven home by his Epistles and Revelation.

 

[Pierac]

John 20: 28

My Lord and my God.

There you go, an Apostle refers to Jesus as God. When you look at some verses in the Old and New Testament you have to remember to look at them with a Hebrew or Greek mind of that period, and not a 20th century mind. Some language can mean something to us that it did not mean back then. For example, if an Englishman says, "I am mad about my flat" he means that he is exited about his apartment. To an American, that same phrase means that he is angry about his flat tire. The word "God" for example, means to us in the 20th century "The Almighty God." To a Jew it did not necessarily mean "Almighty God." In Psalms 82: 1 & 6 God refers to earthly rulers as gods. This is the same passage that Jesus quotes to the Jews when they accuse him of saying that he is God. Paraphrasing Jesus, he says to them; "If it is okay to call men gods, why is it blasphemous for me to say that I am the Son of God"(John 10: 33 - 38). Notice how when Jesus is accused of being God, he quickly corrects them that he is not God, but the Son of God. In 2 Corinthians 4: 4 Satan is also called the "god of this age." Does that mean that he is God Almighty? Of course not!

John even tells us just 3 verses later why he wrote about Thomas story… In John 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. If Thomas was really calling Jesus GOD almighty then John just contradicted why he wrote his writings.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church points out what an early Christian father, Origen (185-254 AD) says about the word "God." "The Son is theos (God), but only the Father is autotheos" (absolute God, God in himself).

This is the reason there is an Almighty God or a Most High God, in order to differentiate the only true God from the others. Another fact to consider when approaching this verse is to understand whom John believes God and Jesus to be.

John wrote his gospel to testify that Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son. Let us take a look again at what John believes in order to not take one verse and unjustly imply a certain belief on John.

John 17:3

"Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Revelation 1:6

"Who (Jesus) has made us into a kingdom, priests for his God and Father"

John 20:17

"But go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’"

Remember that John’s whole purpose for writing his Gospel is to prove that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, not God.

"But these are written that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God" (John 20: 31).

We must keep John's reason for writing his gospel fresh in our minds as we try to understand this verse. In his gospel, John distinguishes completely between the only true God and Jesus Christ To imply that John believed in a three in one God would be to do a terrible injustice to John.

So what does Thomas mean? To us in the modern world it might at first seem odd, but when you put yourself in Thomas’s place as a Jew in Jesus’ day, it will make all the sense in the world.

The Catholic New American Bible defines this usage of the word god:

"The king, in courtly language is called god, representing God to the people."

Aspects of Monotheism states: "god" is an allegorical equivalent for "king."

This is the definition of the Messiah. The Messiah is the king of Israel who represents God to the people (John 1:49). Thomas was just stating that fact. When he saw Jesus resurrected, it proved to him that He was indeed the Messiah. Thomas’ statement is the equivalent of saying, My Lord and my king. This is not just my opinion; it is easily verified in the Old Testament. Remember, God = king = Messiah.

This kind of language was common in those days. Let’s look at a similar verse.

1 Samuel 24:9 states:

"David also stepped out of the cave, calling to Saul, "My lord and my king."

My lord and my God = My lord and my king.

This verse mean the same thing. Thomas is addressing the king of Israel in exactly the same way that David did. You just have to speak like a first century Jew.

Luke 2:11 states:

"A savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord."

Acts 2:36 states:

"God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified."

Lord and Messiah = Lord and king = Lord and God.

There is for me one great proof that Thomas did not mean Jesus is Almighty God when he called Jesus God. When Thomas called Jesus "My lord and my God " all the Apostles were in the room. If this statement is true, then it is logical to assume that from now on, all the Apostles know that Jesus is really God. So from that point onward Jesus should be addressed as God. But as you can see in all the writings of the New Testament, none of the Apostles ever refer to Jesus as Almighty God or YHWH . Not once in the entire New Testament do they ever pray to Jesus. They make clear distinctions between the two. They in fact write about the God of Jesus Christ (John 20:17). Remember, "No one has ever seen God" (1 John 4: 12). Same author.

 

[Cooper]

Have a read here
Jesus’ Claims to be God – Yes, Jesus Said He is God
.

 

[dev553344]

Yes Jesus is part of God and therefor entitled to be called God. I haven't always believed this but I was visited by the Spirit of Christ some years ago and he was clear that he is God along with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Pierac]

Yes Jesus is part of God and therefor entitled to be called God. I haven't always believed this but I was visited by the Spirit of Christ some years ago and he was clear that he is God along with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

It was not the Spirit of Christ that visited you...

