What benefit does it produce to make Jesus God

[Brakelite]

Oh, exactly. That is why I'm a huge proponent of orthodoxy and not heresies such as the Catholic Church, Unitarianism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses and many others. As a pastor recently said in a sermon, such heterodoxy blunts the word of Truth. But I will always say that I will not stand in the place of Jesus and condemn anyone to be exiled from him for eternity; it is just not my place. That place is God's alone.

The Creeds came about because of the heresies that were coming out of the church at the time. There needed to be a consensus of what the Bible actually said. To say that the Creeds were written centuries after the Bible is meaningless. At the time of the Apostolic Church a Creed was not needed because the heresies were at the fruition period; it took time for such false ideas to become implanted and wide-spread. Though the church grew exponentially, it did not cover the earth in a matter of a couple decades. Before the Creeds were written such heretical doctrines were kept at bay at the local church level; yet the leaven spread and before long it couldn't be contained. That they were written several hundred years after is just a natural effect of false Biblical teachings being spread over time. Something eventually needed to be done about it: thus the Councils and Creeds were written.

Did the creeds solve the problems of heresy, or did they set up more of a different nature, and cloud the reality of truth in further controversy?

 

[Brakelite]

Well, he did per Hebrews 1. It's just that disctinction is not always made. It's the same with claiming Jesus is descended from David. That's only true if you recognoze the stepfather Joseph. If this is not true, how do you explain the verses of 'today' you become my son in Hebrews 1?

Hebrews 1:5. When did that take place? Especially when read in context with verse 6?

 

[Brakelite]

Well, he did per Hebrews 1. It's just that disctinction is not always made. It's the same with claiming Jesus is descended from David. That's only true if you recognoze the stepfather Joseph. If this is not true, how do you explain the verses of 'today' you become my son in Hebrews 1?

The Abingdon Bible Commentary of 1929 (compiled by some 66 professors of biblical exegesis, biblical languages, theology, Christian doctrine and church history etc.) has the following to say with reference to the words “express image” (KJV) “The word translated ‘very image’ means, literally, the stamp cut by a die, and so the impress made upon a seal; thus the phrase signifies that the essence of the divine nature was stamped on the Person of Christ. He was the ‘impress of God‘s essence.”(Professor H. T Andrews, D.D., The Abingdon Bible Commentary, 1929) So what does it mean to say that Christ is the “express image” (exact impress) of God’s person? In this Scripture (Hebrews 1:3), the Greek word translated “person” is hupostasis.
It is a compound of two other Greek words. These words are hupo meaning literally under (Matthew 5:15, Luke 13:34, Acts 2:5 and Romans 16:20 etc.) and histemi meaning to be stood, stand, standing, set or be established (see Matthew 2:9, 6:5, 18:16, Mark 9:36, John 1:26, and Acts 24:21). We can see therefore that hupostasis means the foundation or under-girding (sub-structure or substance) of cause of being, or, to put it another way, the essential structure of what makes something what it is. Christ therefore is the “express image” (stamp/impress) of the substance/foundation/under-girding of God. In other words, what God is so is the Son. In this respect they are one and the same. One though, the Son, is the image. Paul noticeably avoided using words that could make it appear he was saying it was only in outward appearance that Christ was the “express image” of God’s person. One such word is prosopon, meaning the countenance or appearance (i.e. that which is visibly seen, the visage). We can see therefore that the word hupostasis does not refer to exterior appearance. This can be seen even more clearly when we see how the same author uses this word in Hebrews 3:14 “For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence [hupostasis] stedfast unto the end” Hebrews 3:14 This “confidence” is the substance of our hope (it is that of which our hope is made, the foundation or under-girding). As Paul explains as he uses this Greek word for the third time in this epistle “Now faith is the substance [hupostasis] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1 The substance/confidence (hupostasis) is the ‘stuff’ of which our hopes are made. It is our faith, the foundation or under-girding of our hopes. Take note of how William Tyndale translated Hebrews 1:3. His was a 16th century translation into English “Which sonne beynge the brightnes of his glory and very ymage of his substance bearinge vp all thinges with the worde of his power hath in his awne person pourged oure synnes and is sitten on the right honde of the maiestie an hye” Hebrews 1:3 Tyndale’s translation 1525 Tyndale’s translation says that the Son is the “very ymage” of God’s “substance”. This is in contrast to the formulators of the KJV who translated hupostasis as “person”. The earlier translation is much clearer to us today than the KJV. It shows exactly what Paul meant by his use of hupostasis. It is referring to God’s very (inner) being (what God is). It is that which makes God God. It is His substructure. Unfortunately today, when we say person, we simply think of this as the entirety of a human being when in fact it can mean the actual self or personality (inner nature/being) of a human being.

