Was Jesus a mere man?

[Pierac]

But... we don't, unfortunately.


Right, the first, failed son, but thank God for the Second, Who succeeded where Adam failed.


Absolutely not. See above.


Well, right back atcha, my friend. I say the same to you.

Grace and peace to you.

Silly Child... Jesus is the second Adam! Not God in the flesh... can't you read your own scripture???

1Co 15:45 So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Both are Adams, and neither are God!!!

Joh 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.

John 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.

(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.

PinSeeker Do you have permission to speak from your pastor? Because, I'm making you look pretty dumb about now!
Paul

 

[PinSeeker]

Silly Child...

Call me what you like; I care not. But it does speak volumes about you. But I really do like the "child" descriptor ~ although in a very different sense from how you mean it to express your supposed superiority; I'm very thankful for the childlike faith God has given me.

Jesus is the second Adam! Not God in the flesh... can't you read your own scripture???

Well, yes, and yes He was, and yes.

I'm making you look pretty dumb about now!Paul

Again, you're welcome to your opinion. And again, you speak volumes... about you.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Pierac]

Yet again, that the Son is God is all throughout. What is for you is to believe in Him.


Well, had, during His time on earth. In His having set aside His position in the triune Jehovah for a time ~ emptied Himself ~ and taken on flesh, He had a God; He modeled what creation once was, and for those whom God has chosen for Himself, will be again. Yes. Absolutely. And through His work on the cross, He reconciled sinful man to God. Yes. And in so doing, He fulfilled the covenant He made with Abraham... actually, the covenant He made with Himself on behalf of Abraham (who was at that time Abram, of course). He could not have done this if He were not God made man.

Actions speak infinitely louder than words.

No need for shouting. Or colors. :)

Grace and peace to you.

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.

This is the creed of ALL Orthodox Christian Beliefs! All of them! even you quoted it!!!

Well Mister Actions speak infinitely louder than words!!!
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.


So pay close attention.... The Kenotic Doctrine you posted 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.

You just subscribe to the Kenotic Doctrine in your post... and without even knowing in your stupidly have already rejected the Trinity. You cannot be both.

OMG... I Have to teach you... your own beliefs... how sad is that!!!
PAUL

 

[PinSeeker]

So goes the deception of the narrative of the Watchtower.

I Have to teach you your own beliefs...

Well no, you have to re-engineer my beliefs so you can deny them and create your own false narrative (and do it in such a militant, hateful, and absolutely graceless way) ~ just as the Watchtower did Scripture. But, thanks be to God, the Word of our God stands/endures forever.

Grace and peace to you, Pierac.

 

[Pierac]

So goes the deception of the narrative of the Watchtower.


Well no, you have to re-engineer my beliefs so you can deny them and create your own false narrative (and do it in such a militant, hateful, and absolutely graceless way) ~ just as the Watchtower did Scripture. But, thanks be to God, the Word of our God stands/endures forever.

Grace and peace to you, Pierac.

Sorry but I cannot quote your Watchtower... That's between you and your church beliefs.... " as to a militant, hateful, and absolutely graceless way...." I'm in good company...

In Hebrew grammar, the position of emphasis is usually the beginning of the clause. Unfortunately, our English translation of the Hebrew text does not always reveal this emphasis. So it should not be forgotten that Hebrew-unlike English-usually confronts the listener or reader
immediately with a verbal form (often a transitive verb, but sometimes an intransitive or “stative” form) even before the subject itself is designated. Laziness, inertia, or passivity were hardly marks of the Hebrews’ lifestyle. Rather, the Hebrews were mainly a doing and feeling people. Thus their language has few abstract terms. Rather, "Hebrew may be called primarily a language of the senses. The words originally express concrete or material things and movements or actions which struck the senses or started the emotions. Only secondary and in metaphor could they be used to denote abstract or metaphysical ideas." The Bible contains many Hebraisms in which abstract thoughts or immaterial conceptions are conveyed through material or physical terminology. We shall give number of examples to illustrate this point: "look" is "lift up the eyes" (Gen. 22:4); "be angry" is "burned in one's nostrils" (Exod.4:14); "disclose something to another" or "reveal" is "unstopped someone's ears" (Ruth 4:4); "have no compassion" is "hard-heartedness" (1Sam.6:6); "stubborn" is "stiff-necked" (2 Chr.30:8;cf.Acts 7:51). In addition, the Hebrews often referred to God by use of anthropomorphisms (i.e., representation of God with human attributes). The "living" and "active" God of the Hebrews is thus never reduced to mere impersonal abstraction. For instance, the 10 Commandments are said to be "inscribed by the finger of God" (Exo.31:18). The prophet Isaiah states, "surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save, nor his ear to dull to hear (Isa. 59:1). Again, a well-known proverb states, "the eyes of the Lord are everywhere" (Prov.15:3). In the same vein, today's Church must not forget that the earliest theology in the New Testament is relational or existential rather than propositional or creedal.