Let Jesus tell you who He is....

(John 8:40) "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do.

Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God
performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--

Joh 12:49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him

Paul tells you the risen Christ your mediator... is a Man named Jesus!!!

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

Spirit or Flesh?

Many prophecies indicated that the Coming One would arise from the "seed," the stock of humanity, in a particular from Abrahamic and Davidic stock. The Messiah would be from the biological chain within the human family, specifically of Jewish pedigree: "The Lord your God will rise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your own countrymen [literally, brothers]; you shall listen to him" (Deut.18:15). In this passage, Moses predicts that the coming Messiah would be a person "like me," raised up from "among" the people of Israel, and that God would not speak to the people directly, because they were afraid that if God spoke without a mediator they would die (V16). The coming "prophet" would be a man of whom it is said that God would "put his word in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And it shall come about whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him” (v. 18-19). To say that the Messiah is God Himself is to contradict the whole point of this prophecy. For it announces that the ultimate spokesman for God is expressly not God but a human being. The New Testament says that Jesus is the one who fulfilled this prophecy (Acts 3:22; 7:37). Understandably, no Jew who believe theses Scriptures ever imagined that the baby born in Bethlehem was going to be Jehovah himself come as a human baby.

In addition, Jehovah God says clearly that he is not a man (Numbers 23:19; Job 9:32). The converse is therefore true: if a person is a man, then he can not be God.

On the authority of Jesus himself we know that the categories of "flesh" and "spirit" are never to be confused or intermingled, though the course of God's Spirit can impact our world. Jesus said, "That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit" (John 3:6). And "God is Spirit." The doctrine of the incarnation confuses these categories. What God has separated man has joined together! One of the charges that the apostle Paul levels at simple man is that we have "exchange the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man" (Romans 1:23). Has it ever dawned on you as you sit in church listening to how the glorious Creator made Himself into a man that you could be guilty of this very same thing? The doctrine of the incarnation has reduced the incorruptible God to our own corruptible image. We are made in God's image, not the other way around. It would be more appropriate to put this contrast in starker terms. The defining characteristic of the Creator God is his absolute holiness. God is utterly different from and so utterly transcendent over His creation that any confusion is forbidden!

Paul

 

[APAK]

It was not the Spirit of Christ that visited you...

Let Jesus tell you who He is....

(John 8:40) "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do.

Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God
performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--

Joh 12:49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him

Paul tells you the risen Christ your mediator... is a Man named Jesus!!!

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

Spirit or Flesh?

Many prophecies indicated that the Coming One would arise from the "seed," the stock of humanity, in a particular from Abrahamic and Davidic stock. The Messiah would be from the biological chain within the human family, specifically of Jewish pedigree: "The Lord your God will rise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your own countrymen [literally, brothers]; you shall listen to him" (Deut.18:15). In this passage, Moses predicts that the coming Messiah would be a person "like me," raised up from "among" the people of Israel, and that God would not speak to the people directly, because they were afraid that if God spoke without a mediator they would die (V16). The coming "prophet" would be a man of whom it is said that God would "put his word in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And it shall come about whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him” (v. 18-19). To say that the Messiah is God Himself is to contradict the whole point of this prophecy. For it announces that the ultimate spokesman for God is expressly not God but a human being. The New Testament says that Jesus is the one who fulfilled this prophecy (Acts 3:22; 7:37). Understandably, no Jew who believe theses Scriptures ever imagined that the baby born in Bethlehem was going to be Jehovah himself come as a human baby.

In addition, Jehovah God says clearly that he is not a man (Numbers 23:19; Job 9:32). The converse is therefore true: if a person is a man, then he can not be God.

On the authority of Jesus himself we know that the categories of "flesh" and "spirit" are never to be confused or intermingled, though the course of God's Spirit can impact our world. Jesus said, "That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit" (John 3:6). And "God is Spirit." The doctrine of the incarnation confuses these categories. What God has separated man has joined together! One of the charges that the apostle Paul levels at simple man is that we have "exchange the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man" (Romans 1:23). Has it ever dawned on you as you sit in church listening to how the glorious Creator made Himself into a man that you could be guilty of this very same thing? The doctrine of the incarnation has reduced the incorruptible God to our own corruptible image. We are made in God's image, not the other way around. It would be more appropriate to put this contrast in starker terms. The defining characteristic of the Creator God is his absolute holiness. God is utterly different from and so utterly transcendent over His creation that any confusion is forbidden!

