• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus is not God Almighty Himself

Thinking Homer

Understanding and challenging different worldviews
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.

Not all people who identify themselves as Christian believe in the Trinity. Jehovah's witnesses believe that Jesus was the Son of God, but not Jehovah Himself. They also use a different Bible translation (New World Translation), of which there are notable differences compared to the KJV (from which it is derived) (particularly those parts dealing with the Trinity - John chapter 1 would be such an example). Mormons also believe that there are a multitude of gods, and do not believe the Trinity to be the only one divine authority.

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

The Nicene Creed was first adopted in A.D. 325 at the Council of Nicea. The Roman Emperor Constantine had convened the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify the Christian church with one doctrine, especially on the issues of the Trinity and the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ.

What is the Nicene Creed?

Scriptures in the New Testament (KJV):
' Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: ' Matthew 28:19

'And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' Matthew 3:16-17

'Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. ' John 5:18

'But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. ' Acts 5:3-4 [Lying to the Holy Spirit was equivalent to lying to God]

Since he does claim to be the Messiah, - don't you think if he was YHVH he would tell people? Just as he did saying he was the Messiah?

John 8:58 - πρὶν Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι, ἐγώ εἰμι. “Before Abraham was born I am.”

In using the phrase I Am (John 8:24, 8:58, 13:19) Jesus used a clear divine title belonging to Yahweh alone (Exodus 3:13-14, Deuteronomy 32:39, Isaiah 43:10) and was interpreted as such by Jesus’ listeners (John 8:58-59). “I AM was recognized by the Jews as a title of deity.” (Tenney)

Other scriptures in the Hebrew Bible talking about the Trinity (CJB):
'“Come close to me, and listen to this: since the beginning I have not spoken in secret, since the time things began to be, I have been there; and now Adonai Elohim has sent me and his Spirit.”' - Yesha 'yahu (Isaiah) 48:16

'For a child is born to us, a son is given to us; dominion will rest on his shoulders, and he will be given the name Pele-Yo‘etz El Gibbor Avi-‘Ad Sar-Shalom [Wonder of a Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace],' - Yesha 'yahu (Isaiah) 9:5
 

iam1me

Active Member
Its wording, nothing complicated. Prepositions are used to relate two words in a sentence with a clause. The words Of, As, In, By separate two words even though they are related to each other. Also, conjunction words such as And shows two or more things related to each other.

The trinity, by definition, is a relationship between three ideas, things, or people etc. So, the creator, spirit, and savior are interconnected; and, that interconnection is called trinity.

The Trinity Doctrine is more than simply nothing that some relationship existing between three things/ideas/persons. It is a very specific assertion concerning the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It asserts that these three are all co-equal, co-eternal, and all one in the same God, composed of the same substance while being distinct persons. Hence it is differentiated from such Christologies as Arianism and Modalism, which are two broad categories of competing explanations for how these three relate to one another.

Its also perspective
...
The two views are basically alike just one party sees it literal and the other, though denied because of the divinity of it, concept and context.

Jesus is god: Relationship makes them one and the same

Jesus is not god: Relationship relates (not combines) two seperate people one in goal.

Some christians dont see jesus with any concept of divinity; but, that confuses me. If jesus was human just as us, what about him makes him human given his his place and role.

I agree with the essence of your view point, however it would be wrong to call what you have described Trinitarianism. You reason that Jesus is called "God" due to his relationship to God (being his representative and one who does his will) rather than because he literally is God himself. This is more in line with my position - which would be considered heretical by "orthodox" Christianity.

I would also agree that Jesus is holds a special place in creation and in God's plan - it is through him that everything has been brought together after all. He has even been given all authority and power (except over God himself). This is a far cry from him being God Almighty himself however.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
The Trinity Doctrine is more than simply nothing that some relationship existing between three things/ideas/persons. It is a very specific assertion concerning the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It asserts that these three are all co-equal, co-eternal, and all one in the same God, composed of the same substance. Hence it is differentiated from such Christologies as Arianism and Modalism, which are two broad categories of competing explanations for how these three relate to one another.



