Jesus is not God Almighty Himself

[iam1me]

Jesus' relationship to God has always been a highly controversial and complex topic, so much so that most just throw their hands up in the air and claim that it is beyond our ability to comprehend (while simultaneously insisting their unintelligible view is correct). I am of the mind that much of this confusion stems from an attempt to interpret those passages that call Jesus God, in some sense, in the most literal of ways. In fact, there is plenty of precedent in scripture for those who are clearly not God himself being addressed as God or as "gods." And they insist upon this literal interpretation despite the abundance of scriptures which clearly differentiate Jesus from God.

Let us start by considering others who have been addressed as God/god: angels, such as the angel in the burning bush (Exodus 3), Moses (Exodus 7:1), and more generally the Jewish People (John 10:34). In none of these cases do we interpret these individuals as either literally being God or blasphemous. Rather, these are God's agents, his mediators, his people. Jesus, as the sole mediator between men and God under the New Covenant, as the one who has perfectly followed God's will, may thus appropriately be addressed as God in the same sense as others in the scripture without any need for a literal interpretation.

In fact, if we look at passages like Hebrews 1:8-9, while Jesus is addressed as God here, it simultaneously makes reference to Jesus' God (does God have a God?).

And if we look at passages like 1 Cor 15:20-28, Paul makes clear that Jesus is both distinct and lesser than God:


1 Cor 15:20-28 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.


If you disagree, then please explain why the term "God" should be interpreted literally when applied to Christ instead of in the precedent established by scripture with others who have been addressed as God.

 

[Mindmaster]

J
If you disagree, then please explain why the term "God" should be interpreted literally when applied to Christ instead of in the precedent set by the terms usage to others in scripture.

You have no understanding of the trinity at all, and I'm a Satanist.

it works like this

Son is God
Father is God
Holy spirit is God

But none of those are each other....

God is basically a composite of these based on Christian doctrine or encompasses all of them, but also exists independently... Best to say these other things are manifestations of the one.

 

[iam1me]

You have no understanding of the trinity at all, and I'm a Satanist.

it works like this

Son is God
Father is God
Holy spirit is God

But none of those are each other....

God is basically a composite of these based on Christian doctrine.

My OP was not a description of the Trinity doctrine - so your comment doesn't make much sense. I understand the Trinity quite well - and I oppose it. The OP is a challenge to it.

 

[Mindmaster]

My OP was not a description of the Trinity doctrine - so your comment doesn't make much sense. I understand the Trinity quite well - and I oppose it. The OP is a challenge to it.

This is basically the _core_ belief of Christianity. What makes one Christian at all. I mean, you can debate this from where I am (I don't believe it is true) but you really can't debate it Christian to Christian. All of those outlined in the assertions of The Apostles' Creed. I think acceptance of the creed is the primary requirement to identify as a Christian. Debating it for a Christian would be pretty disdainful to say the least.

Secondly, I think it's important to know regardless of your faith that "what God is" in various chapters and versus of the Bible shifted over time. It contradicts itself in all sorts of ways in this manner because depending on what timing that passage was written the conception was very different. Initially, there was very little different from the Christians than the Jews other than they valued the prophecy of Jesus. As time went on, the narrative of the trinity was developed and Jesus was elevated in status. 'Jesus as God" would have been a foreign concept to this first generation of the faith. However, I'd caution one on relying on those scriptures too much as they are heavily mutilated -- we can see that just through historical copies written in different languages at different times. They don't so much refute the faith, but rather show a progression and evolution in the beliefs of it.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Jesus' relationship to God has always been a highly controversial and complex topic, so much so that most just throw their hands up in the air and claim that it is beyond our ability to comprehend (while simultaneously insisting their unintelligible view is correct). I am of the mind that much of this confusion stems from an attempt to interpret those passages that call Jesus God, in some sense, in the most literal of ways. In fact, there is plenty of precedent in scripture for those who are clearly not God himself being addressed as God or as "gods." And they insist upon this literal interpretation despite the abundance of scriptures which clearly differentiate Jesus from God.

Let us start by considering others who have been addressed as God/god: angels, such as the angel in the burning bush (Exodus 3), Moses (Exodus 7:1), and more generally the Jewish People (John 10:34). In none of these cases do we interpret these individuals as either literally being God or blasphemous. Rather, these are God's agents, his mediators, his people. Jesus, as the sole mediator between men and God under the New Covenant, as the one who has perfectly followed God's will, may thus appropriately be addressed as God in the same sense as others in the scripture without any need for a literal interpretation.

