The Great Debate: Is Jesus God?

[darinhouston]

Interesting debate with James White and Michael Brown (Trinitarians) vs. Sir Anthony Buzzard and Joseph Good (Non-Trinitarians)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4joi2P9lupw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ckk3RE84XY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho5j4F9j7SI

Virtually of the issues are at least touched on -- the non-trinitarians spent a lot of time dealing with the Jewish notion of "agency" and the trinitarians just couldn't get over their disdain for the notion because they seem to think of "typical agents." I have yet to hear anyone raise the point that the agency notion in view here is unique but typified perhaps best by a pharaoh or king and their prince among the masses-- if the prince has the King's ring and is coming in the name of the King/Pharaoh, you'd bet your bottom dollar that the folks would be bowing to them and treating them JUST as if they were the king himself, even if their authority was derived. That is not the same as a herald who might come in the name of the King. I don't think this answers all objections, but if they had dealt with this example they might have spent more time on some of the more interesting issues.

The other aspect that no one seems to address is when the point of pre-existence comes up, they seem to equate eternality with pre-existence. To me, there are several relevant time periods and there is some ambiguity between them -- (1) Jesus didn't pre-exist his conception; (2) he pre-existed his conception, but not the creation of the universe; (3) he pre-existed the universe but was not co-eternal with the Father; and (4) he was co-eternal and always existed.

Otherwise, VERY much worth listening to.

[mattrose]

Sounds interesting. Thanks for the links (hopefully I'll be able to get to them at some point)

Personally, I've become more interested in the reverse form of the question (Is God Jesus?). The "Is Jesus God?" question pretends to have a good idea about what God is like and wonders if Jesus fits into that concept. But we don't really know what God is like apart from Jesus. Jesus is tangible. We can 'know' him in a much more direct sense than we can know the concept of God. So the question "Is God Jesus?" seems more important to me. My theology flows out from Jesus in both directions (to help me interpret the Old Testament & New). Nor do I start with monotheism and then try to understand it in trinitarian terms. I start with Jesus, who spoke of His Father and Spirit and THEN try to understand how they are One.

[darinhouston]

Sounds interesting. Thanks for the links (hopefully I'll be able to get to them at some point)

Personally, I've become more interested in the reverse form of the question (Is God Jesus?). The "Is Jesus God?" question pretends to have a good idea about what God is like and wonders if Jesus fits into that concept. But we don't really know what God is like apart from Jesus. Jesus is tangible. We can 'know' him in a much more direct sense than we can know the concept of God. So the question "Is God Jesus?" seems more important to me. My theology flows out from Jesus in both directions (to help me interpret the Old Testament & New). Nor do I start with monotheism and then try to understand it in trinitarian terms. I start with Jesus, who spoke of His Father and Spirit and THEN try to understand how they are One.

I like the approach, generally, but I have a serious question. Didn't even Jesus continually deflect all context of everything He did to the Father? Isn't the Father the purpose and end of all things? Shouldn't all prayer and everything be in the context of and with the ultimate aim of glorifying the Father? I know modern evangelism puts Jesus as the beginning point of all things spiritual, but didn't Jesus suggest otherwise? I know it risks heresy to suggest anything that remotely sounds like it reduces the Son, but aren't all things even given back by Jesus to the Father in the end? It strikes me that the prevailing Trinitarian formulas are bending over so backwards to elevate the Son that it actually reduces the Father (and didn't Jesus warn against doing that?).

I have been considering the following:

consider there is no complex unity -- there is, however, a spiritual unity which is mysteriously at the same time divisible and still remains intact as a unified spirit. There is no notion of Father or Son until the Son was begotten, and that this refers to the conception. Before conception, God was only Spirit, though He may have manifested Himself in different ways in different times, He was still essentially Spirit and acted upon the elements and mankind to manifest His presence, which only dwelt among man as Spirit, pitching His tent in the Tabernacle/Temple. After conception, that same spirit (not having a separate existence as a person, still the same spirit) dwelt with man fully through the indwelling by that spirit in the man, Jesus. The man was considered God in His representative capacity and also in a derivative sense because He shared the same Spirit as the pre-existing Spirit of God. Therefore, the Spirit of God and the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit of Christ are all reference to the same thing. So, He was at the same time a man (though not a mere man) and a representative (though a perfect representative and not a mere representative) with special powers derived and working from the power of the Spirit indwelling Him and given all authority through that Spirit. His conception and indwelling created a relationship that didn't exist previously. Now, God dwells with man in a different and more direct way (but not yet fully) as He pitches His tent in the tabernacle of Christ among mankind, and we now have a separate relationship between the Father and the Son. Previously, there was an aspect of God's spirit which we refer to as the logos, but it isn't a separate entity, it describes the aspect of the Spirit God which has purpose and natural representation. To that end, Jesus represents that aspect of the logos of God. Jesus' death and resurrection enabled that same Spirit to now indwell believers and for His dwelling to be more fully made with mankind as the members of the church represent Christ's body and that same Spirit now indwells all believers individually and collectively (but still not fully as it was before the Fall). That full and total dwelling presence will be at the end when Christ comes again, performs His final task of putting all under His feet, and then turns the whole of perfected re-Creation back to the Father so that the Spirit can dwell not just in man but in, around, and upon man in all ways.

I'm sure there are holes, but I don't see a need for any trinitarian formulation to describe God. God is spirit -- that is all. Does that mean I'm tending towards a one-ness heresy?

[mattrose]

Well, I think there are two different (though related) issues here (and that's my fault since I brought the second issue up).

I was making the point that when trying to determining what God is like (in terms of character), the best guide is Jesus. You seem to be asking what God is like (in terms of # of persons involved).

I think there are verses that talk about the exaltation of Christ is pretty absolute terms and others, as you pointed out, that talk about him giving everything back to the Father. I take the latter not to be so much a matter of Jesus speaking to your concerns about God's nature (# of persons), but to mine (character). Those verses show that God has the kind of character that is selfless and humble. They don't communicate to me any kind of inherent hierarchy of power, but a willing insistence to love.

I wouldn't agree with your paragraph. I think God always existed as a small group of united lovers. This was revealed to us in stages. But we shouldn't mistake progressive revelation for an evolution in God, which seems somewhat close to what you are proposing. That being said, I am not one to say everyone has to have the standard form of trinitarian theology.

I've done my best to stay open to different views in all areas of theology, but I (personally) have found myself become more and more of a trinitarian in that process. I think the trinity makes good sense of the biblical material and works philosophically too on a number of levels. What's more, I like the idea. I think nothing is more important that relationships and God IS a relationship. That makes sense to me.

[darinhouston]

I appreciate that, Matt. I'm wondering though if anyone can express the best scriptural argument against such a position -- I think it has flavors of divine simplicity and oneness. Has anyone seen any scriptural debates (not just the philosophical debates) between any oneness scholars (isthere such a thing) and trinitarians or unitarians?

[Perry]

Darin,
I have a few questions about what you're saying. (I hope these don't sound confrontational. I don't mean for them to.)

When you say "consider there is no complex unity," to what degree to you see there being individual uniqueness in God?
Who was praying to whom in Gethsemane?
Who was speaking to whom when the voice said "This is my beloved Son in whom I'm well pleased"?
Was Jesus God prior to the Spirit descending upon Him after He was baptized by John?
Who are the "Us" and "Our" in, "Let Us make man in Our image"?

[darinhouston]

Darin,
I have a few questions about what you're saying. (I hope these don't sound confrontational. I don't mean for them to.)

When you say "consider there is no complex unity," to what degree to you see there being individual uniqueness in God?
Who was praying to whom in Gethsemane?
Who was speaking to whom when the voice said "This is my beloved Son in whom I'm well pleased"?
Was Jesus God prior to the Spirit descending upon Him after He was baptized by John?
Who are the "Us" and "Our" in, "Let Us make man in Our image"?

No offense:

When you say "consider there is no complex unity," to what degree to you see there being individual uniqueness in God?
I don't understand the question.

Who was praying to whom in Gethsemane?
The man Jesus was praying to the Father -- Jesus was an individual human being, indwelled by the spirit. I think He was praying in and through the Spirit within Him which was joined in some mysterious spiritual way to the Father who being spiritual was there and everywhere and nowhere in some metaphysical sense we can't understand. There is a sense in which I myself am my spirit and have identify with Christ and the Father through the Holy Spirit which also dwels within me but also I am me in my flesh and personality.