I agree with the essence of your view point, however it would be wrong to call what you have described Trinitarianism. You reason that Jesus is called "God" due to his relationship to God (being his representative and one who does his will) rather than because he literally is God himself. This is more in line with my position - which would be considered heretical by "orthodox" Christianity.

I would also agree that Jesus is holds a special place in creation and in God's plan - it is through him that everything has been brought together after all. He has even been given all authority and power (except over God himself). This is a far cry from him being God Almighty himself however.
Nah, you aren't getting this. God is god, in all the facets. When you say God, you are including the aspects of God, which includes Jesus.
 

iam1me

Active Member
The Nicene Creed was first adopted in A.D. 325 at the Council of Nicea. The Roman Emperor Constantine had convened the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify the Christian church with one doctrine, especially on the issues of the Trinity and the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ.

What is the Nicene Creed?

This was really only the start of the controversy. There would be many more subsequent councils over the century - and the matter would only be put to rest via the threat of death. Outside of the Roman Empire, Arianism and other Christologies would continue to persist until those regions were conquered and - again - forced to convert by threat of death and the like.

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

Listing three names in a row doesn't in any way, shape, or form support the Trinity Doctrine. If I said "Fred, Linda, and Nicole" no one would think this implied that these three are one in the same person, co-equal, co-eternal, etc.

'And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' Matthew 3:16-17

Not sure why you are quoting this verse?

'Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. ' John 5:18

The Jews who persecuted him had a very ignorant understanding of who Jesus claimed to be. Even his own disciples only really grasped it after his death and resurrection. Jesus himself very plainly states that he is less than the Father, that God is greater than he is.


John 14:28​
“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.​

'But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. ' Acts 5:3-4 [Lying to the Holy Spirit was equivalent to lying to God]

Indeed - but this poses no problem for the competing view point. If the Holy Ghost is a servant and representative of God, then of course lying to the Holy Ghost is no different than lying to God himself.

John 8:58 - πρὶν Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι, ἐγώ εἰμι. “Before Abraham was born I am.”

In using the phrase I Am (John 8:24, 8:58, 13:19) Jesus used a clear divine title belonging to Yahweh alone (Exodus 3:13-14, Deuteronomy 32:39, Isaiah 43:10) and was interpreted as such by Jesus’ listeners (John 8:58-59). “I AM was recognized by the Jews as a title of deity.” (Tenney)


There was a common translation of the Old Testament into Greek already in existence at this time: The Septuigant. It does not translate God's name as ego eimi, but as ho on = the one who is/ the being. If this what the biblical author meant to convey, then ho on is how it would have been written. As it stands, the Trinitarian translators are simply (once more) reading their views into the translation. By trying to treat "I am" as a name (even though eimi is a VERB), you end up with non-sense, grammatically speaking. It would be equivolent to saying "Before Dave was, Rob." Rob what?


Other scriptures in the Hebrew Bible talking about the Trinity (CJB):
'“Come close to me, and listen to this: since the beginning I have not spoken in secret, since the time things began to be, I have been there; and now Adonai Elohim has sent me and his Spirit.”' - Yesha 'yahu (Isaiah) 48:16


Not sure why you think this supports the Trinity Doctrine.

'For a child is born to us, a son is given to us; dominion will rest on his shoulders, and he will be given the name Pele-Yo‘etz El Gibbor Avi-‘Ad Sar-Shalom [Wonder of a Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace],' - Yesha 'yahu (Isaiah) 9:5

This passage does not support the Trinity. In the Trinity, the Son is NOT the Father. If you interpret this in a literal sense, you must reject the Trinity.
 

Thinking Homer

Understanding and challenging different worldviews
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.

There comes a very obvious theological dilemma if you identify yourself as a Christian and do not believe in the Trinity.

Christianity is a monotheistic religion

A Christian by definition needs to believe in the sayings of Christ. He clearly tells us to believe in him as the Son of God, as well as the Father who sent him.

'Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. ' - John 5:23

'Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. ' - Matthew 16:16-17


For Jesus' disciples who have been taught at Jewish synagogues their whole lives, this leads to a problem with a particular scripture in the Torah:

'“‘You are to have no other gods before me. You are not to make for yourselves a carved image or any kind of representation of anything in heaven above, on the earth beneath or in the water below the shoreline — you are not to bow down to them or serve them; for I, Adonai your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sins of the parents, also the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, ' D'varim (Deuteronomy) 5:7-9

Coming from a Jewish background, Jesus' disciples were well aware of this verse, and yet they still decided to worship Jesus:
'Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” ' - Matthew 14:33

If you reject the Trinity and yet still attribute divine status to both Yahweh and Yeshua, you are breaking the first three of the ten commandments:

1) You have another god named Yeshua
2) You are worshiping an image of God which is considered idolatry
3) You are violating the exclusive worship which Yahweh commands

The Trinity was therefore an obvious solution to this problem, which the Jewish Christians realized from the very beginning (Hence the Gospel of John was written).

'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ' - John 1:1 (KJV)
 

iam1me

Active Member
Nah, you aren't getting this. God is god, in all the facets. When you say God, you are including the aspects of God, which includes Jesus.

And now you are starting to sound like a Modalist. Modalistic Monarchianism - Wikipedia

I get the sense that you are very free spirited in your study of theology. That can be a good thing. But when discussing theology you should recognize that different terms and doctrines, like the Trinity, have very specific connotations. Unless there is a good reason to abandon such terminology, you should adopt it so that you can effectively communicate with others.
 

iam1me

Active Member
There comes a very obvious theological dilemma if you identify yourself as a Christian and do not believe in the Trinity.

Christianity is a monotheistic religion

This isn't a dilemma. One doesn't need the Trinity to be a monotheistic Christian. The Trinity was only ever one of many different attempts of making sense of the passages which call Christ God while adhering to monotheism.

A Christian by definition needs to believe in the sayings of Christ. He clearly tells us to believe in him as the Son of God, as well as the Father who sent him.

'Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. ' - John 5:23

'Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. ' - Matthew 16:16-17

Again, a non-issue. If anything, the Trinitarians are in trouble here since they effectively dismiss the fact that Jesus is God's Son, that he is begotten. They can't accept what Christ claimed of himself, what the scriptures explicitly state. So instead they invent background stories to try to force the scriptures to agree with them.

For Jesus' disciples who have been taught at Jewish synagogues their whole lives, this leads to a problem with a particular scripture in the Torah:

'“‘You are to have no other gods before me. You are not to make for yourselves a carved image or any kind of representation of anything in heaven above, on the earth beneath or in the water below the shoreline — you are not to bow down to them or serve them; for I, Adonai your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sins of the parents, also the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, ' D'varim (Deuteronomy) 5:7-9

Coming from a Jewish background, Jesus' disciples were well aware of this verse, and yet they still decided to worship Jesus:
'Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” ' - Matthew 14:33


Recognizing Jesus as the Son of God in no way, shape, or form contradicts the fact that there is one God - and that they are to have no other gods before the Almighty. Jesus is the son and servant of the Almighty, his representative. No need for a Trinity to explain this.

If you reject the Trinity and yet still attribute divine status to both Yahweh and Yeshua, you are breaking the first three of the ten commandments:

1) You have another god named Yeshua
2) You are worshiping an image of God which is considered idolatry
3) You are violating the exclusive worship which Yahweh commands

The Trinity was therefore an obvious solution to this problem, which the Jewish Christians realized from the very beginning (Hence the Gospel of John was written).

'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ' - John 1:1 (KJV)

Please review the OP. Angels are addressed as God, Moses is addressed as God, and the Jewish people are called gods. The scriptures are far more liberal in their use of the term than what you posit. No on thinks that Moses is literally God, despite the fact that the scriptures address him as such. No one claims the Jewish people are literally gods despite the fact that Jesus says as much. The burden is on you to show why when scripture says Jesus is God that it should be interpreted literally in contradiction to the precedent set in these other cases.
 

Jon reign

Member
It has already been mentioned in the thread but not thoroughly addressed. What are we to make of the numerous verses of the bible that refer to other humans as gods. Especially melchizedek as being the begotten son of God. Is this literal or metaphorical?
 

Thinking Homer

Understanding and challenging different worldviews
Listing three names in a row doesn't in any way, shape, or form support the Trinity Doctrine. If I said "Fred, Linda, and Nicole" no one would think this implied that these three are one in the same person, co-equal, co-eternal, etc.

