Is Jesus Deity?

[Deleted User]

@davidtaylorjr said:
That is not an equal comparison. John 1 tells us that the Word is Jesus.

Well, I tell you the symphony played was Mozart. But John 1 does NOT tell us that the Word is Jesus anywhere ... it does tell uis that what was "Word" in the beginning later on BECAME "flesh" (i.e. the man Jesus).

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Wolfgang said:
Jesus was absolutely correct ... but those who misunderstand what he said (perhaps influenced by a wrong punctuation in the translation they read) are wrong.

Wait, what? What are you talking about?

I am talking about translations punctuating the statement in Lk 23:43 incorrectly ... have a look at the Greek text, disregard the punctuation since there was no punctuation in the ancient manuscripts, in addition forget false assumptions about paradise being a section of the grave or whatever ... and it should be easy to notice that Jesus was emphasizing that what he was saying "TODAY (i.e. the promise made on that day)" concerning the future time when has going to be in his kingdom, was true and would come to pass.

@davidtaylorjr said:
What are those unreasonable and illogical points? They are only unreasonable and illogical if you try to be above God and put him in your box.

Not so ... even just the idea that Jesus was both God and man is unreasonable and illogical in light of the plain truth that God is SPIRIT, and man FLESH AND BLOOD. That "three" are each on their own "God", but yet somehow (as excuse, it is claimed that it is really a mystery) also only "one God" is unreasonable and illogical.

Of course, those who believe such will claim that it is the most reasonable and logical thing there is ... just as they claim that they know God is a Trinity, and at the same time claim that the Trinity is a mystery that cannot really be known, and even refer to Deu 29:29, which states that the secret things belong to the LORD, so how could they even know a lousy thing about the Trinity or even that God was a Trinity, if secret things belong to God ??

dct112685

@Wolfgang said:

@davidtaylorjr said:
That is not an equal comparison. John 1 tells us that the Word is Jesus.

Well, I tell you the symphony played was Mozart. But John 1 does NOT tell us that the Word is Jesus anywhere ... it does tell uis that what was "Word" in the beginning later on BECAME "flesh" (i.e. the man Jesus).

Exactly God (the Word and Jesus) Became Flesh. I'm glad you finally admit it. It only took us 5 years to get there.

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Wolfgang said:
Jesus was absolutely correct ... but those who misunderstand what he said (perhaps influenced by a wrong punctuation in the translation they read) are wrong.

Wait, what? What are you talking about?

I am talking about translations punctuating the statement in Lk 23:43 incorrectly ... have a look at the Greek text, disregard the punctuation since there was no punctuation in the ancient manuscripts, in addition forget false assumptions about paradise being a section of the grave or whatever ... and it should be easy to notice that Jesus was emphasizing that what he was saying "TODAY (i.e. the promise made on that day)" concerning the future time when has going to be in his kingdom, was true and would come to pass.

Interesting interpretation...

@davidtaylorjr said:
What are those unreasonable and illogical points? They are only unreasonable and illogical if you try to be above God and put him in your box.

Not so ... even just the idea that Jesus was both God and man is unreasonable and illogical in light of the plain truth that God is SPIRIT, and man FLESH AND BLOOD. That "three" are each on their own "God", but yet somehow (as excuse, it is claimed that it is really a mystery) also only "one God" is unreasonable and illogical.

Of course, those who believe such will claim that it is the most reasonable and logical thing there is ... just as they claim that they know God is a Trinity, and at the same time claim that the Trinity is a mystery that cannot really be known, and even refer to Deu 29:29, which states that the secret things belong to the LORD, so how could they even know a lousy thing about the Trinity or even that God was a Trinity, if secret things belong to God ??

No, this is definitely Wolfgang putting God in a box.

[Deleted User]

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Wolfgang said:
But John 1 does NOT tell us that the Word is Jesus anywhere ... it does tell us that what was "Word" in the beginning later on BECAME "flesh" (i.e. the man Jesus).

Exactly God (the Word and Jesus) Became Flesh. I'm glad you finally admit it. It only took us 5 years to get there.

?? There is no God became flesh in John 1 or anywhere else in Scripture.
God can NOT become flesh ... simple truth, axiomatic from what Scripture tells about what God is.

When you have an architect make a plan of a house for you, and later on the house is being built, would you claim that the architect has become the house ??
would you say that the house existed in form of "drawing/descriptions / etc" in the beginning, or would you say that it did already in the beginning exist as the building those drawings/descriptions/etc. were to become ?

@davidtaylorjr said:
No, this is definitely Wolfgang putting God in a box.

How can I be putting God in a box when I am just talking about other people's unreasonable and illogical ideas?

[Deleted User]

@davidtaylorjr said:

dct112685

@Wolfgang said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Wolfgang said:
But John 1 does NOT tell us that the Word is Jesus anywhere ... it does tell us that what was "Word" in the beginning later on BECAME "flesh" (i.e. the man Jesus).

Exactly God (the Word and Jesus) Became Flesh. I'm glad you finally admit it. It only took us 5 years to get there.

?? There is no God became flesh in John 1 or anywhere else in Scripture.
God can NOT become flesh ... simple truth, axiomatic from what Scripture tells about what God is.

Apparently you must not know how to read then. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, the Word wait for it WAS God.

Unfortunately you lose on this point.

When you have an architect make a plan of a house for you, and later on the house is being built, would you claim that the architect has become the house ??
would you say that the house existed in form of "drawing/descriptions / etc" in the beginning, or would you say that it did already in the beginning exist as the building those drawings/descriptions/etc. were to become ?

@davidtaylorjr said:
No, this is definitely Wolfgang putting God in a box.

How can I be putting God in a box when I am just talking about other people's unreasonable and illogical ideas?

Because the only reason they are unreasonable and illogical is because you limit what God can or cannot do and refute that He did exactly what Scripture says He did.