 

[BeyondET]

Well, Jesus doesn't equal God the Father exactly since he is a different person, but he's not like lower in rank or something like that. He's very God of very God being of one substance with the Father, just God the Son not God the Father.

I don't think Isaiah is saying the child is not the ever lasting Father mighty God. Though I've seen some try and twist it around like o no that hasn't happened yet.
Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

 

[BeyondET]

Oh was it you that said Jesus did not have a soul and then I said oh that's a new one... Jesus was never here. Then you said I was putting words in your mouth. Was that you? Well, if someone does not have a soul then there not here.

I apologize for misunderstanding what you said I'd thought you meant I said He wasn't here my fault sorry.

A question if u don't mind do you think God is a soul?

And where did your soul come from was it a breathe from God or something else?

 

[Carl Emerson]

Do we have a verse to go along with that?

Gal 3
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

 

[dhh712]

There is subordination within the Trinity.

The Son obeys the Father if that's what you mean by subordination. Just as long as you don't mean he's less God in some way.

 

[dhh712]

Did the creeds solve the problems of heresy, or did they set up more of a different nature, and cloud the reality of truth in further controversy?

Definitely didn't solve the problem of heresy since it still exists and will always. They did go a long way in defining orthodoxy. The creeds are quite clarifying.

 

[Phoneman777]

A child can understand it. You have to grown and go to school and be educated into making it difficult.

Darwin's understanding led him to faithfully preach evolution while being simultaneously ignorant of two things: the limitless complexity of the science of genetics, and that the first truths of it had already been discovered, researched, and published by Gregor Mendel but lay yet unknown to the world on some obscure monastic book shelf.

Just think of the irreligious mess our society wouldn't be in if Darwin hadn't made so many assumptions based on what the present has proved to be his relative "childlike" level of scientific knowledge.

 

[dhh712]

I don't think Isaiah is saying the child is not the ever lasting Father mighty God. Though I've seen some try and twist it around like o no that hasn't happened yet.
Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

I remember there was some confusion about why he is called Everlasting Father here. I'll have to look into it, but it may be that he is the clearest revelation that we have of God the Father. As Jesus replies to the request of one of his disciples to "Show us the Father", He says, "If you have seen me you have seen the Father". (Yet another place where he says he is God. I should start a blog of all the verses where Jesus shows or says He is God. Then all the people who think Jesus isn't God need to tear that verse out of their Bible -- since they ignore it anyway, might as well, or ink it out. Soon, they'll not have much of a Bible).

 

[dhh712]

Do you have a verse that says only God can forgive sins? Because I can think right off the top of my head that Jesus said a few times that the son of man can forgive sins.

When Jesus uses the title the Son of Man, he is referring to the prophecy in Daniel. He is still a son of man of course since he was born of man, just as Ezekiel was called this. But in Jesus calling himself the Son of Man he is linking himself to the prophecy in Daniel 7:13 -14, a prophecy about the messiah.

Psalm 32 and 103 show that only God can forgive sins therefore when he says "So you know that the Son of Man has been given authority on earth to forgive sin..." He is saying he is not just a human being but also God. It says right there in one if not all the accounts that the Jews were outraged when Jesus pronounced his sins forgiven because he was right there claiming an attribute that only God has.

 

[RLT63]

The Son obeys the Father if that's what you mean by subordination. Just as long as you don't mean he's less God in some way.

He is coequal

 

[dhh712]

He is coequal

Yes, exactly, coequal.

 

[Matthias]

He is coequal

In trinitarian theology that’s true.

Prior to Origen, the Church didn’t believe the Father and the Son were coequal.

“6. Origen’s Helpful Suggestion. It was the many-sided genius of Origen that helped to solve the problem. Origen, like Tertullian, was strongly opposed to Monarchianism with its emphasis on monotheism to the exclusion of hypostasianism and tri-personality. Abandoning the view of the Apologists and of Tertullian who conceived the Logos to be a person only from the time of the creation, Origen declared the Logos to have been a person from all eternity. ‘His generation is as eternal and everlasting as the brilliancy produced by the sun.’ ‘The Father did not beget the Son and set Him free after He was begotten, but He is always begetting Him.’ This suggestion of an eternal generation was a needed contribution. It was unconsciously a step in the direction of the co-eternity and co-equality of the Son with the Father, as expressed in the Church’s doctrine of the Trinity.”