The New Testament reflects this same visceral Hebraic perspective on human nature. A person may be lead with his heart (Rom. 10:10). One may refresh spiritually the bowels [heart]of other believers (Phlm. 7, 20). A person may come under the judgment of God when the Lord searches
his kidneys [mind](Rev. 2:23). (Used e-Sword to review strong numbers in these verses.) Very suprising. These texts illustrate that for the New Testament authors passion was tied to their belief that human beings were "whole"; that is they considered one's physical, psychological, and spiritual functions to be one indivisible entity. Both Testaments affirm this perspective, as seen in the above passages. They describe a person's various mental, spiritual, and emotional reactions to stress by locating these reactions in the organs of the body were a person actually feels the
effects of that stress. The Hebrews-both men and women-were able to affirm their full humanity.

They gave vent unashamedly to their feelings, for each emotion had "a time" appropriate for its expression: being angry, crying, laughing, singing, feasting, dancing, handclapping, shouting,
embracing, and loving (see Eccl. 3:1- 8).

The nature of Hebrew is to paint verbal pictures with broad strokes of the brush. Theirs was primarily a descriptive of what the eyes see rather than what the mind speculates. Let us consider several examples of this earthiness. The prophecy of Isaiah describes graphically the intended fate of the people of Jerusalem. Trapped in the year 701 B.C. by the powerful Assyrian army of Sennacherib, they are described as those who have to "eat their own filth and drink their own urine" (Isaiah 36:12). Though Jerusalem was miraculously spared this Assyrian attack (Isaiah 37;cf.2 Kgs. 19), more than a century later (586 B.C.) Babylon destroyed Jerusalem. Jeremiah was one of the leading prophets of the Southern Kingdom at the time. With the same candor as Isaiah, Jeremiah depicts sorrowfully the acts of cannibalism performed by his own people as Jerusalem was brought to the very brink of starvation: "with their own hands and passionate women have cooked their own children, who became their food when my people were destroyed"
(Lam. 4:10; cf. Deut 28: 53-57). Against the background of their Babylonian exile God's people are described as sinful and unclean, who is "righteous acts are like filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6).

However, the Hebrew for "filthy rags" is far more explicit, reflecting the Hebrews vivid, earthly style of expression. It is beged iddim, literally "garment of menstruation." In similarity graphic words, Jeremiah likens Israel's sexual excesses as Canaanite shrines to that of a female wild
donkey in heat: "[You are] a wild donkey accustomed to the desert, sniffing the wind in her craving-in her heat who can restrain her? Any males that pursue her need not to tire themselves; at mating time they will find her" (Jer. 2:24).

Such vivid biblical imagery reminds us that the Hebrew people live close to nature; they were not afraid to face head on those areas of life that people in the West world would normally either euphemistically or avoid discussing altogether.

Thus Jesus own use of colorful language.... Mat 12:34 "You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.

Can't help but wonder your response if I actually called you and your church a brood of vipers? Perhaps... you would respond as ... I'm militant, hateful, and absolutely graceless? LOL... YOU SPEAK as a CHILD, not knowing scripture nor the context it was taken!!!


Remember... It was you whom rejected the Trinity when you claimed Jesus emptied himself from God...not me!

Paul

 

[DavidB]

Yes, yes, and yes! It's so simple if we take Jesus to be the son of God, period, end of story. No need to add God the Son. All that does is take the greatest story ever told and make it into an incomprehensible mess.

Hmmm...God always obeyed Himself. And, wow, He even believed He's raise Himself from the dead. BORING. YAWN.

Oh, but for a man, tempted just like all of us, compassed about with the same infirmities, to do that is beyond any words I can come up with. And to think that same man did it so a loser like me could enjoy eternal life in paradise is also beyond any words I can think up.

The only way I can describe how I saw the scriptures after learning the truth about who Jesus is, is that they went from a grainy black and white to a most fantastic technicolor. I only wish all Christians could see it.

I agree that accepting Jesus as being truly human makes what he did so wonderful. He proved that a human can be faithful to God unlike the first Adam. Jesus being the Son of God also deepens the gift his Father Jehovah made. What greater gift could be made than one’s only son. Human fathers would rather die themselves than see their children die.

 

[DavidB]

Think about that for a moment. What was the purpose of a priest? A priest acted as a mediator between God and man.

1Tim 2:5,

For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;​

If Jesus were God, that would mean God is a mediator between God and man. That would mean God is not a mediator at all. Yikes! Who's going to stick up for us?

I trust you noticed Jesus was called a men explicitly in Timothy. There are around a half dozen other verses that do the same. In contrast, there are no verses that explicitly call him God and there are certainly no verses that call him a Pagan god-man. There are also a couple of verses that explicitly state that God is NOT a man (Hos 11:9, Num 23:19).