[Deleted User]

@davidtaylorjr said:
Apparently you must not know how to read then. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, the Word wait for it WAS God.

I read AND UNDERSTAND exactly what it says => THE WORD was God.

Unfortunately you lose on this point.

You are the one who reads one thing and then interprets it to say something else ("Jesus was God, God became flesh, etc").
How would I be losing when I read and understand what the text says ?

@davidtaylorjr said:

When you have an architect make a plan of a house for you, and later on the house is being built, would you claim that the architect has become the house ??
would you say that the house existed in form of "drawing/descriptions / etc" in the beginning, or would you say that it did already in the beginning exist as the building those drawings/descriptions/etc. were to become ?

Did you not want to answer my questions ?

@davidtaylorjr said:
Because the only reason they are unreasonable and illogical is because you limit what God can or cannot do and refute that He did exactly what Scripture says He did.

This comment is non-sensical ... as I am the one who is reading and understanding exactly what Scripture says there in John 1, while you are the one who is drawing conclusions and then interpreting into the text what the text of Scriptures actually does NOT say ...

In the beginning God already had in His foreknowledge a plan of a Messiah, a human being, to solve the sin problem (cp 1Pe 1:20, Joh 1:1) ... this plan was realized when the time had fully come (cp Gal 4:4) and the Messiah, that human being of flesh and blood, was conceived and born (Joh 1:14 ... "word became flesh") ....

The person Jesus is NOT mentioned as already living in some form or shape in the beginning, the person Jesus coming into existence is mentioned with the expression "word became flesh".

[Deleted User]

@davidtaylorjr said:
Apparently you must not know how to read then. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, the Word wait for it WAS God.

Hmn ... I read and understand what the text actually says

Unfortunately you lose on this point.

How would I be the one to lose on this point when I read what the text actually says while you are the one who is reading and the drawing conclusions and interpreting those into the text ("the Word is Jesus, Jesus is God, God became flesh") ?

When you have an architect make a plan of a house for you, and later on the house is being built, would you claim that the architect has become the house ??
would you say that the house existed in form of "drawing/descriptions / etc" in the beginning, or would you say that it did already in the beginning exist as the building those drawings/descriptions/etc. were to become ?

Did you not want to answer my questions?

@davidtaylorjr said:
Because the only reason they are unreasonable and illogical is because you limit what God can or cannot do and refute that He did exactly what Scripture says He did.

Scripture states that God in the beginning had a plan in His foreknowledge which involved the Messiah, a human being, who would come to solve the sin problem (cp 1 Pe 1:20, Joh 1:1). This Messiah was manifested, did come when the fullness of time had come (cp Gal 4:4) and he was conceived and born of a woman. What had been word in God's foreknowledge was realized and became reality when the Messiah was conceived and born, that is "word became flesh" (cp Joh 1:14)

It's rather simple ...

[Deleted User]

@davidtaylorjr said:

?? There is no God became flesh in John 1 or anywhere else in Scripture.
God can NOT become flesh ... simple truth, axiomatic from what Scripture tells about what God is.

Apparently you must not know how to read then. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, the Word wait for it WAS God.

Well, I actually do read AND UNDERSTAND the words exactly as they are written ... while you interpret into what you read and then end up with things like "Jesus was God, God became flesh, etc"

@davidtaylorjr said:

When you have an architect make a plan of a house for you, and later on the house is being built, would you claim that the architect has become the house ??
would you say that the house existed in form of "drawing/descriptions / etc" in the beginning, or would you say that it did already in the beginning exist as the building those drawings/descriptions/etc. were to become ?

Why did you not reply to my questions ?

@davidtaylorjr said:
Because the only reason they are unreasonable and illogical is because you limit what God can or cannot do and refute that He did exactly what Scripture says He did.

What Scripture says is that God in the beginning had a plan of a Messiah, a human being, in His foreknowledge (cp 1Pe 1:20; Joh 1:1); this plan then became reality when the time was fulfilled and the Messiah was born of a woman (cp. Gal 4:4), and in the conception and birth of the Messiah, what had been God's word / God's plan "became flesh" (cp. Joh 1:14)

What is so terribly difficult or all wrong about these simple plain truths?

Dave_L

I think the problem is in how we understand the nature of Christ's death on the cross. I think you believe if Jesus is God and God cannot die, then he could not die on the cross and we are lost. But this involves an unscriptural view of Christ's death.

First, Jesus needed to shed his blood for our sins to appease God. This he did exhaustively up to the point of death. Secondly he needed to fulfill the law perfectly. This involved loving God with all his body, mind or soul and strength. Especially in the midst of the gruesome wrath and suffering God sent his way. This love proven by severe trial became complete upon death. It was finished at that point. No more to pay.

And just as God imputed Adam's sins and unrighteousness to us. He imputed our sins and unrighteousness to Christ, and in turn, he imputed Christ's righteousness and payment for sins to us.

But Jesus did not die spiritually, nor does anyone else cease to exist spiritually when they die. Christ went to heaven as those in him also go to heaven at time of death. But those remaining in Adam go to hell.

C Mc

@Wolfgang said:
Well, I actually do read AND UNDERSTAND the words exactly as they are written ... while you interpret into what you read and then end up with things like "Jesus was God, God became flesh, etc"

@davidtaylorjr said:

When you have an architect make a plan of a house for you, and later on the house is being built, would you claim that the architect has become the house ??
would you say that the house existed in form of "drawing/descriptions / etc" in the beginning, or would you say that it did already in the beginning exist as the building those drawings/descriptions/etc. were to become ?

Why did you not reply to my questions ?

@davidtaylorjr said:
Because the only reason they are unreasonable and illogical is because you limit what God can or cannot do and refute that He did exactly what Scripture says He did.

What Scripture says is that God in the beginning had a plan of a Messiah, a human being, in His foreknowledge (cp 1Pe 1:20; Joh 1:1); this plan then became reality when the time was fulfilled and the Messiah was born of a woman (cp. Gal 4:4), and in the conception and birth of the Messiah, what had been God's word / God's plan "became flesh" (cp. Joh 1:14)

What is so terribly difficult or all wrong about these simple plain truths?