Paul

Excellent presentation! Man still wants to bring God, the Father of all things, DOWN to his own terms: to his selfish and proud understanding, that God must be a god-man to save them. To oppose and disbelieve firmly that God in fact created a man, the 2nd and last Adam, from His breath, to work in him, to save him, and mankind.

It never changes, where most professing Christians doubt that ONLY a man named Jesus/Yahshua could save them. They do not want to listen to the rest of story, that this man never worked or lived alone, in mind and spirit, from birth. They are the doubters who lack faith in the word. They would rather believe and worship their own devices, as idols: of the trinity, the incarnation, the hypostatic union and the transubstantiation for some.

Bless you..APAK

 

[Cooper]

John 20: 28

My Lord and my God.

There you go, an Apostle refers to Jesus as God. When you look at some verses in the Old and New Testament you have to remember to look at them with a Hebrew or Greek mind of that period, and not a 20th century mind. Some language can mean something to us that it did not mean back then. For example, if an Englishman says, "I am mad about my flat" he means that he is exited about his apartment. To an American, that same phrase means that he is angry about his flat tire. The word "God" for example, means to us in the 20th century "The Almighty God." To a Jew it did not necessarily mean "Almighty God." In Psalms 82: 1 & 6 God refers to earthly rulers as gods. This is the same passage that Jesus quotes to the Jews when they accuse him of saying that he is God. Paraphrasing Jesus, he says to them; "If it is okay to call men gods, why is it blasphemous for me to say that I am the Son of God"(John 10: 33 - 38). Notice how when Jesus is accused of being God, he quickly corrects them that he is not God, but the Son of God. In 2 Corinthians 4: 4 Satan is also called the "god of this age." Does that mean that he is God Almighty? Of course not!

John even tells us just 3 verses later why he wrote about Thomas story… In John 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. If Thomas was really calling Jesus GOD almighty then John just contradicted why he wrote his writings.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church points out what an early Christian father, Origen (185-254 AD) says about the word "God." "The Son is theos (God), but only the Father is autotheos" (absolute God, God in himself).

This is the reason there is an Almighty God or a Most High God, in order to differentiate the only true God from the others. Another fact to consider when approaching this verse is to understand whom John believes God and Jesus to be.

John wrote his gospel to testify that Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son. Let us take a look again at what John believes in order to not take one verse and unjustly imply a certain belief on John.

John 17:3

"Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Revelation 1:6

"Who (Jesus) has made us into a kingdom, priests for his God and Father"

John 20:17

"But go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’"

Remember that John’s whole purpose for writing his Gospel is to prove that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, not God.

"But these are written that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God" (John 20: 31).

We must keep John's reason for writing his gospel fresh in our minds as we try to understand this verse. In his gospel, John distinguishes completely between the only true God and Jesus Christ To imply that John believed in a three in one God would be to do a terrible injustice to John.

So what does Thomas mean? To us in the modern world it might at first seem odd, but when you put yourself in Thomas’s place as a Jew in Jesus’ day, it will make all the sense in the world.

The Catholic New American Bible defines this usage of the word god:

"The king, in courtly language is called god, representing God to the people."

Aspects of Monotheism states: "god" is an allegorical equivalent for "king."

This is the definition of the Messiah. The Messiah is the king of Israel who represents God to the people (John 1:49). Thomas was just stating that fact. When he saw Jesus resurrected, it proved to him that He was indeed the Messiah. Thomas’ statement is the equivalent of saying, My Lord and my king. This is not just my opinion; it is easily verified in the Old Testament. Remember, God = king = Messiah.

This kind of language was common in those days. Let’s look at a similar verse.

1 Samuel 24:9 states:

"David also stepped out of the cave, calling to Saul, "My lord and my king."

My lord and my God = My lord and my king.

This verse mean the same thing. Thomas is addressing the king of Israel in exactly the same way that David did. You just have to speak like a first century Jew.

Luke 2:11 states:

"A savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord."

Acts 2:36 states:

"God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified."

Lord and Messiah = Lord and king = Lord and God.