Also, not all gods are YHWH. The scriptures speak of many gods, but only one YHWH. Look up "god" in any concordance and you'll find the word god applied to others who are not YHWH. That might help to align Hebrews 1:8 with all other verses that would make it impossible for Jesus to be God; God was good, Jesus was not (Mark 10:18), God is greater than Jesus (John 14:28), God knew things Jesus didn't know (Mark 13:32), Jesus has the same God as you and I (John 20:17), Jesus was tempted (Matt 4:1) but God can NOT be tempted (James 1:13), Jesus had a different will than God (Luk 22:42).

Well, I could add many more, but that should be enough to at least raise an alarm bell. If Hebrews does say Jesus is God, we have many glaring contradictions in the scriptures! Somehow they all have to fit. I've found it to be infinitely easier to make the few unclear verses that perhaps could be taken to say Jesus is God with the many very clear verses that would preclude him from being God.

One thing is for sure, we can't ignore any verse. They all have to fit. Now I know a lot of folks resort to the God-man argument, that Jesus was fully God and fully man. It was supposedly the man part that didn't know things the God part did, etc. That is skating on really thin ice. Since we are dealing with the integrity of God's word, I find it unsatisfactory to base an argument on something that isn't stated nearly as clearly as the verses I quoted above. In other words, there is absolutely nowhere in the scriptures that mentions a God-man. We can find that term in Pagan literature, but not in the scriptures.

God bless

You mention a Pagan God man from Pagan literature and refer to Constantine’s role. What do you think is the Father’s view of inserting Pagan philosophy into what the Bible teaches? How does Jesus feel about people who claim to be Christian focusing their worship on him instead of on his Father? Who could be behind this masterful deception to divert worship away from Jehovah?

 

[Rich R]

The first thing I'd like to say is that the new birth is affected by incorruptible seed.

1Pet 1:23,

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
​

My earthly father gave me corruptible seed and yet I can't stop being his son, no matter what I do. If God gave us incorruptible seed, it'd be even more permanent. I'm His son no matter what I do. I don't always pleas Him any more than I always pleased my earthly father that doesn't make me suddenly not his son.

​

Born again folks are God's workmanship, not our own.

Eph 2:10,

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.​

I'd be loathe to think I could annul God's workmanship. I am what I am by His grace.

You mention a Pagan God man from Pagan literature and refer to Constantine’s role. What do you think is the Father’s view of inserting Pagan philosophy into what the Bible teaches?

I'd think He'd be very disappointed. God can be disappointed. There are many place in the OT where that is intimated. He even regretted having made the universe at one point Gen 6:6. Nonetheless, He gave it another go which is very lucky for us. My earthly father did the same thing over and over.

How does Jesus feel about people who claim to be Christian focusing their worship on him instead of on his Father?

I'd think Jesus would be equally disappointed. But he still loves us.

Who could be behind this masterful deception to divert worship away from Jehovah?

El Diablo! I hate to admit it, but that old bird has done a bang up job of keeping about 98% of sincere, God loving Christians out in left field.

But on the other hand, there are many Trinitarians who do more than myself for God's people. I just think they'd do even more if they really knew.

In general, God knows our frailty but he loves us just the same. Nobody can go beyond what they are taught. A 2,000 year old lie is hard to shake.

 

[Rich R]

Well, I think we can consider what Jesus says to Peter in Matthew 16 when Peter confesses Jesus to be "Christ, the Son of the living God" as an incontrovertible indicator

Well, if Matthew Peter said, "thou art Christ, the living God" I would change my theology. But, as the verse clearly says, Jesus claimed nothing other than being God's son.

~ "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 16:13-17). Think about it (as if you are not; sorry, I know you are)... God made Himself known... revealed Himself, as Jesus says, to Peter, in the Person of Jesus to Peter, and Peter is confessing his knowledge of the Son, specifically, to Jesus.

Matt 16:16,

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
​

Again, I'd be quick to change my theology if the verse said, "...Thou are the Christ, the living God." But of course it doesn't say that. It says he was the son of God, which in any other arena of literature, nobody would ever consider a son and his father to be one person. Where in the Bible does it say God changed the meaning of the word "son" or "Father?" I believe God uses those words the same we we all know them to be. If not, how do we know he hasn't changed the meaning of other words. That could drive one nuts thinking about it!

And in John 14, we see it in what could be a negative light regarding Philip, who says, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” And how does Jesus reply? He says, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves" (John 14:8-11).

I wouldn't think those are good verses to prove the trinity.

Sure, God was in Jesus and Jesus was in God. I'm sure you know verses that say Christ is in us (Cor 1:27). There are also several verses that say we can be in Christ. Being in Christ is not the same as being Christ.

Since Jesus always did the Father's will, he could make the claim he did in John. The visible man Jesus was a perfect representation of the invisible God.

Also, the fact that Jesus claims that he does not speak for himself, but only as the Father directs seems to be a clear indication that they are two entirely different entities.