Who was speaking to whom when the voice said "This is my beloved Son in whom I'm well pleased"?
A declarative statement doesn't need an audience, but I think the Father/Holy Spirit was declaring it to all creation.

Was Jesus God prior to the Spirit descending upon Him after He was baptized by John?
Interesting question. Probably. He had the fullness of the Spirit. I have yet to have a good answer to what changed upon His baptism regardless of what Trinitarian or Unitarian or Oneness formulation one holds.

Who are the "Us" and "Our" in, "Let Us make man in Our image"?
Another good question, which isn't answered fully by any Trinitarian formulation. Many views on this (plural of majesty, the angels, etc.)

[Perry]

I don't understand the question.

What unique aspects of “Godness” is God trying to communicate about Himself when He refers to Himself sometimes as the Father, sometimes as the Son, and sometimes as the Holy Spirit? (Not that He’s those things at different times and not at others, but that He refers to Himself that way at different times.)

There is a sense in which I myself am my spirit and have identify with Christ and the Father through the Holy Spirit which also dwels within me but also I am me in my flesh and personality.

Are you saying that the Christ, the man, was unique from God in precisely the same way that we are?

A declarative statement doesn't need an audience, but I think the Father/Holy Spirit was declaring it to all creation.

Sorry, I referred to Matthew, when I should have quoted Luke’s version. “You are my beloved son...”

Another good question, which isn't answered fully by any Trinitarian formulation.

Just so you know, I’m not asking these questions in an attempt to defend any Trinitarian formulation. I’m just exploring your concept of this.

[darinhouston]

Just so you know, I’m not asking these questions in an attempt to defend any Trinitarian formulation. I’m just exploring your concept of this.

No offense – I’m just fleshing this out a bit as a theory, myself. I don’t take it personally since I can’t claim any particular theory in this area as my own. I don’t expect to ever cling to a theory in this area since it’s so unknowable and doesn’t make a wit of difference since Jesus’ unquestionable authority from God is unequivocal and is all I need to know to follow Him. Even so, I don’t like creeds and creedal positions that are held out as measures of one’s faith which go further than scripture REQUIRES. So, I enjoy the inquiry.

What unique aspects of “Godness” is God trying to communicate about Himself when He refers to Himself sometimes as the Father, sometimes as the Son, and sometimes as the Holy Spirit? (Not that He’s those things at different times and not at others, but that He refers to Himself that way at different times.)

I’m not sure He is trying to communicate anything about Himself, necessarily. Perhaps He is just trying to describe the relationship the Son has to Himself. Do you see Him saying “I am the Son?” No, He says “this is my Son.” He’s telling us something about His Son and ensuring we understand the Son’s authority. As to the Holy Spirit, what verse do you have in mind? Just because one uses different terms to address a person (or even a thing) doesn’t mean that suggests they are different or that the speaker has anything different in mind. I might refer to the mall as “the mall” or “The Galleria” or I might refer to a store within the mall and I mean the same thing. Certainly, dealing with a spiritual being is not that simple, but I’m not sure the writers had any of this sort of thing in mind (or God for that matter).

There is a sense in which I myself am my spirit and have identify with Christ and the Father through the Holy Spirit which also dwels within me but also I am me in my flesh and personality.

Are you saying that the Christ, the man, was unique from God in precisely the same way that we are?

I wouldn’t say “precisely” but perhaps in significant measure (at least as far as his flesh is concerned). Clearly, the difference is vast, however, since He was immaculately conceived so He lacked any taint of original Sin. Perhaps it is more accurate to say he was unique from God more similarly to the way Adam was unique from God pre-fall. Even then, Adam did not seem to be indwelt with the Holy Spirit like Adam was, so you couldn’t see the first man as being God in the same way you could see Jesus as embodying God. I would never equate myself or any man with Jesus, but yes we are to become like Jesus as we walk more fully in the Spirit. He was different in that He was fully indwelt with and by the Spirit. This none of us will enjoy in this life. However, He was different in another important way – He was given the keys to the kingdom so to speak. If I were a royal subject, I would share much in common with Pharaoh’s son, but one vital difference – he has the scepter and the authority of the Pharaoh and no other man did.