My question is why would Jesus find it important to baptize any believer through all three persons and not only God the Father?

Not sure why you are quoting this verse?
This is the beginning of Jesus' ministry with the baptism by John the Baptist. Why did Jesus find it necessary to reveal himself this way? He was revealing that He received approval from the Father and the Holy Spirit and was not acting on his own. (In a sense they were all working together)

The Jews who persecuted him had a very ignorant understanding of who Jesus claimed to be. Even his own disciples only really grasped it after his death and resurrection. Jesus himself very plainly states that he is less than the Father, that God is greater than he is.

I think Jewish Pharisees and Sadducees who studied the scriptures their entire life knew exactly what Jesus was implying, hence they wanted to kill him.

“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
I've heard Muslims quote this verse time and time again. Yes, the Son was subservient to the Father in person, but not in nature. For example the human child is subservient to their parents, but that does not make the child any less human than their mother or father. Likewise even if Jesus was subservient to the Father, it did not make him any less God. The apostle Paul writes:

'Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. ' Philippians 2:5-11 (KJV)

What is Paul saying? He is saying that though Jesus was the very incarnation of God, he chose to revoke any godly privileges and humbled himself as a human being. However after the crucifixion, God the Father gave Him the Name that is above Name and devoted all worship to Jesus.

Again in Hebrews, the author writes:
'But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. ' Hebrews 1:8 (KJV)

The Father clearly calls His Son, God.

This passage does not support the Trinity. In the Trinity, the Son is NOT the Father. If you interpret this in a literal sense, you must reject the Trinity.
But it does establish that the Son is on the same level as the Father.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
The Trinity Doctrine is more than simply nothing that some relationship existing between three things/ideas/persons. It is a very specific assertion concerning the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I dont know where you got that sentiment from. It is conecrning the relationship between father, son, and holy spirit. What am I missing?

It asserts that these three are all co-equal, co-eternal, and all one in the same God, composed of the same substance while being distinct persons. Hence it is differentiated from such Christologies as Arianism and Modalism, which are two broad categories of competing explanations for how these three relate to one another.

Yes. Thats trinitarian view. I see both sides. Im not bias.

I did explain the differences between the two. Arian theology is interesting. Ive no opinion between the two views. If going by scripture, its no trinitarian. But each person relates to scripture differently. The only problem is between christians, unfortunately.

I agree with the essence of your view point, however it would be wrong to call what you have described Trinitarianism. You reason that Jesus is called "God" due to his relationship to God (being his representative and one who does his will) rather than because he literally is God himself. This is more in line with my position - which would be considered heretical by "orthodox" Christianity.

The definition, as mentioned and explained in your first quote is a relationship between father, son, and holy spirit. (three people related)

Jesus in related as per what you mentioned in your first quote

The last, trinitarians cant tell the difference between the two. Notihng wrong with that.

I would also agree that Jesus is holds a special place in creation and in God's plan - it is through him that everything has been brought together after all.

He has even been given all authority and power (except over God himself). This is a far cry from him being God Almighty himself however.

Yes, through, of, from, and, and tends to hover around the trinity which is not clear when you use Is; it comes to what the word trinity and relationship mean.

There is only one god. Is jesus the creator or not?
 

Thinking Homer

Understanding and challenging different worldviews
Please review the OP. Angels are addressed as God, Moses is addressed as God, and the Jewish people are called gods. The scriptures are far more liberal in their use of the term than what you posit. No on thinks that Moses is literally God, despite the fact that the scriptures address him as such. No one claims the Jewish people are literally gods despite the fact that Jesus says as much. The burden is on you to show why when scripture says Jesus is God that it should be interpreted literally in contradiction to the precedent set in these other cases.

Here is the difference. Moses did not claim to be God. The Jewish people did not claim themselves to be God. Angels did not claim themselves to be God. But Jesus did on multiple occasions (which many people in this thread have already quoted)

'Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. ' John 20:27-29 (KJV)

It is clear throughout the Gospels that Jesus makes no distinction between Son of God or God, because he believed it to be the same thing. If you claim that they are different, you need to explain to me how that is not idolatry, because Yahweh clearly expected exclusive worship as a Jealous God.
 