And here goes the 21st Century Arius. A voice of the past. Should Christ be worshipped? From your view, Wolfgang, Jesus Christ is created and just a man. is it right to worship him?

Wolfgang, tell me, what is a Christan? It could possibly a new thread. CM

[Deleted User]

@C_M_ said:
And here goes the 21st Century Arius. A voice of the past.

I have no clue what you are trying to say ... could it be that your comparison with Arius is slightly incorrect ?

@C_M_ said:
Should Christ be worshipped? From your view, Wolfgang, Jesus Christ is created and just a man. is it right to worship him?

The first Adam was created ... Messiah Jesus was begotten (cp Mat 1:18ff; Lk 1:35), born of a woman (cp Gal 4:4). It seems like you've got a wrong impression?

You tell me to what kind of living being women give birth ... God? gods? human beings? What do you mean with "JUST a man" ? I don't remember reading this expression anywhere in Scripture, only here it often in arguments by folks who adhere to the Trinity dogma ...

In order to properly answer your question about "worship", it would be necessary that you first tell which kind of "worship" you are asking about ... worship as a king, worship as God, or something else ?

@C_M_ said:
Wolfgang, tell me, what is a Christan? It could possibly a new thread. CM

To keep it really short, I think if Christian is meant Biblically, one could summarize it perhaps as
"A Christian is one who believes in Messiah Jesus and follows his commandments"

Some folks speak of "Christian" as a person who is a member of a "Christian" denomination/church/religious group/etc. Others speak of "nominal Christians" to distinguish those who do not practice any type of denominational/church/beliefs or activity and only by name declare themselves as "Christian" from those who participate actively in a denomination/church/etc.

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:
I think the problem is in how we understand the nature of Christ's death on the cross. I think you believe if Jesus is God and God cannot die, then he could not die on the cross and we are lost. But this involves an unscriptural view of Christ's death.

What you proceed to explain (see below) is the unscriptural view of Christ's (and not only his) death.
The simple Scriptural truth is exactly what you declare here to be unscriptural.

@Dave_L said:
First, Jesus needed to shed his blood for our sins to appease God. This he did exhaustively up to the point of death.

This idea totally disregards that the expression "shedding of blood" is describing "death" by means of a figure of speech, and is done so for emphasis. When in sacrifice Scripture speaks of "shedding of blood", it always refers to "death" (not to a shedding of some blood by means of an inflicted wound, etc.) !! In the OT, animal sacrifices as sin offering - which pointed to the ultimate sacrifice Messiah would make - always meant the death of the animal, not just shedding some blood. It is with death, that the sin sacrifice became "valid"

@Dave_L said:
Secondly he needed to fulfill the law perfectly. This involved loving God with all his body, mind or soul and strength. Especially in the midst of the gruesome wrath and suffering God sent his way. This love proven by severe trial became complete upon death. It was finished at that point. No more to pay.

Indeed ... death is the key word here. Messiah Jesus gave his life, shed his blood => that is, he died!
God cannot experience death.

@Dave_L said:
And just as God imputed Adam's sins and unrighteousness to us. He imputed our sins and unrighteousness to Christ,

I consider this to be a false statement ... God did not impute Adam's sins to us, nor did God impute our sins to Christ, which would have made Messiah Jesus to be a sinner, and which subsequently would have made it impossible for him to accomplish redemption, as that required the shedding of INNOCENT blood (and not the blood of a sinner).

God holds us responsible for our sin and unrighteousness, it is our sin and unrighteousness which places us under condemnation and which can be overcome by us placing our trust for salvation not in any sin sacrifice work we could do, but in the sin sacrifice work (shedding of blood!) of Messiah Jesus.

@Dave_L said:
and in turn, he imputed Christ's righteousness and payment for sins to us.

This is true ... the one who believes on Messiah Jesus and places his trust in Messiah Jesus' sin-sacrifice for sin, will be forgiven and saved and receive eternal life (cp Joh 3:16)

@Dave_L said:
But Jesus did not die spiritually, nor does anyone else cease to exist spiritually when they die.

This introduction of "not die SPIRITUALLY" is nothing but an attempt to somehow retain the false doctrine of the Trinity and belief that Jesus somehow would be able to be God and still die as a man, etc ... What is even meant with the word "spiritually" in this context?

@Dave_L said:
Christ went to heaven as those in him also go to heaven at time of death. But those remaining in Adam go to hell.

There is no going to heaven until the resurrection from the dead is reality ... Messiah Jesus was NOT resurrected on the day of his crucifixion, thus he could NOT have gone to heaven on that day either.

Your supposed "scriptural view of death" contradicts various basic and very simple Bible truths ...

Dave_L

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
I think the problem is in how we understand the nature of Christ's death on the cross. I think you believe if Jesus is God and God cannot die, then he could not die on the cross and we are lost. But this involves an unscriptural view of Christ's death.

What you proceed to explain (see below) is the unscriptural view of Christ's (and not only his) death.
The simple Scriptural truth is exactly what you declare here to be unscriptural.

@Dave_L said:
First, Jesus needed to shed his blood for our sins to appease God. This he did exhaustively up to the point of death.

This idea totally disregards that the expression "shedding of blood" is describing "death" by means of a figure of speech, and is done so for emphasis. When in sacrifice Scripture speaks of "shedding of blood", it always refers to "death" (not to a shedding of some blood by means of an inflicted wound, etc.) !! In the OT, animal sacrifices as sin offering - which pointed to the ultimate sacrifice Messiah would make - always meant the death of the animal, not just shedding some blood. It is with death, that the sin sacrifice became "valid"

@Dave_L said:
Secondly he needed to fulfill the law perfectly. This involved loving God with all his body, mind or soul and strength. Especially in the midst of the gruesome wrath and suffering God sent his way. This love proven by severe trial became complete upon death. It was finished at that point. No more to pay.

