Jesus, The Christ, Is God (Without Human-reasoning or Approval)
Comments
-
Finally, you are answering questions (at least in part) ... thank you!
If "both" are "God", this makes TWO Gods. There is a magnolia bush in my front yard, there is a magnolia tree in the garden. Both are each a magnolia ... simple truth is: There are TWO magnolias.Scripture does NOT agree with you about Mary being irrelevant to the topic of the son, Jesus. But clarify for me, please: Did Mary conceive a man child by a miraculous conception? Did Mary give birth to the son? IF the son is God (as you just claimed above), then Mary is the mother of God.
IF your answer to these questions is "yes", then you affirm that Mary is the mother of God, and you affirm that God did send Himself. If God did not send Himself, then you are talking about TWO Gods.
No, Mary carried God in the flesh but is not his mother in the way you are trying to make it sound.
Ah, finally another answer ... so Mary did conceive the son, who -- according to your affirmation above, is God.
I am only following what Scripture says regarding Mary, the miraculous conception, the birth ... simple, plain, easy to understand. The problem is NOT with Scripture, but with YOUR somewhat erroneous and confused ideasIt is not two Gods it is two persons of the one God.
I suppose you would claim there are not two magnolias, but two bushes trees of one and the same magnolia ?? How confused and silly would that be?
So then, are you saying Jesus did not know what he was talking about? actually, it looks as if you would think that God was praying and talking to God and making false statements in his prayer?
Where does the text say in the same book that Jesus is God?John 1. And nothing Jesus did NOT say the Father alone is God. You read that into the text.
Could you tell us the Bible translation or version in which the text in John 1 says Jesus is God? I have looked various places but could not find a Bible translation in either English or German which has what you claim
John 17:3 (NASB95)
3 “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.John 17:3 (NA 27)
3 αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.I am not reading something into the text, rather YOU are the one who seems to skip the "alone" and the whole latter part of Jesus' statement in which Jesus clearly indicates that he is NOT the Father, Who is the alone true God, but the one whom the true God did send.
Are you going to remain with your confused errors and false statements, or are you acknowledging what simple plain reading of the Scripture text state?
-
@Wolfgang said:
Finally, you are answering questions (at least in part) ... thank you!
If "both" are "God", this makes TWO Gods. There is a magnolia bush in my front yard, there is a magnolia tree in the garden. Both are each a magnolia ... simple truth is: There are TWO magnolias.No, it makes two parts of one God.
Scripture does NOT agree with you about Mary being irrelevant to the topic of the son, Jesus. But clarify for me, please: Did Mary conceive a man child by a miraculous conception? Did Mary give birth to the son? IF the son is God (as you just claimed above), then Mary is the mother of God.
She conceived the God-Man, yes. But, she is not a mother in the sense that she gave part of herself to create him.
IF your answer to these questions is "yes", then you affirm that Mary is the mother of God, and you affirm that God did send Himself. If God did not send Himself, then you are talking about TWO Gods.
No, Mary carried God in the flesh but is not his mother in the way you are trying to make it sound.
Ah, finally another answer ... so Mary did conceive the son, who -- according to your affirmation above, is God.
I am only following what Scripture says regarding Mary, the miraculous conception, the birth ... simple, plain, easy to understand. The problem is NOT with Scripture, but with YOUR somewhat erroneous and confused ideasThere isn't a problem with my view at all.
It is not two Gods it is two persons of the one God.
I suppose you would claim there are not two magnolias, but two bushes trees of one and the same magnolia ?? How confused and silly would that be?
The only thing silly here is that you think that is an equivalent comparison.
So then, are you saying Jesus did not know what he was talking about? actually, it looks as if you would think that God was praying and talking to God and making false statements in his prayer?
Where does the text say in the same book that Jesus is God?John 1. And nothing Jesus did NOT say the Father alone is God. You read that into the text.
Could you tell us the Bible translation or version in which the text in John 1 says Jesus is God? I have looked various places but could not find a Bible translation in either English or German which has what you claim
Pick ANY of them. If you don't see how it says Jesus is God you are either foolish or lying.
