100 Truths About Jesus: Smoking Gun -- 2
Comments
-
as the first Adam also was God?
No.
I am making no reference to Morman Adam-God theory, which is a Mormon theory and not biblical.
as all who believe on Christ receive holy spirit also are God(s) ?
No. Jesus was not a man who received the Holy Spirit. He was God the person who was incarnate with the limitations of a human body--I won't elaborate (and muddy) what the Bible explains. The Spirit of God indwelled the human called Jesus. That is who Jesus is.
People who receive the spirit of God do so in a completely different sense than what I just described about Jesus. We don't become that person; rather, we are influenced by that person. Jesus was that person.
-
really? but Adam had your God person inside ... was direct descendant of God (even without any human mother involved) ...
-
really?
Really.
Adam had your God person inside
I don't know how all that was, but I imagine that the Holy Spirit of God may have been known to Adam. The person of God certainly was.
I don't know what you mean by "God Person inside." On the surface, we apparently agree that such a thing would be absurd.
was direct descendant of God (even without any human mother involved) ...
Adam was a creation of God. No mother was involved. The term "descendant" in the sense of heredity does not describe the creation of Adam.
-
@byGeorge posted:
Wolfgang isn't just a body. There is some Wolfgang-person in that body. Do we agree? Does that make you two people or one? God is that person in Jesus. Jesus the human being, the last Adam, has both a body and a person. That person is God.
In my view, our bodies are the containers of our selves - our spirits/souls/personhoods. So all of us have bodies, but those bodies do not define who we are. Jesus had a body, but his body, too, was but a container of his spirit/soul/personhood.
From the cross, Jesus said to God, "Into your hands I entrust my spirit" (Luke 23.46), not his physical body.
God's spirit was indeed inside Jesus, just as God's spirit is inside all of us, but the "person" inside Jesus' body was Jesus - his spirit/soul/personhood. Jesus' body was not Jesus the person. His core makeup wasn't Jesus, the body, plus God, the person. Jesus' core makeup was the person of Jesus contained in the body of Jesus, just as your makeup is the person of byGeorge in the body of byGeorge.
1 John 4.2 (NLT) says this: "This is how we know if they have the Spirit of God: If a person claiming to be a prophet acknowledges that Jesus Christ came in a real body, that person has the Spirit of God." The person of Jesus was not the body he came in, but rather the person contained in the body it inhabited, just as you and I are not the bodies we inhabit, but rather we are the persons in those bodies.
I think that's also the essence of Paul's vision of our resurrected bodies declared in 1 Corinthians 15.39-58, wherein Paul differentiates between "earthly" and "heavenly" bodies, and the "glory" of each (1 Cor 15.40).
- We are born into "natural" bodies, but raised into "spiritual" bodies (1 Cor 15.44). WHAT is born into those two kinds of bodies? Our spirits/souls/personhoods.
- Natural bodies can't inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 15.50), but spiritual bodies can. So in resurrection we will all be changed, the containers of our spirits will change from earthly to heavenly bodies (1 Cor 15.50-53).
In 2 Peter 1.13-15, Peter refers to his being "in this habitation" - by which he means his physical body - and his imminent "removal" from it (2 Peter 1.14). It was the person of Peter who lived in the "habitation" called his physical body. He then refers to his forthcoming death his "departure" (2 Peter 1.15), by which he means the exit of his personhood from his physical body.
"Body" is not "person."
-
Almost all the way down, Yes.
I emphasize agreement that "Body" is not "person."
God's spirit was indeed inside Jesus, just as God's spirit is inside all of us
No. Not "just as."
God's spirit may rest upon us, indwell--whatever term you please, but we are not God. The Spirit of God was the person of the body of Jesus. That is not true for the rest of us. That spirit/person of Jesus was commended to the unity with the Father that it had before the incarnation. The body of Jesus died. Then the person of God raised that body to life again. You and I cannot do that. Jesus could do that because He was God. The spirit of God that may dwell within a person is different from the Spirit of God that was the person-in-a-body who was Jesus.
-
@byGeorge posted:
God's spirit may rest upon us, indwell--whatever term you please, but we are not God.
We agree.