Indeed ... death is the key word here. Messiah Jesus gave his life, shed his blood => that is, he died!
God cannot experience death.

@Dave_L said:
And just as God imputed Adam's sins and unrighteousness to us. He imputed our sins and unrighteousness to Christ,

I consider this to be a false statement ... God did not impute Adam's sins to us, nor did God impute our sins to Christ, which would have made Messiah Jesus to be a sinner, and which subsequently would have made it impossible for him to accomplish redemption, as that required the shedding of INNOCENT blood (and not the blood of a sinner).

God holds us responsible for our sin and unrighteousness, it is our sin and unrighteousness which places us under condemnation and which can be overcome by us placing our trust for salvation not in any sin sacrifice work we could do, but in the sin sacrifice work (shedding of blood!) of Messiah Jesus.

@Dave_L said:
and in turn, he imputed Christ's righteousness and payment for sins to us.

This is true ... the one who believes on Messiah Jesus and places his trust in Messiah Jesus' sin-sacrifice for sin, will be forgiven and saved and receive eternal life (cp Joh 3:16)

@Dave_L said:
But Jesus did not die spiritually, nor does anyone else cease to exist spiritually when they die.

This introduction of "not die SPIRITUALLY" is nothing but an attempt to somehow retain the false doctrine of the Trinity and belief that Jesus somehow would be able to be God and still die as a man, etc ... What is even meant with the word "spiritually" in this context?

@Dave_L said:
Christ went to heaven as those in him also go to heaven at time of death. But those remaining in Adam go to hell.

There is no going to heaven until the resurrection from the dead is reality ... Messiah Jesus was NOT resurrected on the day of his crucifixion, thus he could NOT have gone to heaven on that day either.

Your supposed "scriptural view of death" contradicts various basic and very simple Bible truths ...

One major reason Jesus must be God on the cross is if he was human only, then we have finate human righteousness imputed to us. Finate is not eternal. But since Jesus was God acting in our behalf, we have the infinite righteousness of God imputed to us. That is, instead of being as righteous as Adam had he not sinned, which would be the case if Jesus was merely a man, we are considered as righteous as God!

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:
One major reason Jesus must be God on the cross is if he was human only, then we have finate human righteousness imputed to us. ...

This is an unbiblical incorrect assumption.
Biblical truth is that because a man caused the sin problem, it was a man who was needed to solve the sin problem (cp Rom 5:12ff)
God is SPIRIT ... God does NOT have any blood to shed, God can NOT die.

As long as you ignore and brush aside these simplest of Biblical truths, you will of necessity have incorrect an incorrect understanding of the matter and propagate false teaching.

@Dave_L said:

Finate is not eternal. But since Jesus was God acting in our behalf, we have the infinite righteousness of God imputed to us. That is, instead of being as righteous as Adam had he not sinned, which would be the case if Jesus was merely a man, we are as righteous as God!

Adam, had he not sinned, would have received eternal life in God's presence after the end of his natural earthly life ... there are not different kinds of "eternal life" (one being better than another, or one lasting longer than another, etc.) There are also not different levels of righteousness, one is either righteous or not ... anyone who is righteous is as righteous as God, because God is righteous.

Dave_L

Only God is eternal. Adam never was. He might have had "everlasting life" had he not sinned, but not eternal life without beginning or end. So even if Adam had not sinned, we would have only his imputed human righteousness. But in the wisdom of God, because of Christ, we have infinite eternal righteousness, the same as God's righteousness.

C Mc

@Wolfgang said:

@C_M_ said:
And here goes the 21st Century Arius. A voice of the past.

I have no clue what you are trying to say ... could it be that your comparison with Arius is slightly incorrect ?

**Yes, Arius of ole. Arians have been called the “archetypal” Christian heretics; accusations of Arianism have been made in almost every century since the fourth. Taking its name from an Egyptian priest, Arius, this heresy holds that Jesus, while the son of God, is neither eternal nor as fully divine as God the father.

Jesus introduced Himself as “the beginning of the creation of God.” “The origin of God’s creation,” “The Progenitor of God’s creation,” and “The beginning and Lord of God’s creation.” This text was used by Arius to disprove the divinity of Christ and to show that He was a created being. But it manifestly cannot be given this interpretation, or else it would contradict many other Scriptures which plainly declare Christ to be the Creator. (John 1:1-3, 10-14; Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:13-16; Hebrews 1:1-3,10.)

The texts declare rather that all things had their origin and beginning with Christ, because He was the Creator. He is the Beginner, Author, Source, and Moving Principle of all creation, because as the Spokesman of the Godhead He called all things into existence. “Not the first of creatures as the Arians held and Unitarians do now, but the originating source of creation through whom God works." [ROBERTSON, ARCHIBALD THOMAS. Word Pictures in the New Testament (Volume 6, The General Epistles and the Apocalypse). New York: Harper & Brothers, 1933, Page 321.)]

What Arius said and what you're saying, is more or less the same. The two views are first cousins, at least.**

Comparison with Arius is slightly incorrect? Come on, Wolfgang, let's not split hairs here. A half of a dozen of one is six (6) of another.

@C_M_ said:
Should Christ be worshipped? From your view, Wolfgang, Jesus Christ is created and just a man. is it right to worship him?

The first Adam was created ... Messiah Jesus was begotten (cp Mat 1:18ff; Lk 1:35), born of a woman (cp Gal 4:4). It seems like you've got a wrong impression?

You tell me to what kind of living being women give birth ... God? gods? human beings? What do you mean with "JUST a man" ? I don't remember reading this expression anywhere in Scripture, only here it often in arguments by folks who adhere to the Trinity dogma ...

"Just a man"-- Not divine. review how Mary was impregnated. Is not the Holy Spirit played a role?