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Not all people who identify themselves as Christian believe in the Trinity. Jehovah's witnesses believe that Jesus was the Son of God, but not Jehovah Himself. They also use a different Bible translation (New World Translation), of which there are notable differences compared to the KJV (from which it is derived) (particularly those parts dealing with the Trinity - John chapter 1 would be such an example). Mormons also believe that there are a multitude of gods, and do not believe the Trinity to be the only one divine authority.

I don't particularly consider Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses to be accurate representations of Christian beliefs on the whole because they diverge so greatly from the rest. Since I was speaking in generalities in the first place, I think my initial statement still applies. :D

As far as Bible editions, KJV is useful because more faiths use it, but others are more useful in the the fact that they are more directly translated from the original languages by people who had a better mastery of the native tongues. However, this forum automatically takes any reference and directs it to KJV. :D
 

iam1me

Active Member
My question is why would Jesus find it important to baptize any believer through all three persons and not only God the Father?

The Son and Holy Spirit each are significant in their own right without any need to be God Almighty. The Son carried out the Father's will perfectly, sacrificing himself for all of us. He has thus been given all power and authority, except over God himself. He is the mediator between God and men. It is only natural, therefore, that he be invoked in the baptism.

The Holy Spirit guides us and connects us to God, and serves as our seal of salvation. He takes our prayers and communicates them too God. In fact, the act of Baptism is the process by which one receives the Holy Spirit. So, again, it's only natural that the Holy Spirit be invoked in the baptism as well. And, once more, no need for the Holy Spirit to be God Almighty to explain the Holy Spirit's significance here.

This is the beginning of Jesus' ministry with the baptism by John the Baptist. Why did Jesus find it necessary to reveal himself this way? He was revealing that He received approval from the Father and the Holy Spirit and was not acting on his own. (In a sense they were all working together)

We can agree that Jesus, here and elsewhere, never acted as if he came in his own authority or name. He always deferred to God - he is the one sent by God to do God's will, he does nothing but what God shows him to do, he is lesser than God, etc. This all merely supports my position that Jesus is obviously not God himself.

I think Jewish Pharisees and Sadducees who studied the scriptures their entire life knew exactly what Jesus was implying, hence they wanted to kill him.

Time and time again, Jesus conflicted and corrected the Pharisees and Sadduces that confronted him. He often rebuked them. They clearly weren't as knowledgeable as you like to think.

Let us review one such place where Jesus was confronted by Jews who wanted to stone him because they *thought* what he was saying was blasphemy.


John 10:33-36 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’d]">[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?​

There are three important take aways from Christ's reply here.
1. He points out that the scriptures call the Jewish people "gods" - the very thing they are claiming to stone him for. So even if he made such a claim, it would not be blasphemous - that is what the scriptures state of the Jewish people. Clearly the jews in question were lacking in their understanding of the scriptures, despite however many years they may have studied.

2. He states his actual claim: that he is God's Son (not God), correcting their false understanding of who he claimed to be

3. Given these two corrections, he asks "Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy?" Jesus did not consider what he said to be blasphemous in the least. So, again, the jews in question did not have a proper understanding of the scriptures or of who Christ claimed to be - else they would not have accused him of blasphemy.

I've heard Muslims quote this verse time and time again. Yes, the Son was subservient to the Father in person, but not in nature. For example the human child is subservient to their parents, but that does not make the child any less human than their mother or father. Likewise even if Jesus was subservient to the Father, it did not make him any less God.

It is a Trinitarian fiction to assert that Jesus was not less than the Father. Jesus always makes clear that he is subservient to the Father, and all the rest of the New Testament scriptures support this notion. Again, look at the OP where I quote 1 Cor 15 for a good example of this.

The apostle Paul writes:

'Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. ' Philippians 2:5-11 (KJV)

What is Paul saying? He is saying that though Jesus was the very incarnation of God, he chose to revoke any godly privileges and humbled himself as a human being. However after the crucifixion, God the Father gave Him the Name that is above Name and devoted all worship to Jesus.