The Spirit of God was the person of the body of Jesus. That is not true for the rest of us.
We disagree. Jesus was the embodiment of the "Word" - the one in whom we see the fulness of God's message and plan for humanity - but he was not God.
- John 1.18 says no one has ever seen God, but Jesus makes God known. One who makes God known is not God.
- In John 1.32, John the Baptist testifies to his having witnessed the spirit of God "descending like a dove from heaven and remaining upon [Jesus]." If "the Spirit of God was the person in the body of Jesus," why did the spirit have to fall and then remain on Jesus after his baptism? Why wasn't the Spirit of God already in Jesus, as the "person" within him? And during the baptism, why did the voice from heaven say to Jesus "with you I am well pleased"? (Luke 3.22) Why would God say to God I am pleased with you?
- In John 1.33, John the Baptist says God - "the one who sent me to baptize with water" - had told him "the one upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him—this one is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit." John says God referred to Jesus as "the one" on whom the spirit fell, and NOT as the one who was God, or the one whose "person" was God. I see no indication that Jesus was God.
- In John 1.34, John the Baptist calls Jesus "the Chosen One of God." One who is chosen by God is not God.
That spirit/person of Jesus was commended to the unity with the Father that it had before the incarnation.
Haven't you contended that Jesus was the human and the "person" was God? If so, who was the "person of Jesus"?
I don't know what you mean by "commended to the unity with the Father." What is "the unity" to which Jesus was "commended," and by what means?
The pre-existence theme that does surely exist in the NT is challenging to me, as I have made clear in several posts in these forums. I know only that WHATEVER that theme means, it must conform with the message of the entire NT about Jesus, which in my view is clearly that Jesus was not God.
The body of Jesus died. Then the person of God raised that body to life again. You and I cannot do that. Jesus could do that because He was God.
Your conclusion makes sense given your assumption that Jesus was God. Because in my view, Scripture is clear that Jesus was not God, I believe your conclusion is mistaken. The recurring NT message is that God raised Jesus (who was not God).
- As I have previously noted, in his Acts 2 sermon Peter calls Jesus the "man" through whom God did awesome things, and whom God raised (Acts 2.22-24). [I still await your response to the question I re-posed to you on October 6: Since Peter's audiences did not have access to other parts of the New Testament, they knew about Jesus only what Peter told them and whatever else they had gleaned. What message about Jesus as God do you believe Peter's audience took from his word that Jesus was a "man" through whom God did awesome things and whom God had raised?]
- In Acts 3, Peter calls Jesus "the Christ appointed" for us (Acts 3.20), likens him to the "prophet" "from your brothers" whom Moses predicted would be like him (Moses) and to whom they would "listen" (Acts 3.22), and declares Jesus to be God's "servant" whom God had raised (Acts 3.26; see also Acts 4.30). I see no suggestion in Peter's Acts presentations that he believed Jesus was God, and every indication that he believed Jesus was not God. Where in Peter's presentations do you find support for your claims?
The spirit of God that may dwell within a person is different from the Spirit of God that was the person-in-a-body who was Jesus.
Scriptural support for this claim? For any of the claims of your post?
-
One who makes God known is not God.
God can make himself known. The body of Jesus was not the fullness of God. People could see Jesus' body. No one has seen God.
Why would God say to God I am pleased with you?
God was not addressing himself but affirming the identity of the man Jesus to observers.
If "the Spirit of God was the person in the body of Jesus," why did the spirit have to fall and then remain on Jesus after his baptism?
The dove was a visible sign to onlookers. The person God was in Jesus from incarnation.
Why would God say to God I am pleased with you?
This was an affirmation to observers.
Haven't you contended that Jesus was the human and the "person" was God? If so, who was the "person of Jesus"?
Yes. The man Jesus was God incarnate as human. The person of God and the person of Jesus are one, just like Jesus said, "I and the father are one."
I don't know what you mean by "commended to the unity with the Father." What is "the unity" to which Jesus was "commended," and by what means?
The unity to which Jesus was commended is that the Father and Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit are one. Any "means" would be to separate them, not to unite them. They are one. You separate them, I do not.
What message about Jesus as God do you believe Peter's audience took from his word that Jesus was a "man" through whom God did awesome things and whom God had raised?