In order to properly answer your question about "worship", it would be necessary that you first tell which kind of "worship" you are asking about ... worship as a king, worship as God, or something else ?

The kind of "worship" I speak of when it comes to Jesus is one that is worthy. Is not Jesus, the Christ, should be worshipped as Lord, Creator, God, King, Sustainer, Redeemer, Savior, Deliver, etc.... To worship is to acknowledge one's "worth ship."

@C_M_ said:
Wolfgang, tell me, what is a Christan? It could possibly a new thread. CM

To keep it really short, I think if Christian is meant Biblically, one could summarize it perhaps as
"A Christian is one who believes in Messiah Jesus and follows his commandments"

Good start...

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:
Only God is eternal. Adam never was.

what does that have to do with anything we are discussing?

@Dave_L said:
He might have had "everlasting life" had he not sinned, but not eternal life without beginning or end.

?? So what? We now do NOT have eternal life "without beginning or end" either. Our life had a beginning, just as Adam's life or that of any other human being had a start ... the life God provides in Christ to those who believe in Christ is the life into the ages / everlasting life which follows on the life on earth.

@Dave_L said:
So even if Adam had not sinned, we would have only his imputed human righteousness.

No, the righteousness Adam had at the start was the righteousness with which God had equipped him, had given him !!

What do you mean with "human righteousness"? a "righteousness" acquired by a human's own works? Well, Adam did not do any work to have the righteousness he had before he sinned, God had made him that way, righteous! Adam, due to his "sin-work" lost that righteousness and thus the everlasting life he would otherwise have had.

@Dave_L said:
But in the wisdom of God, because of Christ, we have infinite eternal righteousness, the same as God's righteousness.

Yes, but that does NOT have anything to do with us having already lived in eternity past without beginning ... it only concerns the time into our future, that life in God's presence which follows after our natural life on earth has come to its end.
There are no different kinds of righteousness ... there may be different ways, by which man tries to achieve righteousness / become righteous .... but one person being made righteous by believing in Messiah Jesus is not any more or less righteous than any other person who has been made righteous by believing in Messiah Jesus.

[Deleted User]

@C_M_ said:
Jesus introduced Himself as “the beginning of the creation of God.” “The origin of God’s creation,” “The Progenitor of God’s creation,” and “The beginning and Lord of God’s creation.” This text was used by Arius to disprove the divinity of Christ and to show that He was a created being. But it manifestly cannot be given this interpretation, or else it would contradict many other Scriptures which plainly declare Christ to be the Creator. (John 1:1-3, 10-14; Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:13-16; Hebrews 1:1-3,10.) The texts declare rather that all things had their origin and beginning with Christ, because He was the Creator.

None of the passages you mention actually say what you claim ... they speak about GOD (Jesus' Father) being the Creator, they do not declare Christ to be the Creator.
It's very simple .... just do not muddy your own waters and make it complicate, only because some theologians or denominational "Christianity" at large seems unable (or is it more "unwilling"?) to believe and teach the simple Bible truth concerning God and His only begotten Son, the man Messiah Jesus.

@C_M_ said:
He is the Beginner, Author, Source, and Moving Principle of all creation, because as the Spokesman of the Godhead He called all things into existence.

This unbiblical idea of God having a helper or spokesman to speak or call things into existence contradicts passage that plainly tell that God did NOT have or need and spokesman to do so! (cp Gen 1:3,5,6 etc -- does your Bible really read "And Gods Spokesman said ..." or "And God's Spokesman called ..." ???
If it doesn't, then I would suggest to refrain from giving false impressions to others here who would think that your Bible does in fact say so ...

@C_M_ said:

From your view, Wolfgang, Jesus Christ is created and just a man. is it right to worship him?

The first Adam was created ... Messiah Jesus was begotten (cp Mat 1:18ff; Lk 1:35), born of a woman (cp Gal 4:4). It seems like you've got a wrong impression?

You tell me to what kind of living being women give birth ... God? gods? human beings?

I am waiting for your plain and simple answers to my questions ...

@C_M_ said:

What do you mean with "JUST a man" ? I don't remember reading this expression anywhere in Scripture, only here it often in arguments by folks who adhere to the Trinity dogma ...

"Just a man"-- Not divine. review how Mary was impregnated. Is not the Holy Spirit played a role?

Oh ... I believe what Mt 1:18ff and Lk 1:35 state ... thus in that regard, Jesus was divine.

However, did Mary give birth to God? I would think not, as human women can only conceive and give birth to human beings. Women do not conceive or give birth to "God-men" or "men-Gods" ... such silly ideas may be widespread in ancient mythologies and even modern day so-called "Christianity", but they are not found in Scripture and are not in accordance with Bible truth.

@C_M_ said:

In order to properly answer your question about "worship", it would be necessary that you first tell which kind of "worship" you are asking about ... worship as a king, worship as God, or something else ?

The kind of "worship" I speak of when it comes to Jesus is one that is worthy.

?? a little awkward and almost circular way of trying to give a meaning of the term ...
Worthy as what?

@C_M_ said:
Is not Jesus, the Christ, should be worshipped as Lord, Creator, God, King, Sustainer, Redeemer, Savior, Deliver, etc.... To worship is to acknowledge one's "worth ship."

My simple answer is: Yes, Jesus is worthy to be worshipped as what he indeed is and what he has accomplished and what the Bible teaches about him.

@C_M_ said:

Wolfgang, tell me, what is a Christan? It could possibly a new thread. CM

To keep it really short, I think if Christian is meant Biblically, one could summarize it perhaps as
"A Christian is one who believes in Messiah Jesus and follows his commandments"

Good start...

I would consider all of what I have endeavored to write and explain as simple as I can to have been at least a good start, and in fact even more than that.