God bless.

 

[PinSeeker]

Sorry but I cannot quote your Watchtower...

Uh, hold on. My Watchtower? The Watchtower was a heretical organization that attempted to re-engineer God's Word to suit their beliefs in the early nineteenth century? "My" Watchtower? I think not. Are you not a Jehovah's Witness? Maybe not, but denying that Jesus is God made flesh puts you in their terribly mistaken company, at least on that front.

...as to a militant, hateful, and absolutely graceless way...." I'm in good company...

Yes, there are a few other posters on here who would certainly meet that criteria, right along with you. So, "good" (in scare quotes) company... :)

In Hebrew grammar, the position of emphasis is usually the beginning of the clause. Unfortunately, our English translation of the Hebrew text does not always reveal this emphasis. So it should not be forgotten that Hebrew-unlike English-usually confronts the listener or reader immediately with a verbal form (often a transitive verb, but sometimes an intransitive or “stative” form) even before the subject itself is designated. Laziness, inertia, or passivity were hardly marks of the Hebrews’ lifestyle. Rather, the Hebrews were mainly a doing and feeling people. Thus their language has few abstract terms. Rather, "Hebrew may be called primarily a language of the senses. The words originally express concrete or material things and movements or actions which struck the senses or started the emotions. Only secondary and in metaphor could they be used to denote abstract or metaphysical ideas." The Bible contains many Hebraisms in which abstract thoughts or immaterial conceptions are conveyed through material or physical terminology. We shall give number of examples to illustrate this point: "look" is "lift up the eyes" (Gen. 22:4); "be angry" is "burned in one's nostrils" (Exod.4:14); "disclose something to another" or "reveal" is "unstopped someone's ears" (Ruth 4:4); "have no compassion" is "hard-heartedness" (1Sam.6:6); "stubborn" is "stiff-necked" (2 Chr.30:8;cf.Acts 7:51). In addition, the Hebrews often referred to God by use of anthropomorphisms (i.e., representation of God with human attributes). The "living" and "active" God of the Hebrews is thus never reduced to mere impersonal abstraction. For instance, the 10 Commandments are said to be "inscribed by the finger of God" (Exo.31:18). The prophet Isaiah states, "surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save, nor his ear to dull to hear (Isa. 59:1). Again, a well-known proverb states, "the eyes of the Lord are everywhere" (Prov.15:3). In the same vein, today's Church must not forget that the earliest theology in the New Testament is relational or existential rather than propositional or creedal.

The New Testament reflects this same visceral Hebraic perspective on human nature. A person may be lead with his heart (Rom. 10:10). One may refresh spiritually the bowels [heart]of other believers (Phlm. 7, 20). A person may come under the judgment of God when the Lord searches
his kidneys [mind](Rev. 2:23). (Used e-Sword to review strong numbers in these verses.) Very surprising. These texts illustrate that for the New Testament authors passion was tied to their belief that human beings were "whole"; that is they considered one's physical, psychological, and spiritual functions to be one indivisible entity. Both Testaments affirm this perspective, as seen in the above passages. They describe a person's various mental, spiritual, and emotional reactions to stress by locating these reactions in the organs of the body were a person actually feels the
effects of that stress. The Hebrews-both men and women-were able to affirm their full humanity.

They gave vent unashamedly to their feelings, for each emotion had "a time" appropriate for its expression: being angry, crying, laughing, singing, feasting, dancing, handclapping, shouting, embracing, and loving (see Eccl. 3:1- 8).

The nature of Hebrew is to paint verbal pictures with broad strokes of the brush. Theirs was primarily a descriptive of what the eyes see rather than what the mind speculates. Let us consider several examples of this earthiness. The prophecy of Isaiah describes graphically the intended fate of the people of Jerusalem. Trapped in the year 701 B.C. by the powerful Assyrian army of Sennacherib, they are described as those who have to "eat their own filth and drink their own urine" (Isaiah 36:12). Though Jerusalem was miraculously spared this Assyrian attack (Isaiah 37;cf.2 Kgs. 19), more than a century later (586 B.C.) Babylon destroyed Jerusalem. Jeremiah was one of the leading prophets of the Southern Kingdom at the time. With the same candor as Isaiah, Jeremiah depicts sorrowfully the acts of cannibalism performed by his own people as Jerusalem was brought to the very brink of starvation: "with their own hands and passionate women have cooked their own children, who became their food when my people were destroyed" (Lam. 4:10; cf. Deut 28: 53-57). Against the background of their Babylonian exile God's people are described as sinful and unclean, who is "righteous acts are like filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6).

However, the Hebrew for "filthy rags" is far more explicit, reflecting the Hebrews vivid, earthly style of expression. It is beged iddim, literally "garment of menstruation." In similarity graphic words, Jeremiah likens Israel's sexual excesses as Canaanite shrines to that of a female wild
donkey in heat: "[You are] a wild donkey accustomed to the desert, sniffing the wind in her craving-in her heat who can restrain her? Any males that pursue her need not to tire themselves; at mating time they will find her" (Jer. 2:24).