There is for me one great proof that Thomas did not mean Jesus is Almighty God when he called Jesus God. When Thomas called Jesus "My lord and my God " all the Apostles were in the room. If this statement is true, then it is logical to assume that from now on, all the Apostles know that Jesus is really God. So from that point onward Jesus should be addressed as God. But as you can see in all the writings of the New Testament, none of the Apostles ever refer to Jesus as Almighty God or YHWH . Not once in the entire New Testament do they ever pray to Jesus. They make clear distinctions between the two. They in fact write about the God of Jesus Christ (John 20:17). Remember, "No one has ever seen God" (1 John 4: 12). Same author.

God humbled himself and became like man. The important thing is to remember who he was before he came down from heaven's glory.
.

 

[Aunty Jane]

No one seems to realize that the biggest elephant in the room, is the fact that Yahweh is immortal and therefore cannot die.

In order to pay the redemption price for the release of all those held captive to sin and death because of Adam's defection, all we needed was an equivalent sinless life to be given in exchange, to balance the scales of God's perfect justice as expressed in Deuteronomy 19:19-21....
"you should do to him just as he had schemed to do to his brother, and you must remove what is bad from your midst. 20 Those who remain will hear and be afraid, and they will never again do anything bad like this among you. 21 You should not feel sorry: Life will be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."

God's law demanded equivalency which is called "atonement" (at-one-ment) one for one. In order to become Adam's equivalent Jesus did not need to be God....he just needed to be sinless.....and 100% mortal human.

If God had offered himself as the redemption price....
1) He could not die, and so the ransom could not be paid.
2) The price was set, so to pay a God/man's life for a mere human, is an extraordinary amount of overkill......like using 60,000,000 trillion cans of bug spray for one mosquito.....

Where did the notion of Jesus being God even come from, since there is no mention of this at all in the scriptures? The Jews did not worship a trinity and still don't. Jesus was Jewish and therefore never taught such a blasphemous thing.

Jesus never once said that he was God......his apostles never believed that he was the Almighty.....Gabriel never said that Mary would give birth to God.....and an "only begotten son" needs a 'begetter' who existed before him, like all fathers do.

The Bible proves that the trinity is nonsense. IMO.

 

[Cooper]

No one seems to realize that the biggest elephant in the room, is the fact that Yahweh is immortal and therefore cannot die.

In order to pay the redemption price for the release of all those held captive to sin and death because of Adam's defection, all we needed was an equivalent sinless life to be given in exchange, to balance the scales of God's perfect justice as expressed in Deuteronomy 19:19-21....
"you should do to him just as he had schemed to do to his brother, and you must remove what is bad from your midst. 20 Those who remain will hear and be afraid, and they will never again do anything bad like this among you. 21 You should not feel sorry: Life will be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."

God's law demanded equivalency which is called "atonement" (at-one-ment) one for one. In order to become Adam's equivalent Jesus did not need to be God....he just needed to be sinless.....and 100% mortal human.

If God had offered himself as the redemption price....
1) He could not die, and so the ransom could not be paid.
2) The price was set, so to pay a God/man's life for a mere human, is an extraordinary amount of overkill......like using 60,000,000 trillion cans of bug spray for one mosquito.....

Where did the notion of Jesus being God even come from, since there is no mention of this at all in the scriptures? The Jews did not worship a trinity and still don't. Jesus was Jewish and therefore never taught such a blasphemous thing.

Jesus never once said that he was God......his apostles never believed that he was the Almighty.....Gabriel never said that Mary would give birth to God.....and an "only begotten son" needs a 'begetter' who existed before him, like all fathers do.

The Bible proves that the trinity is nonsense. IMO.

God did not die, it was the flesh that died.
.

 

[Pierac]

God humbled himself and became like man. The important thing is to remember who he was before he came down from heaven's glory.
.

Did you even read my post???

On the authority of Jesus himself we know that the categories of "flesh" and "spirit" are never to be confused or intermingled, though the course of God's Spirit can impact our world. Jesus said, "That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit" (John 3:6). And "God is Spirit." The doctrine of the incarnation confuses these categories. What God has separated man has joined together! One of the charges that the apostle Paul levels at simple man is that we have "exchange the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man" (Romans 1:23). Has it ever dawned on you as you sit in church listening to how the glorious Creator made Himself into a man that you could be guilty of this very same thing? The doctrine of the incarnation has reduced the incorruptible God to our own corruptible image. We are made in God's image, not the other way around. It would be more appropriate to put this contrast in starker terms. The defining characteristic of the Creator God is his absolute holiness. God is utterly different from and so utterly transcendent over His creation that any confusion is forbidden!

Num 23:19 "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?