C Mc

@Wolfgang said:

None of the passages you mention actually say what you claim ... they speak about GOD (Jesus' Father) being the Creator, they do not declare Christ to be the Creator.
It's very simple .... just do not muddy your own waters and make it complicate, only because some theologians or denominational "Christianity" at large seems unable (or is it more "unwilling"?) to believe and teach the simple Bible truth concerning God and His only begotten Son, the man Messiah Jesus.

Have you considered "the simple Bible truth concerning God and His only begotten Son, the man Messiah Jesus" from a relational and submission to one another?

1. God the Father stresses the infinity, eternity, and power of the Deity, the primacy, and finality of God.
2. Jesus Christ affirms the character of the divine nature. In Him, we discern the nature of the divine purpose and the manner of God’s working for its realization.
3. The Holy Spirit testifies of the intimacy of omnipotent Power, the never—railing availability of God, how close He is to each one of us at every moment.

Each of them—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit— enlarges our understanding of God as revealed in the Scriptures. This is why the Trinity is a relationship, not a separation.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinguished only by their mutual relations as revealing the Deity to us. [See also, An excellent discussion of the interpersonal relation existing among Father, Son and Holy Spirit is that of Leonard Hodgson, The Doctrine of the Trinity (London, 1955), 89-96, 104, 105, 183. CM

Bill_Coley

@C_M_ said:
Have you considered "the simple Bible truth concerning God and His only begotten Son, the man Messiah Jesus" from a relational and submission to one another?

I've not encountered the argument that the three entities/persons/components of the Trinity "submit" to one another, C_M. In your view, how does God the "Father" submit to Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit? Are there biblical examples of the "Father's" submission to Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit?

Each of them—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit— enlarges our understanding of God as revealed in the Scriptures. This is why the Trinity is a relationship, not a separation.

In my view, Jesus indeed "enlarges our understanding of God;" I believe that was part of what God called Jesus to do. But to me it doesn't follow that because Jesus "enlarges our understanding of God," therefore Jesus IS God. I hope I enlarge people's understanding of God through my preaching, but I'm not God or a deity of any sort.

The bottom line for me is that while selected verses can be interpreted to mean otherwise, the witness of the whole of Scripture is that Jesus was not God, but was in fact, as Wolfgang contends, a human being whose obedience to God led him to a cross, to a tomb, and ultimately, to the right hand of God.

GaoLu

When we try to understand God by what we know of humans, we just don't get the whole picture of God. When we try to fit him in the box of human limitations we keep discovering error. God is greater than that. The Trinity describes something of that greatness and identity of the one and only God.

I guess we are all made differently and have different backgrounds or different places of understanding, but I just don't find the concept hard to understand, even though I admit some mystery for my finite mind to comprehend our infinite God.

I remember way back in early days asking Bill and Wolfgang if they were Muslim. I didn't know them well then and really thought it was a possibility and was kind of excited about the possibility. We went through questions like JW's and others I think, but as it turns out, they are not any of those. Arian? Maybe....labels often don't work out so well.

C Mc

@Wolfgang said:
However, did Mary give birth to God? I would think not, as human women can only conceive and give birth to human beings. Women do not conceive or give birth to "God-men" or "men-Gods" ... such silly ideas may be widespread in ancient mythologies and even modern day so-called "Christianity", but they are not found in Scripture and are not in accordance with Bible truth.

@C_M_ said:

In order to properly answer your question about "worship", it would be necessary that you first tell which kind of "worship" you are asking about ... worship as a king, worship as God, or something else ?

The kind of "worship" I speak of when it comes to Jesus is one that is worthy.

?? a little awkward and almost circular way of trying to give a meaning of the term ...
Worthy as what?

Bro. Wolfgang,
Jesus, the Christ, is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. To worship means to acknowledge and praise the worthiness of God. Would God be worthy of praise if He had not originally created this world and all its creatures perfectly?

Christian worship is a rational-emotive response to the God of the Bible, who has taken the initiative in a creating, revealing, and redeeming relationship with humankind, founded in love.

As the God-man, Christ was worshiped, many times, while He was on earth. The Bible clearly tells us of several occasions when people prostrated themselves in worship before Him. Among such, the Scriptures mention the following people:
• The philosophers (Wise Men) from the East, Matthew 2:11.
• The leper, Matthew 8:2.
• The ruler, Matthew 9:18.
• The Canaanite woman, Mat thew 15:33.
• Also He received worship from His disciples (Matt. 14:33; 28:9; John 9:38).

The Greek word proskuneo **means "worship and adoration**" and is used to describe the worship of God specifically in Matthew 4:10, John 4: 21-24, and 1 Corinthians 14:25.

Jehovah's Witnesses object to the rendering of the Greek word proskuneo as "worship" when it is used in connection with Christ. If you are affiliated with this group, I can better understand your position on the worship of Christ.

According to the comprehensive study undertaken by the Canadian author F. W. Thomas, Greek scholars have agreed to the following: "The term proskuneo is found…
• Sixty-one times (61) in the New Testament, . . .
• There are twenty-two (22) cases in which proskuneo is used of worship to God the Father.
• Five (5) instances of divine worship used in transitively.
• Fifteen (15) cases where it is used of worship to Christ.
• Seventeen (17) instances where idolatrous worship is condemned.
• And only two (2) disputed cases where it might be in reference to man."

SOURCE: F. W. Thomas, **Masters of Deception **(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974), p. 31. CM

C Mc

@GaoLu said:
I remember way back in early days asking Bill and Wolfgang if they were Muslim. I didn't know them well then and really thought it was a possibility and was kind of excited about the possibility. We went through questions like JW's and others I think, but as it turns out, they are not any of those. Arian? Maybe....labels often don't work out so well.

Thanks, GaoLu, for your contribution. I agree to some extent, "labels often don't work out so well." However, facts do. Maybe, you, they or someone can do a comparative chart of their positions and that of Arius, the incubator of Arianism-- a teaching which arose in the fourth century AD in Alexandria. Named after its most prominent representative Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria. It denied that Jesus Christ was of the same substance (Gk. homoousios) as the Father and reduced the Son to the rank of a creature, though pre-existent before the world. Arianism was condemned at the Council of Nicaea (AD 325).