In fact, if we look at passages like Hebrews 1:8-9, while Jesus is addressed as God here, it simultaneously makes reference to Jesus' God (does God have a God?).

And if we look at passages like 1 Cor 15:20-28, Paul makes clear that Jesus is both distinct and lesser than God:


1 Cor 15:20-28 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.


If you disagree, then please explain why the term "God" should be interpreted literally when applied to Christ instead of in the precedent set by the terms usage to others in scripture.

I was just getting ready to breech this subject, though I thought there was already a thread titled, "Who is Jesus?"

For me the issue is simple. Jesus said, "I and the father are one". (I think this simply means that he and the Father agree". When he is Baptized by John, God says, "This is my son, in who I am well pleased", and when he is praying in the garden of Gethsemane he says, "Father, please take this cup from me." Jesus is NOT God. He could have been The Priest of Salem perhaps?

 

[iam1me]

This is basically the _core_ belief of Christianity. What makes one Christian at all. I mean, you can debate this from where I am (I don't believe it is true) but you really can't debate it Christian to Christian. All of those outlined in the assertions of The Apostles' Creed. I think acceptance of the creed is the primary requirement to identify as a Christian. Debating it for a Christian would be pretty disdainful to say the least.

That is the narrative that the Trinitarians would have you believe - but historically is simply false. As a doctrine, the Trinity developed over the course of hundreds of year with a lot of debate and political wars. In fact, no where in the scriptures is the Trinity ever explicitly defined or discussed. If - for the sake of argument - Christ and all the earliest Christians DID believe the Trinity - they didn't think it was important enough to write about.

Secondly, I think it's important to know regardless of your faith that "what God is" in various chapters and versus of the Bible shifted over time. It contradicts itself in all sorts of ways in this manner because depending on what timing that passage was written the conception was very different. Initially, there was very little different from the Christians than the Jews other than they valued the prophecy of Jesus. As time went on, the narrative of the trinity was developed and Jesus was elevated in status. 'Jesus as God" would have been a foreign concept to this first generation of the faith. However, I'd caution one on relying on those scriptures too much as they are heavily mutilated -- we can see that just through historical copies written in different languages at different times. They don't so much refute the faith, but rather show a progression and evolution in the beliefs of it.

Different aspects of God may be emphasized in different scenarios in scripture, but I would disagree with the idea that these are contradictory vantage points. God is multi-faceted, but also very consistent.

The Trinity doctrine isn't found or emphasized at all in scripture - because it was a developed long after the scriptures were written.

 

[InChrist]

According to the scriptures there is One God, One Savior and Jesus is that Savior, God who came to the earth and became flesh.

I, even I, am the Lord, And besides Me there is no savior. Isaiah 34:11

Tell and bring forth your case; Yes, let them take counsel together. Who has declared this from ancient time? Who has told it from that time? Have not I, the Lord? And there is no other God besides Me, A just God and a Savior; There is none besides Me.Isaiah 45:21

For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. Luke 2:11

... looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. Titus 2:13-14

Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. Acts 20:28

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory. 1 Tim. 3:16

 

[iam1me]

I was just getting ready to breech this subject, though I thought there was already a thread titled, "Who is Jesus?"

For me the issue is simple. Jesus said, "I and the father are one". (I think this simply means that he and the Father agree". When he is Baptized by John, God says, "This is my son, in who I am well pleased", and when he is praying in the garden of Gethsemane he says, "Father, please take this cup from me." Jesus is NOT God. He could have been The Priest of Salem perhaps?

Yes He says that he and the Father are one, but one in what way?

Jesus also prays... "I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one." John 17:11

No on interprets this to mean that all believers are or should be one believer. Rather, it is clearly a call for unity in spirit and action.

 

[Mindmaster]

T
The Trinity doctrine isn't found or emphasized at all in scripture - because it was a developed long after the scriptures were written.

Christians believe and practice many things that are not in the Bible. However, these particular things have been about the same since 325 AD. That's a pretty long time.

Nicene Creed - Wikipedia

 

[iam1me]

According to the scriptures there is One God, One Savior and Jesus is that Savior, God who came to the earth and became flesh.

Indeed. However, the scriptures also call angels God, Moses God, and the Jewish people gods. What do you think of the usage of the term God in these contexts?