Paul

 

[Cooper]

Did you even read my post???

On the authority of Jesus himself we know that the categories of "flesh" and "spirit" are never to be confused or intermingled, though the course of God's Spirit can impact our world. Jesus said, "That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit" (John 3:6). And "God is Spirit." The doctrine of the incarnation confuses these categories. What God has separated man has joined together! One of the charges that the apostle Paul levels at simple man is that we have "exchange the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man" (Romans 1:23). Has it ever dawned on you as you sit in church listening to how the glorious Creator made Himself into a man that you could be guilty of this very same thing? The doctrine of the incarnation has reduced the incorruptible God to our own corruptible image. We are made in God's image, not the other way around. It would be more appropriate to put this contrast in starker terms. The defining characteristic of the Creator God is his absolute holiness. God is utterly different from and so utterly transcendent over His creation that any confusion is forbidden!

Num 23:19 "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?


Paul

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
(Php 2:5-8 KJV)

 

[Pierac]

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
(Php 2:5-8 KJV)

Pay Attention... Going to teach you something about your beliefs...

Now to the second phrase in Philippians 2 that causes a difficulty. It is the one that says Jesus Christ "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself (v. 6-7). It is unfortunate that the Old King James version of the Bible translated this verse completely wrong. It reads that Jesus "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" and gives the impression that as the preexistent God, Jesus did not think there was anything wrong in being considered equal with God.

It ought to be clear by now that this is the exact opposite of what is meant. The whole context of the passage is about being humble, putting God's will and glory first, and serving others’ interest above one's own interest. Although he was in "the form of God" Jesus did not reckon his God-given status as something to be exploited.

This meaning contrast well with the conduct of Adam who unfortunately did consider equality with God anything to be grasped at. Adam wanted to be like God as Genesis 3:5 teaches. Adam tried to grasp at equality with God. But Jesus would not usurp God's authority for selfish advantage. He said, "I came to serve" (Matt. 20:28), not to snatch! At his arrest in the garden, he said, "Do you not think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than 12 legions of angels?" (Matthew 26:53). As the Messiah, God's appointed King, he had every right to call for divine protection. He "emptied himself" of all such Messianic privileges.

Therefore, it can be categorically stated that Philippians 2: 5-11 has nothing to do with Jesus Christ being God in a preexistence state. The importance is really very simple and very practical: how are Christians to conduct themselves in this world? Not by imitating the man Adam who forfeited everything by a grab for power and glory, but by imitating Jesus the Messiah (v.5) who through humility and obedience to God gained it all and more. After all, if Jesus was already God, then verses 9 to 11 are nonsensical. There is no "Therefore also God highly exalted him, and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth." If he was already God, he had this before his birth! No. It is clear that God has given him a new position, a new name (authority), and a new rank that he did not previously possess.

The Greek is very clear here: dio kai means (as in Luke 1:35) "for this reason precisely." Why has God exalted Jesus to His right hand? "Therefore, God has highly exalted him and given him the name above every other name because he is back where he was before as God"? Not at all! He is given the status as a reward for the precise reason that he humbled himself and died. His exalted status is a reward. If we follow the last Adam's pattern, we too will be exalted by God when Christ returns. It is evident, then, that "this hymn does not contained what numerous interpreters seek and find in it: an independent statement about preexistence or even a Christology preexistence… No preexistence of Christ before the world with an independent significance can be recognized even in Philippians 2.

This is the creed of ALL Orthodox Christian Beliefs! All of them!

DEFINITION OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (451 AD)

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

So pay close attention.... The Kenotic Doctrine claims that Jesus emptied himself of his deity. Well, you can simply read in the Chalcedon Creed that it defines Jesus’ nature as fully God and fully man at all times, without division, without separation. You cannot say that you believe in the Trinity and use this excuse.

If you subscribe to the Kenotic Doctrine, then you have already rejected the Trinity. You cannot be both.

Stop following your Pastor, and seek our Lord Jesus the Christ for the Truth!
Paul

 

[Cooper]

Pay Attention... Going to teach you something about your beliefs...

Now to the second phrase in Philippians 2 that causes a difficulty. It is the one that says Jesus Christ "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself (v. 6-7). It is unfortunate that the Old King James version of the Bible translated this verse completely wrong. It reads that Jesus "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" and gives the impression that as the preexistent God, Jesus did not think there was anything wrong in being considered equal with God.

