Jesus is God

[dwight92070]

Dwight,

This is a text book example of equivocation. No Unitarian advocates disdaining Jesus to only love and serve God the father. That's just not what they are saying, so your second statement is just false in the way you formulated it.

You are very good at blurring the truth. The verse is not complicated, so why make it so?
Jesus is the One who said, "You cannot have two masters ..." We know that He's not talking about a master like a boss of a large company. Because you can serve a master like that as his employee and still give your ultimate devotion and allegiance to God. That would not be serving two masters, in the way that Jesus is speaking of it. He's saying that you can't give your highest devotion, loyalty, allegiance, and even worship to more than One - and that One should be God. And yet, Jesus demands that same devotion and worship as God does. But if He's not God, He doesn't deserve that. In fact, if He's not God, He doesn't deserve to even be called our Master. And yet, He makes that very claim, the He is our Master.
Either He's a liar or He's God. I don't believe He's a liar.

[darinhouston]

At least you're consistent, but I believe wrong. The One who brings about the 2nd coming is the same One who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords - who we know has to be Jesus, since He is the only one in the scripture identified as the Word of God - and the Word of God is identified as King of kings and Lord of lords. Then this verse informs us that that same One is the blessed and ONLY Sovereign.

It's ok if you have your own personal doctrines, of course, but this not a controversial position even among trinitarians - some translations leave it ambiguous, but a good number of leading traditional interpretations actually insert "God" to make this clear. I do believe it's pretty clearly not a reference to Jesus to any fair minded person seeking truth - perhaps you do have a reason you haven't expressed, but what do you make (for example) of the reference to the one who hasn't ever been (and can't be) seen? That's certainly not true of Jesus. The use of the king of kings and lord of lord references isn't determinative - we have discussed that before and they are arguably used of both the Son and the Father (in different contexts) and not necessarily implying a unique title to equate the two.

[dwight92070]

Jesus dwells in unapproachable light right now, so no man (on earth) has seen that or can see that, because the light is blinding. The saw Him on earth, but without the unapproachable light.

[jeremiah]

You are very good at blurring the truth. The verse is not complicated, so why make it so?
...

I don't think I'm complicating anything brother, I think you're repurposing what Jesus said to teach about the impossibility of serving both God and Mammon, awkwardly forcing some conclusion of Jesus being exactly, entire, and thoroughly identical with his father in person. Jesus used "master" in a specific way to distinguish being a slave to his father, and rejecting making ourselves a slave to worthless Mammon. Your equivocation of that with Jesus and God the father somehow being two masters, and thus a conundrum is fallacious reasoning. This is why I said it is false as you formulated it.

You've done something similar with the passage from 1 Timothy, if you would have kept verse 13, it should have been plain that Paul is speaking of God the father. Sure Jesus now knows when his returning will be, that seems likely, but I think you're way out on the skinny branches reading Jesus as the one who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light.

Two things seem obvious to me, whatever your position on the Godhead is, it cannot be called Trinitarian, and that you're starting with your conclusion, then reading that into everything. The awkward wrestling of both Luke 16 and 1 Timothy, I think clearly demonstrates this.

[dizerner]

Your equivocation of that with Jesus and God the father somehow being two masters, and thus a conundrum is fallacious reasoning. This is why I said it is false as you formulated it.

You never explain "why."

You just claim it.

Name one other person or entity we are to love as much as God?

The Jewish Rabbis understand that Christ takes the logical place of idolatry, why wouldn't they back out of that one if it was so weak?

[jeremiah]

Hi Dizerner,

I think I did explain enough to see why I called it equivocation both in the post you quoted and in my previous comment which Dwight said blurred the truth. I did not say that as a Unitarian, I am not one, but was pointing out what I see as a misuse of Jesus' teaching there in Luke 16 as Dwight framed it.

Name one other person or entity we are to love as much as God?

None of course. But the Christian reality is precisely why I say this is fallacious argumentation regarding Jesus and God the father. Again, Jesus was teaching something very specific about not serving idolatrous earthly riches, but God only. I understand his teachings on many subjects can be broadened, we do it all the time, yet it's not usually controversial that there are limits to extending Jesus' teaching and the bible's generally.

Both Trinitarians and Unitarians serve God the father and the lord Jesus Christ. That they do should not be controversial, but of course both argue over why they do. Both believe Jesus when he teaches us we are to be happily thankless in our service to the father, and both agree with Paul every time he identified himself as "Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ" at the beginning of his letters.

The Jewish Rabbis understand that Christ takes the logical place of idolatry, why wouldn't they back out of that one if it was so weak?

Speaking of limits, I won't bother with what Jewish Rabbis understand about Christ in this context.

[dwight92070]

Luke 16:13 "No servant can serve two masters ... you cannot serve God and wealth."
The primary teaching of Jesus here is obvious: Some were calling God their master and yet Jesus was pointing out that, in reality, money was their master. Jesus said basically, "You can't have two masters - you will have to choose - will it be God, or will it be wealth? God won't allow you to pretend that He is your master, when actually money is your master."
It is clear here that Jesus is using the word "master" here to refer to that which has consumed you because of your devotion to it and worship of it. How do we know this? Because that is what God demands of those who worship and love Him. Practically speaking, money had become the Pharisees idol. Verse 14 tells us that the Pharisees were lovers of money.

This EASILY transitions into a secondary teaching. There's no law that says that we cannot glean more than one teaching from Jesus' instruction. There's also no indication that this secondary teaching is taking things too far, as you imply, Jeremiah. On the contrary, the transition from one teaching to the other is quite natural, since the two topics have common elements.