The message the audience was intended to understand was that this "man" was in fact God. This was blasphemy to some, a stretch to understand by others, and truth to those who understood or had faith in this truth. Which of those are you?
Mr. Coley, I enjoy discussing nuances of Scripture passages. I perceive that you isolate passages away from context and draw conclusions outside what scholars conclude. Therefore, I prefer to consider these matters considering the Bible as a whole. You respond to that tension with appeals to discuss isolated passages. For now, I will continue to avoid that. We must work through that tension.
-
@byGeorge posted:
God can make himself known. The body of Jesus was not the fullness of God. People could see Jesus' body. No one has seen God.
So your contention is that Jesus was God, but when people saw Jesus they didn't see God? Or perhaps they didn't see "the fullness" of God? How much of God DID they see when they saw Jesus?
God was not addressing himself but affirming the identity of the man Jesus to observers.
Here is Luke's account of Jesus' baptism:
21 Now it happened that when all the people were baptized, Jesus also was baptized, and while he was praying, heaven was opened, 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” (Luke 3.21-22)
Where in this account do your find support for your claim that God's word to Jesus was an affirmation of Jesus to observers? 1) The account makes no mention of observers; 2) The account reports that God spoke directly to Jesus ("YOU are my..." and "with YOU I am...").
I agree that in the transfiguration scene, as reported in Matthew 17, Mark 9, and Luke 9, God DOES affirm Jesus to observers [e.g. "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased. Listen to him!" (Matthew 17.5)] But I asked about the baptism, not the transfiguration.
On those grounds I ask again: Why in the baptism scene would God say to God, "I am pleased well pleased with you"?
The dove was a visible sign to onlookers. The person God was in Jesus from incarnation.
Again, this is not what the text says:
- None of the Gospels reports that a dove descended as Jesus came out of the water; all four accounts say some form of the Spirit descended, and did so "like a dove" (Matthew 1.16; Mark 1.10; Luke 3.22; John 1.33).
- Only Luke's account mentions anyone who might possibly have been observers of Jesus' baptism, and the people Luke mentions are "crowds" who were also being baptized (Luke 3.21). Luke makes no mention of actual Jesus' baptism observers, let alone of the possibility that the Spirit's descent onto Jesus was a sign for them rather than, as reported by the other three Gospels, a delivery from heaven specifically and personally to Jesus.
This was an affirmation to observers.
See above on the difference between the baptism and transfiguration scenes - two different events.
Yes. The man Jesus was God incarnate as human. The person of God and the person of Jesus are one, just like Jesus said, "I and the father are one."
This helps explain your use of the term I asked about. Thanks.
The unity to which Jesus was commended is that the Father and Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit are one. Any "means" would be to separate them, not to unite them. They are one. You separate them, I do not.
I'm not aware that Jesus ever claimed to be "one" with the Holy Spirit. With the "Father," yes, but not with the Spirit (though on the basis of Jesus' John 17 prayer that his followers would be "one" "just as" he and his Father were "one" - c.f. John 17.11, 21-23 - I strongly dispute the conventional Trinitarian interpretation that his claim meant Jesus thought himself to be God).
You asserted that Jesus "was commended to the unity with the Father that it had before the incarnation." Commend is a transitive verb; it's an action that needs an actor. Somebody or some process had to have executed the commending of Jesus "to the unity...." Who or what did so?
The message the audience was intended to understand was that this "man" was in fact God. This was blasphemy to some, a stretch to understand by others, and truth to those who understood or had faith in this truth. Which of those are you?
I am a person who believes such was NOT Peter's message to his audience, nor was it the message his audience would have taken from his presentations. I am certainly open to correction, however. Please cite for me where in the text of Peter's presentations found in Acts you find support for your claim that the intended message to his audiences was that the "man" Jesus was in fact God?
I think Peter's audiences would have taken the message that Jesus was a man... 1) through whom God did awesome things; 2) whom people crucified; and 3) whom God raised from the dead. I think that's the message Peter's audiences would have taken because, in my view, that's what the text says.