It ought to be clear by now that this is the exact opposite of what is meant. The whole context of the passage is about being humble, putting God's will and glory first, and serving others’ interest above one's own interest. Although he was in "the form of God" Jesus did not reckon his God-given status as something to be exploited.

This meaning contrast well with the conduct of Adam who unfortunately did consider equality with God anything to be grasped at. Adam wanted to be like God as Genesis 3:5 teaches. Adam tried to grasp at equality with God. But Jesus would not usurp God's authority for selfish advantage. He said, "I came to serve" (Matt. 20:28), not to snatch! At his arrest in the garden, he said, "Do you not think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than 12 legions of angels?" (Matthew 26:53). As the Messiah, God's appointed King, he had every right to call for divine protection. He "emptied himself" of all such Messianic privileges.

Therefore, it can be categorically stated that Philippians 2: 5-11 has nothing to do with Jesus Christ being God in a preexistence state. The importance is really very simple and very practical: how are Christians to conduct themselves in this world? Not by imitating the man Adam who forfeited everything by a grab for power and glory, but by imitating Jesus the Messiah (v.5) who through humility and obedience to God gained it all and more. After all, if Jesus was already God, then verses 9 to 11 are nonsensical. There is no "Therefore also God highly exalted him, and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth." If he was already God, he had this before his birth! No. It is clear that God has given him a new position, a new name (authority), and a new rank that he did not previously possess.

The Greek is very clear here: dio kai means (as in Luke 1:35) "for this reason precisely." Why has God exalted Jesus to His right hand? "Therefore, God has highly exalted him and given him the name above every other name because he is back where he was before as God"? Not at all! He is given the status as a reward for the precise reason that he humbled himself and died. His exalted status is a reward. If we follow the last Adam's pattern, we too will be exalted by God when Christ returns. It is evident, then, that "this hymn does not contained what numerous interpreters seek and find in it: an independent statement about preexistence or even a Christology preexistence… No preexistence of Christ before the world with an independent significance can be recognized even in Philippians 2.

This is the creed of ALL Orthodox Christian Beliefs! All of them!

DEFINITION OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (451 AD)

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

So pay close attention.... The Kenotic Doctrine claims that Jesus emptied himself of his deity. Well, you can simply read in the Chalcedon Creed that it defines Jesus’ nature as fully God and fully man at all times, without division, without separation. You cannot say that you believe in the Trinity and use this excuse.

If you subscribe to the Kenotic Doctrine, then you have already rejected the Trinity. You cannot be both.

Stop following your Pastor, and seek our Lord Jesus the Christ for the Truth!
Paul

If Jesus emptied himself of his diety, he must have been God in the beginning. You do not understand the trinity.
.

 

[Pierac]

You do not understand the trinity.
.

Neither do you... Because it does not exist in scripture! It's not a Mystery... It's a lie of Satan... to break the number one Rule/Law and desire of GOD...

Shema Yisrael! Hear, O Israel!

Deu 6:4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

This is one of the very first Bible verse that most Jewish boys and girls learn. It binds the Jewish life and community together. Every devout Jew recited it daily and even utter the Shema when dying. This is the one belief that distinguished Israel from all the surrounding nations
that had multiple gods. “The Lord is one Lord” is thus Israel's classic statement of monotheism, Judaism's highest confession of Faith. It speaks of Yahweh's uniqueness and exclusiveness, that he is one single integral person, not divisible.

The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible tells us that there are two valid ways of interpreting the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4. It is possible to translate, "Yahweh, our God, is one Yahweh"- in which case the Shema affirms that Yahweh can not be divided into several Yahweh manifestations (poly-Yahwism), like the Baals of different sanctuaries [or we might add the Trinity of later Nicene Christianity]. Or we may translate: "Yahweh is our God, Yahweh alone"-in which case the Shema affirms that Yahweh is the only and the unique God [we will soon see that Jesus affirmed this creed and John 17:3].

Both of these nuances are given in other Old Testament passages. The person of God is indivisible and he has no other in His class for He is alone and unique. He is a single divine individual.

Deu 4:35 "To you it was shown that you might know that the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him….39 "Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that the LORD, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.

Deu 32:39 'See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand.

Isa 44:6 "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.

The New Testament clearly states Jesus has a God and Father, both before and after his resurrection. We know the Bible does not contradict.
Satan, is the one who wants you to believe God is 3 in one, not just ONE.

Luk 18:8 "I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?"