(J.L. Neve, A History Of Christian Thought, p. 108)

 

[RLT63]

In trinitarian theology that’s true.

Prior to Origen, the Church didn’t believe the Father and the Son were coequal.

“6. Origen’s Helpful Suggestion. It was the many-sided genius of Origen that helped to solve the problem. Origen, like Tertullian, was strongly opposed to Monarchianism with its emphasis on monotheism to the exclusion of hypostasianism and tri-personality. Abandoning the view of the Apologists and of Tertullian who conceived the Logos to be a person only from the time of the creation, Origen declared the Logos to have been a person from all eternity. ‘His generation is as eternal and everlasting as the brilliancy produced by the sun.’ ‘The Father did not beget the Son and set Him free after He was begotten, but He is always begetting Him.’ This suggestion of an eternal generation was a needed contribution. It was unconsciously a step in the direction of the co-eternity and co-equality of the Son with the Father, as expressed in the Church’s doctrine of the Trinity.”

(J.L. Neve, A History Of Christian Thought, p. 108)

I always heard Origen was to blame for the John 1 Word was a god rendering. ( or to be given credit for it)

 

[Wrangler]

Hebrews 1:5. When did that take place? Especially when read in context with verse 6?

Hebrews was written after the resurrection. "Today" refers to the day God resurrected his chosen suffering servant.

 

[Wrangler]

Well, he did per Hebrews 1. It's just that disctinction is not always made. It's the same with claiming Jesus is descended from David. That's only true if you recognoze the stepfather Joseph. If this is not true, how do you explain the verses of 'today' you become my son in Hebrews 1?

The Abingdon Bible Commentary of 1929 (compiled by some 66 professors of biblical exegesis, biblical languages, theology, Christian doctrine and church history etc.) has the following to say with reference to the words “express image” (KJV) “The word translated ‘very image’ means, literally, the stamp cut by a die, and so the impress made upon a seal; thus the phrase signifies that the essence of the divine nature was stamped on the Person of Christ.

I'm not sure what this has to do with adoptionism. No one is denying that Jesus is 'of God,' which by definition makes him divine. All that is refuted is the claim that he is a deity. Hebrews 1 calls attention to Jesus being adopted, not only by David via stepson of Joseph but by God.

 

[Matthias]

I always heard Origen was to blame for the John 1 Word was a god rendering.

I’ve also heard that but I haven’t been able to confirm it in Origen’s extant writings. I haven’t read them all - Origen was required reading in college, but not everything he wrote - so please keep that in mind. If he was responsible for it then it must be somewhere in his writings that I’m unfamiliar with. I’m open to the possibility but someone will need to show it to me.

His commentary on John is available online. If he thought it should be rendered “a god” I would expect to find him saying so in the commentary. He doesn’t.

From what I’ve read in his writings, I’m currently of the opinion that he isn’t “to blame” for it.

 

[RLT63]

I’ve also heard that but I haven’t been able to confirm it in Origen’s extant writings. I haven’t read them all - Origen was required reading in college, but not everything he wrote - so please keep that in mind. If he was responsible for it then it must be somewhere in his writings that I’m unfamiliar with. I’m open to the possibility but someone will need to show it to me.

His commentary on John is available online. If he thought it should be rendered “a god” I would expect to find him saying so in the commentary. He doesn’t.

From what I’ve read in his writings, I’m currently of the opinion that he isn’t “to blame” for it.

Or be given credit depending on your view. I remember reading it in anti JW material.

 

[Peterlag]

When Jesus uses the title the Son of Man, he is referring to the prophecy in Daniel. He is still a son of man of course since he was born of man, just as Ezekiel was called this. But in Jesus calling himself the Son of Man he is linking himself to the prophecy in Daniel 7:13 -14, a prophecy about the messiah.

Psalm 32 and 103 show that only God can forgive sins therefore when he says "So you know that the Son of Man has been given authority on earth to forgive sin..." He is saying he is not just a human being but also God. It says right there in one if not all the accounts that the Jews were outraged when Jesus pronounced his sins forgiven because he was right there claiming an attribute that only God has.

Well, we might have an answer here. So you're saying the reason Jesus had to be God is because only God can forgive sins and Jesus had to be able to forgive sins on the Earth. Can you give me a chapter and verse on this Psalms? And just to keep me calm can you give just one verse where it says that in the New Testament? Thanks.