Sorry, I referred to Matthew, when I should have quoted Luke’s version. “You are my beloved son...”

I’m not sure it changes anything.

[Paidion]

As I see it, with my simple mind, the issue is not as complex as we make it.
To answer the question, "Is Jesus God?" we must first define "God".

For a modalist, there is a single divine Individual whom we may call "God". This God expresses himself in three modes, or wears three "masks" as they are fond of saying: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God has always existed. When He decided to appear on earth, He was born as a human being who was known as "The Son of God." Prior to His human birth there was no Son of God. When the one God extends his being or consciousness into a person or reveals himself to man, that is the Spirit.

If this view is true, then to whom was Jesus praying? And whom was the Father addressing when He said, "You are my beloved son..."? In modalism there seems to be no satisfactory answer to these questions.

For a Trinitarian, God is a compound Being who consists of three divine Individuals. Thus each of these Individuals is properly called "God", just as each human individual can properly be called "man". Yet, Trinitarians refer to God in the masculine singular. This doesn't make sense to me. How can they refer to God as "He" if God consists of three persons? Why not "They"?

I have also been unable to understand why Trinitarians say "God was born on earth as a man." Was the Trinity born on earth as a man? But just a few minutes ago, I realized their statement is not as ridiculous as I had previously thought. When we say that "man" has gone to the moon, we don't mean that every individual person has gone to the moon. When we say that man has invented the atomic bomb, we don't mean that total humanity has invented the atomic bomb. So similarly when we say that God came to earth as a man, we don't mean that all 3 divine Individuals came to earth as a man, but the Son only. Now I suppose, come to think of it, mankind might also be called "he", as in "Man has gone to the moon. He also invented the atomic bomb." So it seems I have adequately answered two of my own objections.

Notwithstanding, I cannot see the Trinity as true since the Bible does not use the word "God" in this way. In the 2316 instances of the word "theos" in the New Testament, there is not a hint that any one of them refers to a Trinity. The vast majority of the 244 instances of "ho theos", the 473 instances of "tou theou" and the 111 instances of "ton theon" refer to the Father alone. Any that don't refer to the Father have modifiers other than the article. If God were a Trinity, we would expect some instances, or at least one instance" of the word "theos" referring to the Trinity. Nor to my knowledge is there any hint of a Trinity in the Old Testament.

The early Christian view which continued to be held right into the end of the third century was that the Father begat a Son "before all ages." That Son was therefore divine as was the Father, and could be called "God" in that sense. Cat begets cat and the offspring are called "feline". Dog begets dog and the offspring are called "canine". Man begets man and the offspring are called "human". God begets God and the offspring (there was only one) is called "divine".

The holy spirit is just that — spirit. The holy spirit is the extension of the consciousness of the Father and the Son throughout the universe, and especially into the hearts and minds of the faithful. Jesus said to his disciples, that after he had departed from the earth, "The Father and I will make our dwelling with you." That dwelling is the holy spirit. The consciousness of the Father and the Son are so mingled, that there is but one holy spirit and not two. Jesus said that the spirit could not come unless he first went away. For while he was on earth, Jesus' consciousness was confined to his body, and He wanted to relate to people together with His Father when they came to dwell with his people. Sometimes the New Testament speaks of "the spirit of God" and sometimes of "the spirit of Jesus", but that distinction need not be made since both Father and Son share the same spirit since Christ's ascension. Thus the spirit is not an impersonal force, but the very person of the Father and of the Son — not a third person.

So to answer the question "Is Jesus God?" the answer is "Yes", if we define "God" as "the divine order of being", just as we define "man" as "the human order of being." The Father is God and Jesus is God. The Father is divine and Jesus is divine. I am man and you are man. Every human being is man, whether male of female.

Then is the holy spirit God? When we understand the holy spirit to be the consciousness of the Father and of the Son, this becomes an odd question — just as it would be an odd question to ask," Is Joe's consciousness man?" However, to put it a little differently, it would not be odd to say that Joe's consciousness is human — nor would it be odd to say that the holy spirit is divine.

But if we define "God" as "The Father", who is usually denoted by the use of the word in scripture, then the answer is "No."