I'm thinking not!
Paul

 

[Cooper]

Neither do you... Because it does not exist in scripture! It's not a Mystery... It's a lie of Satan... to break the number one Rule/Law and desire of GOD...

Shema Yisrael! Hear, O Israel!

Deu 6:4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

This is one of the very first Bible verse that most Jewish boys and girls learn. It binds the Jewish life and community together. Every devout Jew recited it daily and even utter the Shema when dying. This is the one belief that distinguished Israel from all the surrounding nations
that had multiple gods. “The Lord is one Lord” is thus Israel's classic statement of monotheism, Judaism's highest confession of Faith. It speaks of Yahweh's uniqueness and exclusiveness, that he is one single integral person, not divisible.

The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible tells us that there are two valid ways of interpreting the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4. It is possible to translate, "Yahweh, our God, is one Yahweh"- in which case the Shema affirms that Yahweh can not be divided into several Yahweh manifestations (poly-Yahwism), like the Baals of different sanctuaries [or we might add the Trinity of later Nicene Christianity]. Or we may translate: "Yahweh is our God, Yahweh alone"-in which case the Shema affirms that Yahweh is the only and the unique God [we will soon see that Jesus affirmed this creed and John 17:3].

Both of these nuances are given in other Old Testament passages. The person of God is indivisible and he has no other in His class for He is alone and unique. He is a single divine individual.

Deu 4:35 "To you it was shown that you might know that the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him….39 "Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that the LORD, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.

Deu 32:39 'See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand.

Isa 44:6 "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.

The New Testament clearly states Jesus has a God and Father, both before and after his resurrection. We know the Bible does not contradict.
Satan, is the one who wants you to believe God is 3 in one, not just ONE.

Luk 18:8 "I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?"

I'm thinking not!
Paul

Jesus emptied himself of the deity he had before he came among us. This is the ONE God in heaven and on earth in accordance with the Shema.
.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Aspects of Monotheism states: "god" is an allegorical equivalent for "king."

This is the definition of the Messiah. The Messiah is the king of Israel who represents God to the people (John 1:49). Thomas was just stating that fact. When he saw Jesus resurrected, it proved to him that He was indeed the Messiah. Thomas’ statement is the equivalent of saying, My Lord and my king. This is not just my opinion; it is easily verified in the Old Testament. Remember, God = king = Messiah.

Greetings, Pierac. Something is wrong with the alert system because I never got any alerts telling me this thread had been responded to. Had you not just posted 15-20 minutes ago, which brought it up on the Recent Posts board, I would have never known.

The above is a fairly well-written response, better than the one quoted in the OP. The problem here is that he didn't actually use the word "King," though it was an extremely common word used at the time. Nor did he use the word "Christ." The word that came out of his mouth was "God," and the force of it is stronger. When Peter identified Him as "the Christ" it was also by revelation. This had not been revealed to others yet, but Jesus confirmed what came out of Peter's mouth after he said it, rather than correct it.

So for starters, there could actually be a close relation between appearing as a God and actually being One here, and both would be insinuated and could be read into Thomas' statement. You don't think Jesus would have corrected him if He were not actually God if the Pharisees had already tried to condemn Him for declaring Himself to be God? Seems like that would be rather careless on His part. You don't think He would have corrected what appeared to be words that endorsed the very heresy He had earlier been accused of, over which the Pharisees almost stoned Him to death?

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

 

[Hidden In Him]

Have a read here
Jesus’ Claims to be God – Yes, Jesus Said He is God
.

Thanks for posting, Copper. I will take a look this later when I have some time and can comment on it.

God bless,
- H

 

[Pierac]

Greetings, Pierac. Something is wrong with the alert system because I never got any alerts telling me this thread had been responded to. Had you not just posted 15-20 minutes ago, which brought it up on the Recent Posts board, I would have never known.

The above is a fairly well-written response, better than the one quoted in the OP. The problem here is that he didn't actually use the word "King," though it was an extremely common word used at the time. Nor did he use the word "Christ." The word that came out of his mouth was "God," and the force of it is stronger. When Peter identified Him as "the Christ" it was also by revelation. This had not been revealed to others yet, but Jesus confirmed what came out of Peter's mouth after he said it, rather than correct it.

So for starters, there could actually be a close relation between appearing as a God and actually being One here, and both would be insinuated and could be read into Thomas' statement. You don't think Jesus would have corrected him if He were not actually God if the Pharisees had already tried to condemn Him for declaring Himself to be God? Seems like that would be rather careless on His part. You don't think He would have corrected what appeared to be words that endorsed the very heresy He had earlier been accused of, over which the Pharisees almost stoned Him to death?