No other entity is to receive equal devotion and worship as God Himself deserves. Those who believe that Jesus is not God still claim to love Him, praise Him, worship Him, even bowing down to Him is okay with them. They're even okay with every created thing in heaven and earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, and the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders in heaven falling down and worshiping Him and the One who sits on the throne - they're fine with that. They have said so themselves on this thread. He can be called the King of kings and Lord of lords, the first and the last, the alpha and the omega - all of this is okay with them.

But whatever you do, don't you dare call Jesus God. So if they have such a high view of Jesus and claim to worship and love Him and bow down to Him with the same worship that the One who sits on the throne deserves - and yet ADMIT that they do not believe He is God, then what other conclusion can one make? They are idolaters and guilty of idolatry. They ARE serving TWO MASTERS in their OWN THINKING - one is God, the other is Jesus. But if Jesus is not God, as they believe, then they are idolaters.

On the other hand, those of us who believe that Jesus IS God have absolutely NO problem giving Jesus the same love, adoration, worship, praise,etc. that we give God the Father. And we have no guilt from bowing down and worshiping an idol, because Jesus is NOT an idol, He is God.

[darinhouston]

Luke 16:13 "No servant can serve two masters ... you cannot serve God and wealth."
The primary teaching of Jesus here is obvious: Some were calling God their master and yet Jesus was pointing out that, in reality, money was their master. Jesus said basically, "You can't have two masters - you will have to choose - will it be God, or will it be wealth? God won't allow you to pretend that He is your master, when actually money is your master."
It is clear here that Jesus is using the word "master" here to refer to that which has consumed you because of your devotion to it and worship of it. How do we know this? Because that is what God demands of those who worship and love Him. Practically speaking, money had become the Pharisees idol. Verse 14 tells us that the Pharisees were lovers of money.

This EASILY transitions into a secondary teaching. There's no law that says that we cannot glean more than one teaching from Jesus' instruction. There's also no indication that this secondary teaching is taking things too far, as you imply, Jeremiah. On the contrary, the transition from one teaching to the other is quite natural, since the two topics have common elements.

No other entity is to receive equal devotion and worship as God Himself deserves. Those who believe that Jesus is not God still claim to love Him, praise Him, worship Him, even bowing down to Him is okay with them. They're even okay with every created thing in heaven and earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, and the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders in heaven falling down and worshiping Him and the One who sits on the throne - they're fine with that. They have said so themselves on this thread. He can be called the King of kings and Lord of lords, the first and the last, the alpha and the omega - all of this is okay with them.

But whatever you do, don't you dare call Jesus God. So if they have such a high view of Jesus and claim to worship and love Him and bow down to Him with the same worship that the One who sits on the throne deserves - and yet ADMIT that they do not believe He is God, then what other conclusion can one make? They are idolaters and guilty of idolatry. They ARE serving TWO MASTERS in their OWN THINKING - one is God, the other is Jesus. But if Jesus is not God, as they believe, then they are idolaters.

On the other hand, those of us who believe that Jesus IS God have absolutely NO problem giving Jesus the same love, adoration, worship, praise,etc. that we give God the Father. And we have no guilt from bowing down and worshiping an idol, because Jesus is NOT an idol, He is God.

I trust Jeremiah will respond as appropriate, but as you are speaking in part about me I'll say that you do seem to finally understand much of where I'm coming from - only correction I'd make is that I'm not afraid of calling Jesus God (as long as it's contextually understood what I mean by it). But, I do so with a recognition of the broader context of how that word has been used in Scripture. Digging deeper as to what is meant by that is where we depart - what I reject as inconsistent with clear Scriptural revelation is to equate Jesus as the unmoved mover, the uncreated Creator, the one god Yahweh - the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

I would suggest, however, a flaw in your logic which compels your conclusion that we are idolators is the example of a King of a sovereign country who has a son who he has bestowed his ring of ruling authority when sending him out into the kingdom to proclaim some message from the King. There is one ruler, one King, one ruling authority who deserves adoration and yet the king would have no problem when the peasants bow down to kneel before him and kiss his ring when coming into a town or when carrying out a mission on behalf of the king. Witness even Joseph (indeed, a type of Christ).

[dwight92070]

Mark 10:17-18 " ...Good teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
And Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.' "

We have looked at this before but it bears repeating.

Jesus is either saying a. that He is NOT GOOD or b. that He IS GOD (and ALSO GOOD).

I think the answer is "b".

[dwight92070]

The apostle Paul has done us a great service by allowing God, the Father, to use him to be a channel of His word, so that we may have just a little glimpse of His Majesty and His Glory and a better understanding of our Great Lord, God and Savior Jesus, the Messiah, so that we may more perfectly love Him and worship Him until the our last day, or until the day of His return! Thank You, O My Father, for sending us Your Son, and leaving Your Spirit till the work on earth is done!

Clearly Paul himself has such awe in his heart when he speaks of Jesus that He deliberately addresses the Father and Jesus interchangeably, also acknowledging that grace and peace comes from both of them in Titus 1:4:
"Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior". Paul had just spoken of "God our Savior" in verse 3, but now he says Christ Jesus is our Savior. They BOTH are!
He does the same in Titus 2:9 and verse 13 where he says: " ... looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus." In verse 9 he had repeated the fact that God is our Savior, then in verse 13 Christ Jesus is our Savior, but then He adds the fact that Jesus also is our great God! They BOTH are!
But Paul is still not done equating God and Jesus. He does it again in verse chapter 3, verse 4 and verse 6. God is our Savior and Jesus Christ is our Savior, and Jesus is our God, as is the Father.