Jesus is God

[Paidion]

Darin,
Concerning Dwight's insistence that "Jesus is God", I think perhaps he has a different concept of "God" than you and I have.
I think that you and I understand the word "God" as descriptive of an Order or Being.
However, if I remember correctly, Dwight sees the word "God" as a name. So it seems that he believes that the Father and the Son share the same name, i.e. "God". From a human point of view, a man and his son may share the same name. For example, my second name is "Gordon" and my father's name was "Gordon". However, that fact implies that there were two Gordons. Yet Dwight denies that there are two Gods. So at that point, his reasoning seems inconsistent.

But I'm sure he will have what he considers to be a rational answer to explain to us "irrational persons" how this can be the case.

[dwight92070]

Darin,
Concerning Dwight's insistence that "Jesus is God",

Dwight - My "insistence" is shared by thousands, possibly millions of Christians. I'm not a lone wolf in this.

I think perhaps he has a different concept of "God" than you and I have.
I think that you and I understand the word "God" as descriptive of an Order or Being.

Dwight - My concept is what the Bible tells us: God is the Creator of Heaven and Earth, He is "I am who I am", He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who, according to John 1:18, is in the bosom of the Father. According to Jesus Himself, the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father. The Father and the Son are One. "Both" receive worship, created all things, forgive sins, are called Savior, Lord, Redeemer, God, Judge, Mighty God, sent the Holy Spirit. I don't claim to fully understand all of that, but I accept it. How can there be 3 Beings, all called God, and yet there is only 1 God? Nobody knows, just like none of us could fully understand God, even if there was no Trinity.

Dwight - I would assume that you agree that you don't fully understand God Himself, even given your understanding that there is no Trinity. So how is it somehow considered okay for you to admit that you don't fully understand Him as a non-Trinitarian, but it's considered some kind of a cop-out for those of us who do believe in the Trinity, to say the same thing? Darin has expressed contempt for my saying that we can't fully understand it. In this, you guys are being inconsistent.

Dwight - How can anyone fully understand what it means for Jesus to be in the bosom of the Father? Or that He is in the Father and the Father is in Him? Or that He and the Father are One? Or We will come to Him and make our abode with Him?

Dwight - All we can do is look at the evidence in the Bible. When we see Jesus is worshipped over and over again here on earth and then given equal praise and worship in heaven, as is given to the Father, what else can we conclude? Only God is to be worshipped. God Himself told us that, both in the 1st commandment and several places elsewhere. No mere human is to be worshipped, even though some may do that. No angels are to be worshipped, even though some may do that. So if God Himself approves of His Son being worshipped, then we put that information in with "I and the Father are One" and "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" and "making Himself equal with God" and Thomas proclaiming "My Lord and My God!" etc. - the list goes on, and we come up with the logical conclusion that Jesus is God.

Dwight - The alternative is to believe that Jesus has all the authority and attributes as the Father (and all the things mentioned in the previous paragraph), but that He is not God. The alternative is to believe that He is someone other than God, but that He still deserves equal worship as God. The alternative inescapably violates the 1st commandment - "You shall have no other Gods before Me."

[darinhouston]

Dwight - I would assume that you agree that you don't fully understand God Himself, even given your understanding that there is no Trinity. So how is it somehow considered okay for you to admit that you don't fully understand Him as a non-Trinitarian, but it's considered some kind of a cop-out for those of us who do believe in the Trinity, to say the same thing? Darin has expressed contempt for my saying that we can't fully understand it. In this, you guys are being inconsistent.

Because you don't seem interested in actually engaging these points in an orderly manner, I will only respond to the one point -- namely, I have never held you in contempt for saying we can't fully understand God. I have repeatedly stated that mystery is the one certainty in this area, but that mystery is best left where scripture leaves it and not as a "sign-off" statement to justify an otherwise irrational or indefensible contrivance to try and explain a doctrine. The trinitarian has escaped the confines of scripture, being not content to leave the mysteries as such and then leans on "mystery" to sustain illogical positions in the face of opposition. I have never suggested this is contemptible, but it is a cop-out.