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

Note the Jews took up stones and accused him of claiming to be God... Jesus, never claimed to Be God. Jesus claimed to be God's Agent! Big difference. He also twisted their lies back on them in the next verse...

Joh 10:34 Jesus answered, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods'?

John 10:34 is a quotation from Psa 82:6. It was an OT practice to refer to men like the judges as gods, and not blasphemy, so why did the Jewish authorities object when this term was applied to Jesus? This really doesn't seem to fit the context, however, since if that were the case Jesus would not be making any claim for "divinity" for himself over and above any other human being — and therefore he would not be subject to the charge of blasphemy. Rather, this is evidently a case of arguing from the lesser to the greater, a common form of rabbinic argument. The reason the OT judges could be called gods is because they were vehicles of the word of God (see next verse. Joh_10:35). If it is permissible to call men "gods" because they were the vehicles of the word of God, how much more permissible is it to use the word "god" of him who is the Christ of God? After He set them straight... he walked away without being stoned by the mob because they knew he was correct!

Yet you ignore Jesus himself when He calls Himself "a man" (John 8:40) "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. and the apostles call him "a man" (Acts 2: 22; 1 Tim. 2:5). Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--"

The risen Jesus is still a man in heaven…

Paul tells you the risen Christ your mediator... is a Man named Jesus!!!

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

You need to read the next verse...

Act 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He (God) has fixed a day in which He (God) will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."

Paul

 

[Hidden In Him]

It was not the Spirit of Christ that visited you...

Ok, you need to slow your roll on that sort of thing. You are telling someone who has come to Christ that the spirit that actually came to them was demonic, based solely on your suppositions of what the word of God teaches. Many Muslims have come to Christ in this way. Would you tell them that the Spirit that came to them was a demon also? This borders on blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, if it actually isn't, and while I was looking forward to a cordial conversation over doctrine, it will get very uncordial in a hurry if you post things like that. It is arrogant and extremely irresponsible spiritually, and I would advise you not to respond with some small-minded response like "I am just teaching what the word of God says," or that will speed the process.

Be spiritually responsible here, and keep things on a respectful level. I don't want to have to get forceful with you because you start telling people the Jesus they have experienced is actually Satan. Please heed my warning.

On the authority of Jesus himself we know that the categories of "flesh" and "spirit" are never to be confused or intermingled, though the course of God's Spirit can impact our world. Jesus said, "That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit" (John 3:6). And "God is Spirit." The doctrine of the incarnation confuses these categories. What God has separated man has joined together! One of the charges that the apostle Paul levels at simple man is that we have "exchange the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man" (Romans 1:23). Has it ever dawned on you as you sit in church listening to how the glorious Creator made Himself into a man that you could be guilty of this very same thing? The doctrine of the incarnation has reduced the incorruptible God to our own corruptible image. We are made in God's image, not the other way around. It would be more appropriate to put this contrast in starker terms. The defining characteristic of the Creator God is his absolute holiness. God is utterly different from and so utterly transcendent over His creation that any confusion is forbidden!

Paul

No. Why would Jesus be giving this teaching to Nicodemus if a man cannot be born of the Spirit; i.e. if Nicodemus could not do so himself? Your teaching would separate the Spirit of God from the believer so that we walk in mere flesh ourselves.

No one seems to realize that the biggest elephant in the room, is the fact that Yahweh is immortal and therefore cannot die.

Hello, Jane. This too isn't very strong, and I acknowledge strong when I see it. Keep the discussion sharp by acknowledging the position of those who believe Jesus is God; He died only in the flesh. Trinitarians don't teach that the Father came in the flesh, they teach that the Son did. This sort of argument is a Jehovahs Witness patting like-minded individuals on the back, but it is not an honest debate against the opposing position.

Neither do you... Because it does not exist in scripture! It's not a Mystery... It's a lie of Satan... to break the number one Rule/Law and desire of GOD...

Ah, see, we're going run into problems again if you wish to throw around language like this. It can be thrown around in your direction just as easily, and then where will the discussion go?

Are you serving Satan, Paul? Do you secretly sacrifice children to the Devil and drink their blood? See what I mean? We can banter that sort of language around incessantly if you like, but instead of your posts leading to polite dialogue they will lead to strife. Before we go on, which one would you like it to be?