Such vivid biblical imagery reminds us that the Hebrew people live close to nature; they were not afraid to face head on those areas of life that people in the West world would normally either euphemistically or avoid discussing altogether.

Thus Jesus own use of colorful language.... Mat 12:34 "You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.

So, all this is actually very good, stuff that I'm very well aware of. So good on ya. But an unnecessary detour designed, I guess, only to puff yourself up. So be it. Did Jesus also write in colorful text? Like you? :)

I will speak to this though:

It was you whom rejected the Trinity when you claimed Jesus emptied himself from God...not me! The Kenotic Doctrine you posted 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.

When I said Jesus emptied Himself, I did not mean ~ nor does Paul mean, in Philippians 2 ~ that Jesus ceased to be of God or lacking in His deity one iota. If you understood me to mean that, then you are mistaken. In no way would I ever even insinuate such a thing. No, He "made Himself nothing" is actually a better way to put what Paul says in Philippians 2:7, and you're right ~ metaphorically emptying Himself. So I'm absolutely opposed to the Kinotic Doctrine, Peirac. Yes, Jesus absolutely was fully God and fully man at all times, without division, without separation. So your whole tirade seems to be quite misdirected.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

Again, I'd be quick to change my theology if the verse said, "...Thou are the Christ, the living God."

He was acknowledging Jesus to be God's Christ. And that means much, much more than Jehovah's Witnesses want to believe.

I wouldn't think those are good verses to prove the trinity.

Well of course not, but that doesn't mean they're not. :)

Sure, God was in Jesus and Jesus was in God. I'm sure you know verses that say Christ is in us (Cor 1:27).

Colossians 1:27, yes. I guess that was a typo; I was like 1 Corinthians 1:27? No... 2 Corinthians 1:27? No, there is no verse 27 in that chapter... Yeah Colossians; gotcha. Okay so yes, the Word of God is in our hearts. This is a reference by Paul back to Jeremiah, in chapter 31 of his prophecy:

"Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel... I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts." (Jeremiah 31:31-33)

Right now, Rich, as you know, Christ reigns from heaven, He is at the right hand of the Father, and we are seated with Him ~ spiritually speaking ~ in the heavenly places. But we are in Christ. And, as I've said before, Rich, or pointed out, in Colossians 1, that Jesus is the image of the Father, where as we are only created in the image of God.

Being in Christ is not the same as being Christ.

Absolutely true. I'm... not sure why you felt the need to say this, but... okay. :) One day we will be just like Him, though.

Since Jesus always did the Father's will, he could make the claim he did in John.

Right. So, ask yourself why He was able to always ~ always ~ do the will of the Father. I mean, I know what your answer will be, but it's because He was, and is, God made man. Otherwise, He would not have been able to always do the Father's will. He was able to do the Father's will because He was ~ and is ~ one with the Father.

The visible man Jesus was a perfect representation of the invisible God.

Not merely a representative of God. Hey, I'll play your hand right back at you. Is "representative" ever used in the Bible in reference to Jesus and His relationship with the Father? :) Ah, the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15)... much more than a "representative." See above. As you know, in Hebrews 1, we read that Jesus is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of His nature (1:3). It's quite a different statement than the one you are making.

Also, the fact that Jesus claims that he does not speak for himself, but only as the Father directs seems to be a clear indication that they are two entirely different entities.

Well sure. Two very distinct persons. But that doesn't preclude the idea ~ not one iota ~ that Jesus is God in the flesh, God made man. Jesus is not God the Father. :)

God bless.

To you also! Grace and peace to you.

 

[DavidB]

He was acknowledging Jesus to be God's Christ. And that means much, much more than Jehovah's Witnesses want to believe.


Well of course not, but that doesn't mean they're not. :)


Colossians 1:27, yes. I guess that was a typo; I was like 1 Corinthians 1:27? No... 2 Corinthians 1:27? No, there is no verse 27 in that chapter... Yeah Colossians; gotcha. Okay so yes, the Word of God is in our hearts. This is a reference by Paul back to Jeremiah, in chapter 31 of his prophecy:

"Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel... I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts." (Jeremiah 31:31-33)

Right now, Rich, as you know, Christ reigns from heaven, He is at the right hand of the Father, and we are seated with Him ~ spiritually speaking ~ in the heavenly places. But we are in Christ. And, as I've said before, Rich, or pointed out, in Colossians 1, that Jesus is the image of the Father, where as we are only created in the image of God.


Absolutely true. I'm... not sure why you felt the need to say this, but... okay. :) One day we will be just like Him, though.


Right. So, ask yourself why He was able to always ~ always ~ do the will of the Father. I mean, I know what your answer will be, but it's because He was, and is, God made man. Otherwise, He would not have been able to always do the Father's will. He was able to do the Father's will because He was ~ and is ~ one with the Father.