John 17:3 (NASB95)
3 “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.John 17:3 (NA 27)
3 αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.I am not reading something into the text, rather YOU are the one who seems to skip the "alone" and the whole latter part of Jesus' statement in which Jesus clearly indicates that he is NOT the Father, Who is the alone true God, but the one whom the true God did send.
You read that it says the FATHER alone, but that is not what the text says at all. Do you retract your statement that it says the Father alone is God?
Are you going to remain with your confused errors and false statements, or are you acknowledging what simple plain reading of the Scripture text state?
No, you are the one confused and making false statements that make no sense and read into the text. You also add things, then try to argue something else as I have shown above.
-
@reformed said:
No, you are the one confused and making false statements that make no sense and read into the text. You also add things, then try to argue something else as I have shown above.you are looking in the mirror and are convinced you see another person ... truth is, you are talking about yourself.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
No, you are the one confused and making false statements that make no sense and read into the text. You also add things, then try to argue something else as I have shown above.you are looking in the mirror and are convinced you see another person ... truth is, you are talking about yourself.
No and I have proven otherwise.
-
In Hebrews, we also read that the Jesus’ kingship and office as Messiah—the very reason for his incarnation—is based on the following fact:
- “Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness” (Heb. 1:9, RSV, emphasis added).
This occurs within a quotation from Ps. 45:6-7. That sentence is exactly the same in the original of the New Testament as in Ps. 44 (45) of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament.
Let truth stand. CM
-
For the plain truth:
It is the concept of the supreme revelation of God’s glory in Christ that is decisive for the comprehension of Titus 2:13, a concept which is corroborated by a number of NT passages. In 2 Cor 4:4–6, Paul is clearly identifying Jesus as the true representation of God, “for he alone brings to visible expression the nature of an invisible God (Col 1:15). So, to see Christ is to see God.”
The idea of Christ being God’s image should be understood in terms of a shared nature with God, a nature that is revealed through Christ. There is no doubt that Christ has glory in and of Himself (vs. 4). However, the glory of God can only be fully seen and known through the Person of Christ. Thus, when we look at Jesus, we behold the glory of God (cf. John 14:9).
In the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel (John 1:1–18), the Word who became flesh is presented as none other than the God of the OT, and it is said that His glory was seen (vs. 14). This revelation of glory is explained as being in agreement with God’s own nature (“glory as of the Father’s only begotten”).
John is talking about more than mere imitation; the use of “glory” indicates that Christ reveals God’s character “in terms of His sovereign goodness and mercy.” Likewise, in Heb 1:3, it is clear that by using the term δόξα the author is using “the image of light to indicate the nature of God.” Not only does Jesus radiate the glory of God, but it is also said that He is the “exact representation” (χαρακτήρ) of God’s nature, an even stronger set of words reinforcing the “essential unity and the exact resemblance between God and His Son.”
Though these two statements emphasize the ontology of Christ and His relationship with God, the broader context aims to demonstrate the qualification of Christ to be the final manifestation of God in a salvation-historical role. Not only does Christ reveal God’s glory, But He also reveals to us all of who God really is: His Person, His nature, His attributes, His essence (e.g. Col 1:15; 2:9). Among the number of Christological passages in the NT, there are some key texts in which Christ is referred to as a specific attribute of God. It is important to note that in none of these verses, Titus 2:13 included, are the expressions meant as a title referring to Jesus, but rather as the manifestation of God’s traits in the Person of Jesus Christ.
Believe it or not! CM
SOURCES:
-- L. L. Belleville, 2 Corinthians, IVPNTC (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1996), 116.
-- M. J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 331, 337.
-- Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel of John: a Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 52–53.
-- Rodney A. Whitacre, John, IVPNTC (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), 58–59.
-- P. Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 99.
-- P. T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 55–56.
-- Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007), 443–444; 444 -
@C_M_ said:
For the plain truth:
It is the concept of the supreme revelation of God’s glory in Christ that is decisive for the comprehension of Titus 2:13, a concept which is corroborated by a number of NT passages. In 2 Cor 4:4–6, Paul is clearly identifying Jesus as the true representation of God, “for he alone brings to visible expression the nature of an invisible God (Col 1:15). So, to see Christ is to see God.”
One should not that "the true REPRESENTATION of God" of course shows that Jesus himself therefore is NOT God, but rather God's representation, just as an image is not the person seen in the image.
The idea of Christ being God’s image should be understood in terms of a shared nature with God, a nature that is revealed through Christ.
"shared nature with God" ... what is this expression supposed to actually mean? Also, one should note that "shared ...WITH God" again indicates that Jesus himself is NOT that God.
There is no doubt that Christ has glory in and of Himself (vs. 4). However, the glory of God can only be fully seen and known through the Person of Christ. Thus, when we look at Jesus, we behold the glory of God (cf. John 14:9).
What is this "convoluted circle talk" supposed to mean? Where does Scripture say that Christ ha glory "in and of himself"? Is this really true, especially in light of the truth that Jesus himself declared that "of myself I can do nothing" ??
Also, to what did Jesus refer in John 14:9 when he spoke of "he who has seen me has seen the Father"??In the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel (John 1:1–18), the Word who became flesh is presented as none other than the God of the OT, and it is said that His glory was seen (vs. 14). This revelation of glory is explained as being in agreement with God’s own nature (“glory as of the Father’s only begotten”).
It seems there is more inserted interpretation than what is actually stated in John 1.
John is talking about more than mere imitation; the use of “glory” indicates that Christ reveals God’s character “in terms of His sovereign goodness and mercy.” Likewise, in Heb 1:3, it is clear that by using the term δόξα the author is using “the image of light to indicate the nature of God.” Not only does Jesus radiate the glory of God, but it is also said that He is the “exact representation” (χαρακτήρ) of God’s nature, an even stronger set of words reinforcing the “essential unity and the exact resemblance between God and His Son.”
Well, the expression "resemblance between God AND His Son" plainly shows that Jesus, as His Son, is NOT himself that God.
Though these two statements emphasize the ontology of Christ and His relationship with God, the broader context aims to demonstrate the qualification of Christ to be the final manifestation of God in a salvation-historical role. Not only does Christ reveal God’s glory, But He also reveals to us all of who God really is: His Person, His nature, His attributes, His essence (e.g. Col 1:15; 2:9). Among the number of Christological passages in the NT, there are some key texts in which Christ is referred to as a specific attribute of God. It is important to note that in none of these verses, Titus 2:13 included, are the expressions meant as a title referring to Jesus, but rather as the manifestation of God’s traits in the Person of Jesus Christ.
"Christ is referred to as a specific attribute of God" ????
Believe it or not! CM
Well ... believe WHAT? Some things in your quoted paragraphs appear rather confused and confusing, how could anyone believe what is stated when it is not clear what is stated?
-
Wolfgang,
This may not answer all of your questions if any, but consider these truths:
The sonship of Christ does not denote inferiority, since for the Semitic mind "son of God means "of the order of God". God is revealed in Christ according to a plan conceived for humankind before time, to be carried out in time.- This plan includes the pre-incarnate appearances of Christ and culminates in an earthly millennial kingdom, after which glimpses of God are replaced with his unveiled presence.
Christ possessed all the divine attributes:
- He is the image, exact representation, and fullness of God.
- Christ's immutable, omnipresent divinity is mobile, active, and capable of local presence.
The biblical revelation of Christ as Creator, Preserver, Angel of the Lord, Shepherd, Savior, Eternal Logos, holder of divine names, virgin-born, and possessor of human life and eternal glory.
Christ as Savior, Logos, and fully human deserves special notice.
- (1) Christ's role as Savior was not an afterthought, but a pan of God's plan, which encompassed even sin. This plan was a matter of sovereign decree, formulated on the basis of boundless wisdom and knowledge and allowing for freewill decisions. God's eternal decree is his sovereign resolve and purpose controlling all of creation.