If Peter had told the crowd that Jesus was God, then his testimony would obviously not have been blasphemy. But he didn't tell them that. In fact, he told them something totally different from that, at least according to the text.
Mr. Coley, I enjoy discussing nuances of Scripture passages. I perceive that you isolate passages away from context and draw conclusions outside what scholars conclude. Therefore, I prefer to consider these matters considering the Bible as a whole. You respond to that tension with appeals to discuss isolated passages. For now, I will continue to avoid that. We must work through that tension.
As I have told basically everyone who has ever wanted to call me "Pastor Bill" or "Rev. Coley," "Bill" was good enough for my mom and dad; it's good enough for you. Please feel encouraged to call me Bill.
The tension I sense from your response here is that you say you enjoy discussing the nuances of Scripture, but you're not willing to do so with me, choosing instead to address "the Bible as a whole." When you discuss a text's "nuances," don't you, almost by necessity and definition, have to "isolate" that text?
One feature of your posts in our exchanges about Jesus has been the absence of cited texts in support of your view, save for one post in which you provided a list of texts. As a rule, you make claims, but provide no texts to support them. Further, while you claim that my interpretations of texts in what you believe is isolation results in out of context conclusions, you never identify, let alone demonstrate, the errors of my interpretations, or how in any way my reports of what texts say are incorrect. The problem, as I see it, is that the biblical text writ large - the "whole" of the Bible - can't be said to support your views if the vast majority of texts within the "whole" of the Bible dispute your view, which I claim - and I think demonstrate - is the case.
- How much of the New Testament has to suggest that Jesus is not God before you will acknowledge that Jesus is not God?
- If 100 passages can be read to imply Jesus is not God and three can be be read to imply that he is. Does the 100-to-3 ratio mean anything to you as to the meaning of the "whole" of the Bible? Or is it your view that even if only three texts say Jesus was God, their message determines the meaning of the 100 that seem to say otherwise?
I'm quite used to Trinitarian advocates in these forums making claims they don't back up (an exception: @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus, with whom I conducted lengthy exchanges, most of which were text-based in significant ways). So in my view, such is life in the CD city.
[P.S. All that said, I respect and appreciate your willingness to engage in this discussion.]
-
I agree that in the transfiguration scene, as reported in Matthew 17, Mark 9, and Luke 9, God DOES affirm Jesus to observers [e.g. "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased. Listen to him!" (Matthew 17.5)] But I asked about the baptism, not the transfiguration.
According to "Jesus is God" proponents, the text of the gospel records about the transfiguration actually is ""This is ME and I AM well pleased with Myself. Listen to Me!" (Trinity Matthew 17-,5)
-
@byGeorge wrote in reference to Peter's pentecost message:
The message the audience was intended to understand was that this "man" was in fact God.
😳 ❓️ on what text in Acts 2 is this claim based? Seems also that there is no other text with words by Peter that would even hint in the least zo such an idea...
This was blasphemy to some, a stretch to understand by others, and truth to those who understood or had faith in this truth. Which of those are you?
I am on Peter's side that Jesus was a man!
-
CM said:
Already in the times of Jesus the opinions varied (Mt 16:13-14).
@Wolfgang said:
Were all those opinions right and true? were some wrong and false?
Let's be mindful that certain Jews identified Jesus as Elijah (Matt 16:14; Mark 6:15; 8:28; Luke 9:8, 19). A wider look into the Gospels and the Book of Revelation, Jesus is called:
- "The son of man" -- the Gospel references:
- The (e.g., ton. uio` n. tou/ anv qrwp, ou [cf. Matt 16:13, 28; 24:30; Mark 8:31; 9:12; 13:26; Luke 9:22; 12:10; 21:27; John 1:51; 3:14; 6:62; Acts 7:56; etc.]).
- "Son of man" -- Rev. 1:12 and Rev. 14:14
- Rev 1:12 and 14:14 are (uio` n. anv qrwp, ou).
With or without the article "the" Jesus is the "Son of God".
Portrayals of Jesus
- Jesus Himself raised the question of who the Son of Man is.
- The disciples’ answer revealed that the masses understood Him basically as a prophet (Matt 16:13–14).
While this was not completely wrong—He was also a prophet—it was not correct either because they missed the major point:
- Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God (Matt 16:16).