Paul is describing how Christ, though made in the perfect image of God, took upon the role of a servant, and the form of man and was obedient to God to the point of death upon the cross. God then rewarded him by exalting him above all else. All of this simply serves to differentiate Jesus from God. To add to this, let us look at a similar passage Paul wrote:

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]">[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.

Here Paul is even more explicit about the distinction and subordination of the Son to God.

Again in Hebrews, the author writes:
'But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. ' Hebrews 1:8 (KJV)

The Father clearly calls His Son, God.
But it does establish that the Son is on the same level as the Father.

You should read things in context before quoting them. I even explicitly quoted this passage in the OP:


But of the Son He says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.
9 “You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness above Your companions.”​

While the Son is addressed as God here, it simultaneously speaks of the Son's God. So we are back to the issue presented in the OP: why should we interpret the term "God" literally when applied to Christ despite the fact that such verses clearly differentiate the Son from God Almighty, and when the term has been applied to many others without a literal interpretation.
 

iam1me

Active Member
Here is the difference. Moses did not claim to be God. The Jewish people did not claim themselves to be God. Angels did not claim themselves to be God. But Jesus did on multiple occasions (which many people in this thread have already quoted)

Jesus never once addressed himself as God - but always referred to himself as the Son of God.

'Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. ' John 20:27-29 (KJV)

This is not Jesus calling himself God. You won't find such a passage for it does not exists. There are passages like this that do address him as God - but, again, the term has been applied to many others who no one claims is actually God.

Exodus 7:1 Then the Lord said to Moses, “See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet.​

It is clear throughout the Gospels that Jesus makes no distinction between Son of God or God, because he believed it to be the same thing. If you claim that they are different, you need to explain to me how that is not idolatry, because Yahweh clearly expected exclusive worship as a Jealous God.

Incorrect - Jesus always refers to himself as the Son of God, never as God. He always makes it clear that he does not do or say anything on his own authority - but was sent by God to us as his representative. He says to rejoice that he is going away - for he gets to return to God who is greater than he. The differences are extremely explicit in the scriptures - both in Jesus' own words and in the writings of the subsequent works of the New Testament. Also, Jesus never asked anyone to worship him as God Almighty, so your argument is moot.
 
Last edited:

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
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 say 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.


I have a few questions to ask.

First, seeing in 1 Cor 15:20-28 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep"

Can you explain what group of people is the dead in reference to, in the Bible ?
What does it mean ( Who have fallen asleep) What group of people is this in reference to ?
Have you any idea how Jesus is God Almighty ?

As you stated, ( The last enemy to be destroyed is death)
Who is death, What is the name of Death ?

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

In what way is Jesus lesser than God ?
Do you have any idea, how this works ?

As you stated, 1 Corinthians 15:21---" For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man"

Who is death, what is death's name ?
What does it mean, The Resurrection of the dead?
In the Bible what group of people, are the dead in reference to ?
 
Last edited:

Thinking Homer

Understanding and challenging different worldviews
John 10:33-36 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’d]">[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

Since context is important, let's look at the context. This passage is a reference to Psalm 82, where the judges of Israel are referred to as 'gods' because they determined the fate of other men. If unjust, worldly humans could be called gods because they carried the words of God, how much more should Jesus be called the Son of God, since He Himself was the Word? Are the Jewish people arguing over whether Jesus is God or the Son of God? NO. They saw the two as the same thing:

'Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. ' John 5:18

'The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.” - John 19:7

Jesus claimed to be divine, which is why they tried to stone him.

Btw just to clarify something, those who believe in the Trinity do believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Hence we address the Trinity as: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. We reject the notion that Jesus was begotten, or created by God the Father.

Given these two corrections, he asks "Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy?" Jesus did not consider what he said to be blasphemous in the least. So, again, the jews in question did not have a proper understanding of the scriptures or of who Christ claimed to be - else they would not have accused him of blasphemy.

'But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” “He is worthy of death,” they answered.' - Matthew 26:63-66

What did Jews consider blasphemy? Anyone who claimed divinity. Hence even the phrase Son of God was offensive to the Jews, which was the reason why Jesus was crucified.

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]">[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.

Here is the theological difference between you and I. Whenever Jesus says things like "I and the Father are one" or "The Father is in me and I in the Father" you say that they are united in purpose, not nature. I say that they are united in nature and purpose.