[Homer]

Hi Darin,

It seems to me the ultimate cop-out to say Jesus is deity but He is not God.

[darinhouston]

Hi Darin,

It seems to me the ultimate cop-out to say Jesus is deity but He is not God.

That's not the same thing at all - it's in a completely different category - interpretation within a semantic range and context is not a cop-out, it is ordinary argumentation. Waving your hands to say I shouldn't have to explain my position because I've created a mystery that can't be expected to be understood is a cop-out position.

For example - what does it mean to you for a Christian to "partake in the divine nature?"

And can't a prince be royalty without being King? That's at least one sense in which deity or divinity can mean something less than the ultimate Divine One.

These are questions of basic interpretation and hermeneutics that can be discussed reasonably. Not a hand-waving exercise to avoid explanation.

[Paidion]

And how did the apostle Paul put it? Did he write, "There is one God—God the Father and God the Son"?
No he wrote:

For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. (1 Timothy 2:5)

[Homer]

I think we are continually seeing copouts here. it is a copout to avoid responsibility for what is said.

Example:

Paidion wrote:

And how did the apostle Paul put it? Did he write, "There is one God—God the Father and God the Son"?
No he wrote:
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. (1 Timothy 2:5)

So let's consider the post literally. Based solely on this verse one could contend that Jesus is not God, not the Son, and that He is simply a man anointed by God for a mission. But I do not believe Paidion who posted it believes that. In the zeal to prove Jesus is not God He is shown to be a mere man. I am sure Paul did not mean that.

For a discussion to take place we need to be clear.

From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of deity
1a: the rank or essential nature of a god : DIVINITY
b: capitalized : GOD sense 1, SUPREME BEING
2: a god (see GOD entry 1 sense 2) or goddess
the deities of ancient Greece
3: one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful
such established American deities as Daniel Boone, Kit Carson
— J. D. Hart

Definition of demigod
1: a mythological being with more power than a mortal but less than a god
2: a person so outstanding as to seem to approach the divine

From the foregoing I choose 1a/b. Where do you fall; somewhere as above or elsewhere?

I believe in the Old Testament God appeared to man in the form of a man, was perceived both visually and audibly, spoke in the first person, making promises and prophecies that came true. His appearance was sudden and suddenly He was gone. His appearance was short but also at least overnight. People were in awe and fear, were sure they had seen God and expected to die And He also manifested Himself in other forms (burning bush, pillar of fire). So why could God not appear as a man for 30+ years?

I tentatively believe God manifests Himself in three personae simultaneously, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If this seems inconceivable, explain how God appeared to man while simultaneously being omnipresent. The obvious answer to me is as the scripture says: "nothing is impossible for God". In the theophanies (some would say Christophanies) the Word appeared to man while God was simultaneously everywhere.

[Paidion]

I was raised up in Trinitarianism—attended Trinitarian churches—sang "Holy, holy, holy. Merciful and mighty. God in three Persons, blessed Trinity!". I did all that throughout my youth and much of my adulthood—until I learned better.

In the Bible, there's not a single passage about "God in three Persons".

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

Is there a single passage about Jesus being the Son of God before He was conceived in the virgin Mary?

What is your explanation of the OT theophanies and do you find yourself anywhere on the list of definitions from Merriam-Webster?

[dwight92070]

I was raised up in Trinitarianism—attended Trinitarian churches—sang "Holy, holy, holy. Merciful and mighty. God in three Persons, blessed Trinity!". I did all that throughout my youth and much of my adulthood—until I learned better.

In the Bible, there's not a single passage about "God in three Persons".

Dwight - Nor is there a single passage about "Jesus is the first act of God."

Dwight -You continue to argue about what isn't there vs. what actually is in the Bible. We have given much evidence that's actually in the Bible, that shows that Jesus is God. Some of the verses actually call Him God, but EVEN THAT is not sufficient for you.

Dwight - Would you please give us the scripture that says, "Jesus is not God"?