Not merely a representative of God. Hey, I'll play your hand right back at you. Is "representative" ever used in the Bible in reference to Jesus and His relationship with the Father? :) Ah, the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15)... much more than a "representative." See above. As you know, in Hebrews 1, we read that Jesus is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of His nature (1:3). It's quite a different statement than the one you are making.


Well sure. Two very distinct persons. But that doesn't preclude the idea ~ not one iota ~ that Jesus is God in the flesh, God made man. Jesus is not God the Father. :)

”



To you also! Grace and peace to you.

You ask: “Is "representative" ever used in the Bible in reference to Jesus and His relationship with the Father?”
You might want to check some other translations of Hebrews 1:3.

NIV - “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being”

NASB - “And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature”

Mounce - “This Son is the radiance of his glory and the exact representation of his nature

EXB - The Son ·reflects [or radiates; shines forth] the glory of God [John 1:14] and ·shows exactly what God is like [L is the exact representation/imprint/stamp of his being/essence/nature].

NWT - He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being

 

[PinSeeker]

You ask: “Is "representative" ever used in the Bible in reference to Jesus and His relationship with the Father?” You might want to check some other translations of Hebrews 1:3.

NIV - “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being”

NASB - “And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature”

Mounce - “This Son is the radiance of his glory and the exact representation of his nature

EXB - The Son ·reflects [or radiates; shines forth] the glory of God [John 1:14] and ·shows exactly what God is like [L is the exact representation/imprint/stamp of his being/essence/nature].

NWT - He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being

He was not a mere representative of God. And you're at least sort of making my point here, because 'representation' is not the same word as (and has a different definition and connotation than) 'representation.' And on top of that, it's not a mere representation, but the exact representation. As such, this is the same thing as Paul said in Philippians 2, that Jesus was both in the form of (Greek 'morphe'... 100%) God and the form of (Greek 'morphe'... 100%) man.

A word about the translations you have cited here:

The NWT throws in "reflection" in order to deny that the Son is the radiance of God's glory and thus deny His deity and oneness with the Father. This is a great example (and but one) of the Watchtower's re-engineering efforts. :)

The EXB is written to allow the reader to see multiple possibilities for words, phrases, and interpretations; rather than opting for one choice, it shows many. This may not sound, on the surface, like a bad thing, but it is.

I'd stay away from both, but of course one is free to do what he/she wants.

Grace and peace to you, David.

 

[Rich R]

He was acknowledging Jesus to be God's Christ. And that means much, much more than Jehovah's Witnesses want to believe.

I'm not JW. I think they believed Jesus existed from eternity. I believe that he had a beginning, just like all of us. There are several verses that say he had a beginning.

Absolutely, Jesus was God's Christ, i.e. God's anointed one. If being anointed makes one God, then all the high priest must also be included in the Godhead.

Colossians 1:27, yes. I guess that was a typo; I was like 1 Corinthians 1:27? No... 2 Corinthians 1:27? No, there is no verse 27 in that chapter... Yeah Colossians; gotcha. Okay so yes, the Word of God is in our hearts. This is a reference by Paul back to Jeremiah, in chapter 31 of his prophecy:

"Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel... I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts." (Jeremiah 31:31-33)​

​

Col 1:27 says Christ is in us. Jer 31:31 says God will make a new covenant with ISRAEL. These verses are talking about two entirely different parts of God's plan, the logos of John 1:1

Right now, Rich, as you know, Christ reigns from heaven, He is at the right hand of the Father, and we are seated with Him ~ spiritually speaking ~ in the heavenly places. But we are in Christ. And, as I've said before, Rich, or pointed out, in Colossians 1, that Jesus is the image of the Father, where as we are only created in the image of God.

Did I ever bring up Caesar's image on the coin? The coin was not actually Caesar.

"Image":

"An imitation, representation, or similitude of any person, thing, or act, sculptured, drawn, painted, or otherwise made perceptible to the sight; a visible presentation; a copy; a likeness; an effigy; a picture; a semblance."

The Collaborative International Dictionary of English​

Unless God changed the meaning of "Image" as He supposedly changed the meaning of "father" and "son" (oh my, how many other word meanings might God have changed), we must take Jesus as being God's image, therefore making him distinctly NOT God.

Right. So, ask yourself why He was able to always ~ always ~ do the will of the Father. I mean, I know what your answer will be, but it's because He was, and is, God made man. Otherwise, He would not have been able to always do the Father's will. He was able to do the Father's will because He was ~ and is ~ one with the Father.

Jesus always did the Father's will because he decided to do that. Jesus could have said no to God at any time in his life. I don't think God could say no to Himself.

I've said multiple times that a man doing God's will 100% is truly the story of the ages, as opposed to the boring, ho hum story of God always doing His own will.