Oh, for the record, I would be willing to accept "Semi-Arianism", of them; in light of what has been shared on CD. If I lapse in attaching a label, it's to summarize, a body of expressions. With opened communications, one is free to correct, adjust the position or completely change one's mind. CM

[Deleted User]

@C_M_ said:
Have you considered "the simple Bible truth concerning God and His only begotten Son, the man Messiah Jesus" from a relational and submission to one another?

Yes, I have ...
As for submission, I've found that Jesus submitted his will completely to his Father's (God's) will. I have never seen anywhere a mention or indication that God is submitting to Jesus or anyone else ... have you?
As for relation, I've found that God is Jesus' Father, Jesus is God's only begotten Son; I also have found that Jesus speaks of the Father as his God, but never read anywhere that the Father (God) relates to Jesus as God ... have you?

@C_M_ said:
1. God the Father stresses the infinity, eternity, and power of the Deity, the primacy, and finality of God.

This is non-sense .... that God is the Father emphasizes that He is FATHER to those who are called His children. God's infinity is emphasized by other characteristics ... such as that He is eternal, almighty, etc

@C_M_ said:
2. Jesus Christ affirms the character of the divine nature. In Him, we discern the nature of the divine purpose and the manner of God’s working for its realization.

This is equally non-sense ... "Christ" emphasizes in connection to Jesus, that Jesus is the Messiah, God's Anointed, nothing about the character of the divine nature (also, have you noticed that believers are partakers of the divine nature ... 2Pe 1:4 ?)

@C_M_ said:
3. The Holy Spirit testifies of the intimacy of omnipotent Power, the never—railing availability of God, how close He is to each one of us at every moment.

More of the same type of fancy sounding ideas .... a bit far fetched in part.

@C_M_ said:
Each of them—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit— enlarges our understanding of God as revealed in the Scriptures. This is why the Trinity is a relationship, not a separation.

Eh ... certainly, the Lord Jesus Christ enlarged the understanding of Who God is ... in that He made known God, His Father (cp Joh 1:18) by his teaching and his works , but NOT by being a supposedly "second" (by the way, why second, and not third?) person of the Trinity. The "Holy Spirit" is described as "power from on high" (Lk 24:49) and mentioned as that with which God (Jesus' Father) anointed Jesus (Acts 10:38)
Did one person of the Trinity "Godhead" anoint another person of the Trinity "Godhead" with yet another person of the Trinity "Godhead" ???

@C_M_ said:
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinguished only by their mutual relations as revealing the Deity to us. [See also, An excellent discussion of the interpersonal relation existing among Father, Son and Holy Spirit is that of Leonard Hodgson, The Doctrine of the Trinity (London, 1955), 89-96, 104, 105, 183. CM

Instead of quoting and believing purposely complicate and often "non-understandable (because unreasonable & illogical) theological Trinity works, I'd suggest to leave them and read and endeavor to understand the Scriptures and the rather simple truths revealed in them.

[Deleted User]

@GaoLu said:
When we try to understand God by what we know of humans, we just don't get the whole picture of God.

But, I am NOT trying to understand God by what I know of humans, but by what I know of SCRIPTURE ...
Just for one example, I know from Scripture that humans are flesh and blood, and I know from Scripture that God does not because God is Spirit.
Why should that simple Scripture truth be ignored or explained away in order to supposedly "get a whole picture" of God? Is what Scripture reveals not sufficient for giving us "the whole picture" of God, and we need the mystery Trinity dogma to help us out by adding to Scripture??

@GaoLu said:
When we try to fit him in the box of human limitations we keep discovering error. God is greater than that. The Trinity describes something of that greatness and identity of the one and only God.

See above ... the Trinity does the opposite!! It mysteriously clouds and changes the Scripture truth of the greatness and identity of the one and only God -- as well as that of His Messiah, the man Jesus -- by essentially proclaiming THREE Gods (since it claims that the three persons are each equally God) but hiding that behind empty words of "one and only God"

[Deleted User]

@C_M_ said:

@Wolfgang said:
However, did Mary give birth to God? I would think not, as human women can only conceive and give birth to human beings. Women do not conceive or give birth to "God-men" or "men-Gods" ... such silly ideas may be widespread in ancient mythologies and even modern day so-called "Christianity", but they are not found in Scripture and are not in accordance with Bible truth.

I am still waiting for your reply to this point ...

@C_M_ said:
Bro. Wolfgang,
Jesus, the Christ, is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. To worship means to acknowledge and praise the worthiness of God.

The word "to worship (adore, pay homage,revere)" receives its meaning from the context in which it is used (as is true with any other word that can be used with different meanings in different contexts).
When I tell you that I worship my wife, would you misinterpret the statement as Wolfgang has made his wife his God and worships Her ?? If you did, you would be dead wrong ... because I worship my wife as my wife (as "the queen of my heart", as "my love". etc) BUT certainly not as my "God"

@C_M_ said:

Would God be worthy of praise if He had not originally created this world and all its creatures perfectly?
Indeed, God (Jesus' Father) is worthy of worship AS GOD (and Creator), because He created the heavens and the earth (cp Gen 1:1).

@C_M_ said:
Christian worship is a rational-emotive response to the God of the Bible, who has taken the initiative in a creating, revealing, and redeeming relationship with humankind, founded in love.

This depends on Whom "Christian worship" worships as the God of the Bible ... especially in light of the truth that a "Trinity God" is not found in the Bible

@C_M_ said:
As the God-man, Christ was worshiped, many times, while He was on earth. The Bible clearly tells us of several occasions when people prostrated themselves in worship before Him. Among such, the Scriptures mention the following people:
• The philosophers (Wise Men) from the East, Matthew 2:11.
• The leper, Matthew 8:2.
• The ruler, Matthew 9:18.
• The Canaanite woman, Mat thew 15:33.
• Also He received worship from His disciples (Matt. 14:33; 28:9; John 9:38).