 

[InChrist]

That is the narrative that the Trinitarians would have you believe - but historically is simply false. As a doctrine, the Trinity developed over the course of hundreds of year with a lot of debate and political wars. In fact, no where in the scriptures is the Trinity ever explicitly defined or discussed. If - for the sake of argument - Christ and all the earliest Christians DID believe the Trinity - they didn't think it was important enough to write about.



Different aspects of God may be emphasized in different scenarios in scripture, but I would disagree with the idea that these are contradictory vantage points. God is multi-faceted, but also very consistent.

The Trinity doctrine isn't found or emphasized at all in scripture - because it was a developed long after the scriptures were written.

Actually, the triune nature of God is throughout the scriptures and displayed in His creation...

"The Bible presents a God who did not need to create any beings to experience love, communion and fellowship. This God is complete in Himself, being three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, separate and distinct, yet at the same time eternally one God. They loved and communed and fellowshiped with each other and took counsel together before the universe, angels or man were brought into existence. Isaiah "heard the voice of the Lord [in eternity past] saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" (Isa:6:8). Moses revealed the same counseling together of the Godhead: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"; and again, "Let us go down, and there confound their language" (Gen:1:26;11:7). Who is this "us" if God is a single entity? Why does God say, "The man is become as one of us" (Gen:3:22)?"

"In Romans:1:20
Paul argues that God's "eternal power and Godhead" are seen in the creation He made. God's eternal power—but His Godhead? Yes, as Dr. Wood pointed out years ago in The Secret of the Universe, the triune nature of God is stamped on His creation. The cosmos is divided into three: space, matter and time. Each of these is divided into three. Space, for instance, is composed of length, breadth and width, each separate and distinct in itself, yet the three are one. Length, breadth and width are not three spaces, but three dimensions comprising one space. Run enough lines lengthwise and you take in the whole. But so it is with the width and height. Each is separate and distinct, yet each is all of space—just as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is each God.


Time also is a trinity: past, present and future—two invisible and one visible. Each is separate and distinct, yet each is the whole. Man himself is a triunity of spirit, soul and body, two of which are invisible, one visible. Many more details could be given of the Godhead's triunity reflected in the universe. It can hardly be coincidence."

The Trinity

 

[iam1me]

Christians believe and practice many things that are not in the Bible. However, these particular things have been about the same since 325 AD. That's a pretty long time.

Nicene Creed - Wikipedia

325 AD was only the start of the controversy - and it was only resolved through political force. Outside of the Roman Empire non-Trinitarian views continued to thrive until they were subsequently conqured and forced to convert.

At any rate, even if we were to accept 325 AD as the official date at which all of Christendom started recognizing the Trinity to be true - that is still a significant passage of time since Christ and the disciples.

 

[InChrist]

Indeed. However, the scriptures also call angels God, Moses God, and the Jewish people gods. What do you think of the usage of the term God in these contexts?

Small "g" gods...as in not the one and only real Creator God.

 

[lukethethird]

... He could have been The Priest of Salem perhaps?

Hebrews 8:4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law.

Just passing this along.

 

[iam1me]

Actually, the triune nature of God is throughout the scriptures and displayed in His creation...

"The Bible presents a God who did not need to create any beings to experience love, communion and fellowship. This God is complete in Himself, being three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, separate and distinct, yet at the same time eternally one God. They loved and communed and fellowshiped with each other and took counsel together before the universe, angels or man were brought into existence. Isaiah "heard the voice of the Lord [in eternity past] saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" (Isa:6:8). Moses revealed the same counseling together of the Godhead: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"; and again, "Let us go down, and there confound their language" (Gen:1:26;11:7). Who is this "us" if God is a single entity? Why does God say, "The man is become as one of us" (Gen:3:22)?"

You have interpreted Genesis in a manner which agrees with your pre-conceptions. You are reading your beliefs into such passages rather than studying what those scriptures say in and of themselves. There are many competing, equally possibly valid interpretations for such passages. In Judaism, one common interpretation is that the others were the angels, for instance. The fact is that nothing in scripture makes clear who all is referred to by "us" in this passage - it is ambiguous.

"In Romans:1:20
Paul argues that God's "eternal power and Godhead" are seen in the creation He made. God's eternal power—but His Godhead? Yes, as Dr. Wood pointed out years ago in The Secret of the Universe, the triune nature of God is stamped on His creation. The cosmos is divided into three: space, matter and time. Each of these is divided into three. Space, for instance, is composed of length, breadth and width, each separate and distinct in itself, yet the three are one. Length, breadth and width are not three spaces, but three dimensions comprising one space. Run enough lines lengthwise and you take in the whole. But so it is with the width and height. Each is separate and distinct, yet each is all of space—just as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is each God.