Only two people have ever been born without sin, Adam and Jesus (God planted perfect seed in Mary's womb). Both had free will. Adam choked whereas Jesus followed through because he loved that much. Jesus could have choked also. He could have avoided the crucifixion by calling on the angels. Of course that would mean you and I would still be dead in trespasses and sins. But because he loved us losers, he went the distance. Give the guy the credit he deserves.

Not merely a representative of God. Hey, I'll play your hand right back at you. Is "representative" ever used in the Bible in reference to Jesus and His relationship with the Father?

It would take some time to count the number of times it's said that Jesus was "sent." Being sent means the one sent is representing the one who sent him. Google "shaliah" for more info. It's the Jewish concept of agency. Jesus was an agent of God. So were all other prophets, the one main difference being that Jesus was a perfect agent (by choice), whereas the others were not.

Well sure. Two very distinct persons. But that doesn't preclude the idea ~ not one iota ~ that Jesus is God in the flesh, God made man. Jesus is not God the Father.

Two people absolutely preclude the idea they are one. Words have meaning. Otherwise we can't communicate with each other, including God communication of His will to us.

God bless.

 

[Rich R]

He was not a mere representative of God. And you're at least sort of making my point here, because 'representation' is not the same word as (and has a different definition and connotation than) 'representation.' And on top of that, it's not a mere representation, but the exact representation.

John 3:17,

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
​

Sent is Greek apostello, from whence we get the word apostle. Peter, Paul, and others were apostles, i.e.they were sent from God. Being sent obviously does not make the one sent God.

True, Jesus, as opposed to all the others God sent, was an exact representative of God. That's just another way of saying he always did the Father's will. But he did it, not because he was God, but because he chose by his free will moment by moment choices to always do the Father's will.

As such, this is the same thing as Paul said in Philippians 2, that Jesus was both in the form of (Greek 'morphe'... 100%) God and the form of (Greek 'morphe'... 100%) man.

Interesting enough, Philippians 2:5 says we are to have the same mind as Jesus in this regard. In other words, even though we have Christ in us, that we have been given the same power and authority Jesus had, that we are filled with all the fullness of the Godhead, we are still exhorted to use that to serve one another instead of bragging about how great we are.

A word about the translations you have cited here:

The NWT throws in "reflection" in order to deny that the Son is the radiance of God's glory and thus deny His deity and oneness with the Father. This is a great example (and but one) of the Watchtower's re-engineering efforts. :)

The EXB is written to allow the reader to see multiple possibilities for words, phrases, and interpretations; rather than opting for one choice, it shows many. This may not sound, on the surface, like a bad thing, but it is.

I'd stay away from both, but of course one is free to do what he/she wants.

I'm not familiar with those Bibles, so I don't think I've cited from them. Almost all my citations have been from the KJV. I'm not sure of any others I've used, but definitely not NWT or EXB. Maybe you're mixing me up with someone else. Besides it's always better to get back to the original language (Greek, which I've done) whenever we can. It's not always necessary, but it often helps and it can never hurt.

It's been probably 40 years since I've even seen a Watchtower. I'm not JW.

God bless

 

[DavidB]

John 3:17,

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
​

Sent is Greek apostello, from whence we get the word apostle. Peter, Paul, and others were apostles, i.e.they were sent from God. Being sent obviously does not make the one sent God.

True, Jesus, as opposed to all the others God sent, was an exact representative of God. That's just another way of saying he always did the Father's will. But he did it, not because he was God, but because he chose by his free will moment by moment choices to always do the Father's will.


Interesting enough, Philippians 2:5 says we are to have the same mind as Jesus in this regard. In other words, even though we have Christ in us, that we have been given the same power and authority Jesus had, that we are filled with all the fullness of the Godhead, we are still exhorted to use that to serve one another instead of bragging about how great we are.


I'm not familiar with those Bibles, so I don't think I've cited from them. Almost all my citations have been from the KJV. I'm not sure of any others I've used, but definitely not NWT or EXB. Maybe you're mixing me up with someone else. Besides it's always better to get back to the original language (Greek, which I've done) whenever we can. It's not always necessary, but it often helps and it can never hurt.

It's been probably 40 years since I've even seen a Watchtower. I'm not JW.

God bless

Just so you know Rich, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is the firstborn of creation, the beginning of the creation by God. We believe he is as the Bible says, the Son of God. Meaning, we believe he was the first creative work of Jehovah. We believe he is the only begotten Son of God because he is the only one God directly created. God then created all things through Jesus. Sound familiar?

 

[DavidB]

He was not a mere representative of God. And you're at least sort of making my point here, because 'representation' is not the same word as (and has a different definition and connotation than) 'representation.' And on top of that, it's not a mere representation, but the exact representation. As such, this is the same thing as Paul said in Philippians 2, that Jesus was both in the form of (Greek 'morphe'... 100%) God and the form of (Greek 'morphe'... 100%) man.