Jesus was NEVER worshiped as "the God-man", he was worshiped as the king, as healer, as Messiah and son of David, as teacher ... but not as God or God-man.

@C_M_ said:
The Greek word proskuneo **means "worship and adoration**" and is used to describe the worship of God specifically in Matthew 4:10, John 4: 21-24, and 1 Corinthians 14:25.

Yes ... just as it is used to describe worship of king, lord, Messiah, teacher (as seen in those passages you mentioned above)

@C_M_ said:
Jehovah's Witnesses object to the rendering of the Greek word proskuneo as "worship" when it is used in connection with Christ. If you are affiliated with this group, I can better understand your position on the worship of Christ.

I am NOT affiliated with this group ....
I do think though that all the false Trinity support claims that are based on the "because he is worshiped" and "worship always means to worship God" and used to "prove" Jesus being God would perhaps never have been made, had the translators more accurately translated the word "proskuneo" in harmony with the context at times as "adore, show reverence, show respect, etc"

@C_M_ said:
According to the comprehensive study undertaken by the Canadian author F. W. Thomas, Greek scholars have agreed to the following: "The term proskuneo is found…
• Sixty-one times (61) in the New Testament, . . .
• There are twenty-two (22) cases in which proskuneo is used of worship to God the Father.
• Five (5) instances of divine worship used in transitively.
• Fifteen (15) cases where it is used of worship to Christ.
• Seventeen (17) instances where idolatrous worship is condemned.
• And only two (2) disputed cases where it might be in reference to man."

SOURCE: F. W. Thomas, **Masters of Deception **(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974), p. 31. CM

Even this listing shows that not all the uses of the word proskuneo are in respect to "worship of the true God as God", only the 22 occurrences said to be "worship to God the Father" are in that category ... the occurrences where the word is used in reference to Messiah Jesus are not speaking of Jesus being worshiped as God (see above examples from your own listing)

C Mc

@Wolfgang said:

@C_M_ said:

@Wolfgang said:
However, did Mary give birth to God? I would think not, as human women can only conceive and give birth to human beings. Women do not conceive or give birth to "God-men" or "men-Gods" ... such silly ideas may be widespread in ancient mythologies and even modern day so-called "Christianity", but they are not found in Scripture and are not in accordance with Bible truth.

I am still waiting for your reply to this point ...

**Matthew 1:21 **-- "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."

Luke 1:31-- "And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS."

1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth" (John 1: 1-3, 11-14).

Bro. Wolfgang,
God can do anything, wherever, with whomever, whenever, for whatever; He chooses. He is not to slave to power nor does He do things arbitrarily. He is a God of love, principles, and order. Unfortunately, God methods, timing, and means may not fit your preconceived mind or be beyond your comprehension. Nothing to be ashamed of, you are just a man. You have several skills and abilities, but you don't have the mind of God. What God has revealed is to be received and believed. What we don't understand, we trust (faith) Him where we can't trace Him.Hebrews 11:6 - But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him" (Hebrews 11:6). At the end of the day, “The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.” (Deut 29:29-KJV).

Who can know God, except he reveals Himself? Whatever, God has revealed, it is only the "tip of the iceberg" when it comes to who He is, His power and how He relates to man. Keep reading the Bible, God gives us some insights. Not everything, but some insights in his dealings with man. And oh, you can get to know yourself. Peace-joy! CM

Mitchell

Here a two NT texts that have lead some to understand Paul as speaking of Messiah as being a conduit for God.

θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί
"...God revealed(or manifest) in the flesh..." (I Timothy 3:16)

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς
"because in him resides (is residing) all the fulness of the Deity/Godhead bodily..."(Colossians 2:9)

All Greek text is taken from:
The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005, with Morphology. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2006. Print.

Dave_L

If Jesus was God, we have the imputed righteousness of God that merits eternal life. If Jesus was only a good man, we have man's righteousness that only merits the life Adam had before he sinned.

Mitchell

@Dave_L said:
If Jesus was God, we have the imputed righteousness of God that merits eternal life...

That is only if:
(a) Jesus/Yeshua really lived
(b)The Gospel accounts of historical Jesus/Yeshua are accurate
(c) The theology of Paul (and the rest of the NT) concerning the meaning of Jesus/Yeshua's death & resurrecting is accurate and has been understood accurately by the majority of Christendom.
(e) all of the above is true

Disclaimer: I do not doubt any of the above but your statement as written does not mention the factors (a), (b), (c), and (e) listed above that are needed for your statement to be a true statement. Then when you attach that first statement to the next sentence (not quoted above) it presents a false dilemma for it fails to consider and convincingly dismiss the other possible opinions one might believe Jesus. I, of course, understand that is impossible to exhaustively mention everything, but I think you could have spent a little more time writing your thoughts out.

@Dave_L said:
If Jesus was only a good man, we have man's righteousness that only merits the life >Adam had before he sinned.

No one on this thread so far is claiming that Jesus was only a good man. For example, even Wolfgang claims that Jesus is the son of God in an Arianistic way in that he presents a theological viewpoint very similar to subordinationism. Jesus in such a point of view is not simply a good man but is rather is the son of God by direct creation and/or adoption and is perfect in every way. (this is not my personal point of view on the matter but what I understand Wolfgang is attempting to say.)

The part of your statement dealing with merit/Adam only makes sense if one already accepts the theological assumptions that lay behind it. Not, all Christians share with the Calvinistic understanding of the Genesis fall, nor accept the concept of original sin. That is why I think that it would be wise to explain or at least clearly state that theology assuming that everyone will read automatically understand or that everyone already accepts that logic.

Please, understand I am not arguing with your theology, but rather with the way that theology is present (or assumed but not stated) . I think you could have made a much stronger argument in support of your theology.