Saying "Godhead" in no way, shape, or form implies a Trinity. You are anachronistically taking a much later doctrine and, once more, attempting to read that doctrine back into the scriptures. If you want to say that Paul or anyone else in the scriptures taught the Trinity, then show us where it teaches that the three are co-equal, co-eternal, the same exact God but different personages. You cannot - for it does not exist. However, I can show you a ton of scriptures to contradict these notions.

Time also is a trinity: past, present and future—two invisible and one visible. Each is separate and distinct, yet each is the whole. Man himself is a triunity of spirit, soul and body, two of which are invisible, one visible. Many more details could be given of the Godhead's triunity reflected in the universe. It can hardly be coincidence."

The Trinity

Oh brother :doh: I'm not sure why anyone would take such an argument seriously. At the very least, this was posted under "Scriptural Debates" - so try to keep your arguments to what the scriptures say.

 

[iam1me]

Small "g" gods...as in not the one and only real Creator God.

There's no "small g" in Greek or Hebrew; that is simply something introduced by translators.

 

[Mindmaster]

325 AD was only the start of the controversy - and it was only resolved through political force. Outside of the Roman Empire non-Trinitarian views continued to thrive until they were subsequently conqured and forced to convert.

At any rate, even if we were to accept 325 AD as the official date at which all of Christendom started recognizing the Trinity to be true - that is still a significant passage of time since Christ and the disciples.

Hard to say what the original Christians believed at all, because they were basically exterminated in 200AD by the Romans. It doesn't become safe to be a Christian until Constantine takes the throne. After that point, the religion was basically revived from the dead quite literally. "Original Christianity" as in whatever Jesus and the Apostles were on about completely died off. That much is known... That tradition was mostly oral and the people who practiced it weren't wealthy or scholars. (They couldn't even write.) So, what we have from that time is a bunch of 3rd party transcriptions of stories related man to man woman to woman from a nearly dead religion. For that reason it's hard to draw scriptural context to refute the trinity in the view of Christian beliefs because we could argue there would be no Christians that didn't accept the trinity at some point at time. (maybe later, like 380AD...) Everyone who disagreed would have been murdered of course, as is the tradition, especially with the might of Rome behind it at that juncture.

 

[Jon reign]

If all of the prophecies of the messiah to come are from the old testament, isn't it strange that the Jews never held the belief that the messiah would be God incarnate. In other words, doesn't the fact that the Jews do not think that the messiah is God indicate that there is no scriptural evidence to suggest they should believe that. The fact that the Jews reject Jesus as the messiah is irrelevant. I mean in their religious understanding of the Torah, God cannot become a human incarnate. Why would they have reached such a conclusion?

 

[InChrist]

There's no "small g" in Greek or Hebrew; that is simply something introduced by translators.

There may not be small "g"s, but the Bible clearly distinguishes false gods as opposed to the ONE true Creator God.

 

[iam1me]

Hard to say what the original Christians believed at all, because they were basically exterminated in 200AD by the Romans. It doesn't become safe to be a Christian until Constantine takes the throne. After that point, the religion was basically revived from the dead quite literally. "Original Christianity" as in whatever Jesus and the Apostles were on about completely died off. That much is known... That tradition was mostly oral and the people who practiced it weren't wealthy or scholars. (They couldn't even write.) So, what we have from that time is a bunch of 3rd party transcriptions of stories related man to man woman to woman from a nearly dead religion. For that reason it's hard to draw scriptural context to refute the trinity in the view of Christian beliefs because we could argue there would be no Christians that didn't accept the trinity at some point at time. (maybe later, like 380AD...) Everyone who disagreed would have been murdered of course, as is the tradition, especially with the might of Rome behind it at that juncture.

The Christians were never exterminated. Heavily persecuted, yes, but never exterminated. Constantine didn't revive Christianity - he used Christianity and the existing Christian populace as the back-bone for his empire. This was also what led to the Council of Nicea - since he thought differences in doctrine were a horrible threat.

Furthermore, while Christianity was certainly primarily spread by word of mouth, its teachings were very early on recorded in writing, and these writings from a very early point became the backbone of Christianity. While many believers may not have been educated, it is simply false to assert that none of them were educated. Rather, in all ages of Christianity there have been those educated leaders that have written on a wide variety of topics, debating among themselves and those outside the faith. This is nothing new - go study the works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.