- They had an insufficient and, therefore, false view of Him, which influenced their decisions and their lives.
Here are some contemporary voices that have a misunderstanding about Jesus:
- Jesus “formed a political faction, was concerned with Israel alone, and spoke only of the God of Israel in typical ethnocentric fashion.”
- Jesus was a “collectivist person.”
- Therefore, “we can make no assumption that Jesus possesses self-knowledge.”
- Jesus’ strenuous commands of “non-resistance, love of enemies, giving to all who ask, forgiving an infinite number of times” are exhortations of wisdom sayings, not to be taken literally but to be understood as an “ethic of intention” (See sources below).
Another writer paints the following portraits of Jesus in a discussion:
- “Jesus as Reasonable Visionary”
- “Jesus as an Atypical Bandit”
- “Jesus as Spirit Person”
- “Jesus as Fatherless Son”
- “Village Healer”
- “Jesus as Utopianist”
- “Jesus as Homo Religiosus” (See sources below).
Further down in the same chapter of Matthew 16, Jesus instructs His disciples that they too would be misunderstood and falsely accused of His life, life, actions, and His own words. So with His disciples, Jesus was candid with His them. Jesus didn't promise them only pleasure and no pain. Quite to the contrary!
“If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Matt 16:24):
- No hedonism but self-denial.
- No crown in this life but a cross (pain, shame, and death).
- Not acceptance, praise, and honor but persecution, betrayal by friends and relatives, possibly martyrdom, and hate (Luke 21:12–18).
One's worldview and presuppositions (lens people look through) determine how we see and understand Jesus. Too many in these forums failed to remove these glasses (or acknowledge tinted views) when they came to the Scriptures. CM
SOURCES:
- A. E. Harvey, Strenuous Commands: The Ethics of Jesus (London: SMC, 1990), pp 92, 199, 202
- Donald Capps, Jesus: A Psychological Biography (St. Louis, MO: Chalice, 2000), pp 7, 23, 36, 147, 165, 221, 260.
- "The son of man" -- the Gospel references:
-
@C Mc ... as I have mentioned before ... I am not interested in commentaries and literature about the Bible whoever the authors may be. Much of what you quote from such authors is of little help in having a BIBLICAL exchange rather than a THEOLOGY exchange.
-
Mr. @Wolfgang,
Thanks for reading and responding to my last post. I have stated some time before:
- You are NOT required to read the post.
- You are NOT required to respond to post.
- I posted nothing above your reading abilities or comprehension.
- All users know this is an open forum.
- You are not the only reader.
- One poster's dislike is another poster's joy and appreciation.
- Beyond audacity, you don't have the right or the authority to tell, demand, restrict the content or the length of posts as long as they're within the guidelines of forums. At such time, I would give greater attention to it coming from Chairman Jan.
- With such a wide range of options stated above, why would you attempt to micro-manage my postings?
- I am not you, and you're not me; why not let the diversity of thoughts, length, content, style, and resources manifest themselves like a streaker at noonday? If you and I were to say, do, think, and post alike, one of us would become unimportant beyond ensuring boredom.
- Sir, you are imposing upon my rights and contributions to these forums. Please, desist and extract what good you can. If it's nothing, it's not true for everyone else.
- If you think a post is too long, read it in parts or don't read them when you are tired, sleepy, or busy. There is NO quota, pay, praise or set time when posting in these forums. Pace yourself and be blessed.
- Like many other things in life, quickie posts are acceptable. Other times, more lengthy ones are necessary depending on the complexity of the subject matter and the adrenaline of thoughts. CM
To my Dear Brother Wolfgang, a little something for you:
- There will be short posts, long posts, for all to read;
- At the kitchen table, living room, or the side of the bed.
- In CD, topics covered, old and new;
- Marriage, the Divinity of Jesus, and the state of the dead;
- By old posters and new, as long as what's said is true.
- Readers all across this land;
- Perhaps, in cars, hotels, parks, or vans;
- All need to know Heaven's salvation plans.
- The Bible is the Source-book when is all "said and done";
- Come to these forums fresh make sharing the Word fun.
I will see you around the Forums. CM
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