Whenever Jesus says things like "The Father is greater than I" or "I only speak what the Father tells me to say", you say Jesus is inferior in nature, but I say Jesus is only subservient in purpose, not nature.

All of this simply serves to differentiate Jesus from God.
Those who believe in the Trinity believe that they are separate persons as well. The Athanasian creed sums this up well.

“We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being. For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another. But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty. What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit. Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit. The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite. Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit: And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal; as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited. Almighty is the Father; almighty is the Son; almighty is the Spirit: And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty. Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God. Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord: And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord."

What is the Athanasian Creed?

You should read things in context before quoting them. I even explicitly quoted this passage in the OP:


But of the Son He says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.
9 “You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness above Your companions.”
While the Son is addressed as God here, it simultaneously speaks of the Son's God.

This is exactly what the Trinity doctrine teaches. Jesus is subservient to the Father, yet we have God the Father and God the Son. The Son is subservient in purpose to the Father, but not inferior in nature.

Jesus never once addressed himself as God - but always referred to himself as the Son of God.
'Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.' John 14:8-11 (NKJV)

Also, Jesus never asked anyone to worship him as God Almighty, so your argument is moot.

'that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.' John 5:23

'Then those who were in the boat came and worshiped Him, saying, “Truly You are the Son of God.” - Matthew 14:33

Again we return to the original point.
'for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord , whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God,' - Exodus 34:14

'Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, ' Philippians 2:9-10 (Clearly an act of worship)

Why would Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, create a god and tell people to worship it in the New testament? Please answer this question.

Also think about the following points:
1) Jesus never denies that he is the Father. In fact, he states unity with the Father multiple times in the Gospel of John. And when Thomas called him God (which would have been idolatry/blasphemy for a Jew), Jesus never condemns him. Is that not strange to you? Show me one passage where Jesus says, "I am not God, do not worship me."

2) Why are you so adamant about separating the notion of God and Son of God? You do realize that doing so is actually creating more problems in a monotheistic belief system. Believing in God and a god is a polytheistic religion, no matter how you look at it.
 
Last edited:

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Mormons also believe that there are a multitude of gods, and do not believe the Trinity to be the only one divine authority.
But we [Mormons] do believe the Godhead to be the only one divine authority, and we do believe Jesus Christ to be God in His own right (as well as the Son of God). We just believe each of the three to be physically distinct personages and that their "oneness" is in mind, will and purpose.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
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.
Early Christians must be Jews, and they must be in very difficult times. The temple is destroyed during their lifetimes. Many things are not defined in the gospels, and Jesus is quoted in the gospels to say he is not teaching his disciples everything they need to know, that they must wait for the holy spirit. Its entirely possible that the trinity is a legitimate idea depending upon how one thinks about it. No, one cannot derive it from the gospels, alone. It is obviously learned with the help of some of Plato's work. This is no secret except to the uneducated and in really bad seminaries.

Hard to say what the original Christians believed at all, because they were basically exterminated in 200AD by the Romans.
You know? There is something Jesus says in the gospels that strikes me: "Destroy this temple, and I will rebuild it in three days." He never does rebuild it, and it turns out he is using confusing language purposely. Maybe he is talking about this.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
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.

How about the passage where "equality with God for Jesus isn't robbery"? How about one person dying cannot pay more than one person's sin?

Jesus is subordinate to the Father, the same way the Spirit seeks little direct praise, but the Spirit and Jesus are also God.
 

Thinking Homer

Understanding and challenging different worldviews
But we [Mormons] do believe the Godhead to be the only one divine authority, and we do believe Jesus Christ to be God in His own right (as well as the Son of God). We just believe each of the three to be physically distinct personages and that their "oneness" is in mind, will and purpose.

Mormon theology is very different from conservative Christianity. Mormon Trinity simply acknowledges that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are divine. Oneness in purpose maybe, but definitely not one entity as conservative Christians believe. This is what Joseph Smith said about the Trinity: "Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God. . . . All are crammed into one God according to sectarianism [the Christian faith]. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster” (Teachings, p. 372).

We may use the same words, but we mean completely different things. However I believe that that is another topic on its own.
 
Top