A word about the translations you have cited here:

The NWT throws in "reflection" in order to deny that the Son is the radiance of God's glory and thus deny His deity and oneness with the Father. This is a great example (and but one) of the Watchtower's re-engineering efforts. :)

The EXB is written to allow the reader to see multiple possibilities for words, phrases, and interpretations; rather than opting for one choice, it shows many. This may not sound, on the surface, like a bad thing, but it is.

I'd stay away from both, but of course one is free to do what he/she wants.

Grace and peace to you, David.

You are the one who conflated representation and representative in your response to Rich. If you disapprove of offering multiple possibilities of word selection when translating, you must disapprove of Strong’s, Vine’s and any other concordance.

 

[DavidB]

He was not a mere representative of God. And you're at least sort of making my point here, because 'representation' is not the same word as (and has a different definition and connotation than) 'representation.' And on top of that, it's not a mere representation, but the exact representation. As such, this is the same thing as Paul said in Philippians 2, that Jesus was both in the form of (Greek 'morphe'... 100%) God and the form of (Greek 'morphe'... 100%) man.

A word about the translations you have cited here:

The NWT throws in "reflection" in order to deny that the Son is the radiance of God's glory and thus deny His deity and oneness with the Father. This is a great example (and but one) of the Watchtower's re-engineering efforts. :)

The EXB is written to allow the reader to see multiple possibilities for words, phrases, and interpretations; rather than opting for one choice, it shows many. This may not sound, on the surface, like a bad thing, but it is.

I'd stay away from both, but of course one is free to do what he/she wants.

Grace and peace to you, David.

You also object to the NWT “throwing in” reflection. If you do some research you will find other translations which selected “reflection.” This is very logical because Jesus is the radiance not of his own glory but as you correctly stated “God’s glory.” Thus his radiance is a reflection.

 

[Rich R]

Just so you know Rich, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is the firstborn of creation, the beginning of the creation by God. We believe he is as the Bible says, the Son of God. Meaning, we believe he was the first creative work of Jehovah. We believe he is the only begotten Son of God because he is the only one God directly created. God then created all things through Jesus. Sound familiar?

I do remember all of that.

Matt 1:18,

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
​

Birth = Greek "gennesis" which means he had a birth. Like all men, before his birth, he wasn't literally alive anywhere. God's plan, the logos of John 1:1 certainly revolved around Jesus. God had Jesus in mind from the beginning, but He also had all Christians in mind from the beginning.

Eph 1:4,

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
​

It is also worth noting that God did not stop creating in Genesis.

2 Cor 5:17,

Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
​

The word "creature" is the Greek word "ktisis" which means "creation."

Eph 2:10,

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.​

Eph 4:24,

And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
​

Could this be what the all things God created through Jesus? If so, it wouldn't contradict the truth that Jesus did have a beginning, a birth.

Adam was actually the first man created by God, not Jesus. Jesus was second.

1 Cor 15:45-47,

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven.
​

Don't get stuck on the part that says Jesus is from heaven. Things being said as being from heaven is a common Jewish idiom, simply meaning they are sent by God.

Jas 1:17,

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
​

Mal 3:10,

Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that [there shall] not [be room] enough [to receive it].​

Plato took things coming from heaven literally, but he's not the best source for truth. :) The Jews of the first century would not think that at all.

Anyway, I'm glad for the JW belief in the truth that Jesus is not God. There's only about 2% of Christendom that have that part right. We need all we can get. Thanks!

 

[DavidB]

I do remember all of that.

Matt 1:18,

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
​

Birth = Greek "gennesis" which means he had a birth. Like all men, before his birth, he wasn't literally alive anywhere. God's plan, the logos of John 1:1 certainly revolved around Jesus. God had Jesus in mind from the beginning, but He also had all Christians in mind from the beginning.

Eph 1:4,

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
​

It is also worth noting that God did not stop creating in Genesis.

2 Cor 5:17,

Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
​

The word "creature" is the Greek word "ktisis" which means "creation."

Eph 2:10,

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.​

Eph 4:24,

And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
​

Could this be what the all things God created through Jesus? If so, it wouldn't contradict the truth that Jesus did have a beginning, a birth.

Adam was actually the first man created by God, not Jesus. Jesus was second.

1 Cor 15:45-47,

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven.
​

Don't get stuck on the part that says Jesus is from heaven. Things being said as being from heaven is a common Jewish idiom, simply meaning they are sent by God.

Jas 1:17,

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
​

Mal 3:10,

Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that [there shall] not [be room] enough [to receive it].​

Plato took things coming from heaven literally, but he's not the best source for truth. :) The Jews of the first century would not think that at all.

Anyway, I'm glad for the JW belief in the truth that Jesus is not God. There's only about 2% of Christendom that have that part right. We need all we can get. Thanks![/QUOTE

Colossians 1 says Jesus created all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible. How do you understand that?