- (2) Concerning the Eternal Logos, in the OT the Word was an active agent of God while in the Jewish targums "Word of God" was substituted for "God." Around A.D. 25, Philo developed dualistic concepts of a good God, evil matter, and mediating logos. However, John presents the Word as a divine person, unlike the OT or Jewish ideas.
- (3) "All that Christ did among human beings in his pre-incarnate state prepared in some way for what he would accomplish in his incarnate state" (190). His conception was supernatural but His subsequent development was normal, except that He never sinned. Christ did not cease to be God, but neither did He use divine attributes for Himself. He became "God plus," for in, the contrast to triune oneness, he has two natures.
Rhodes postulates that Christ, "with his divine nature and with his human immaterial nature . . . departed from his human body" and returned "to the same physical body in which he died (201). The natures were without mixture or separation. Christ is fully God and fully man, always conscious of deity and humanity, one Will-er who possesses both a divine will and a human will.
In his book, Rhodes reviews early Christian thought, referring to Church Fathers and ancient creeds. He also takes note of contemporary theologians, not to prove, but to support and illustrate his conclusions. However, Christ Before the Manger is especially useful because of its biblical content. His writing style is based on a conscious theological method. For Rhodes, viewing the OT "Christo-centrically" is imperative in the light of Christ's claims, as recorded in Scripture. TRUTH FOUND TRUTH SHARED. Consider the book. CM
Sources to Consider:
-- Rhodes, Ron. Christ Before the Manger: The Life and Times of the Preincarnate Christ. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992., pp. 12-15, 17; 30-31; 34; 43-48; 125-131; 146- 148; 198-199; 203-204.
-
@CM says, Behold the of Jesus and believe.
Consider these truths:
Christ and the Father are one (John 10:30). He was sent by the Father (John 17:18), and He speaks the words and does the works of the Father (14:10). Indeed, God the Father "has given all things into his hand" (John 3:35 RSV). All power is given to Him by the Father (John 17:2; cf. Matt 28:18). "For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them," even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son" (John 5:21-22). Jesus glorified the Father and asked to be glorified by Him (17:4-5). He went to the Father to prepare a place for His disciples (John 14:2-3,12). He is the only One whotruly knows the Father. No one comes to the Father but by Him (John 14:6). To know Him is to know the Father (John 14:7). He is in fact the only-begotten Son, who stands in a unique relationship to the Father (John 1:18; 3:16; 1 John 4:9-10).
Truth found truth shared. CM
-
And none of these points shows in any way that Jesus is actually God or that there is a Trinity God
-
-------- More on the oneness of the Father and the Son -------
At the baptism of Jesus, the Father called him “my beloved Son.” The sonship of Jesus, however, is not ontological but functional. In the plan of salvation, each member of the Trinity has accepted a particular role. It is a role to accomplish a particular goal, not a change in essence or status. Millard J. Erickson explains it this way:
“The Son did not become less than the Father during his earthly incarnation, but he did subordinate himself functionally to the Father’s will. Similarly, the Holy Spirit is now subordinated to the ministry of the Son (see John 14-16) as well as to the will of the Father, but this does not imply that he is less than they are”.
The terms of “Father” and “Son”:
- Western thinking carries the ideas of origin, dependence, and subordination with them.
- In the Semitic or Oriental mind-- “Father” and “Son” emphasize the sameness of nature. Thus, when the Scriptures speak of the “Son” of God, they assert his divinity.
Keep Studying. CM
SOURCE:
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, one-volume edition (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983-85), pp. 81-104.
-
Right
Father-Son as it’s used regarding God is relational, not biological.
-
There is No Salvation in the trinity. Even the trinity admits that the Father is not the Son.
Notice there are No Names, and No Christ. Is antichristian. (1 John 2:22)
-
You know the name if you know God. The Son is Jesus.
Great diagram by the way.
“Trinity” isn’t a name, it’s a description. Salvation is of God, not some description of God.
You are still far away, Rando, but any progress is good! Keep it up!
Post edited by Truth on
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
