Deity of Jesus for salvation?

[Guest]

As for "paying for sins" with the idea of
"Jesus taking our punishment for us, vicariously", nowhere do the scriptures teach this. Oh, you can find verses which can be taken out of context and re-interpreted to support this concept. But it is a false idea that has served well to make people feel comfortable in their sins, and see no need to be delivered from them.

Please explain.

1Pe 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

[_loaves]

Loaves, The JWs don't believe Jesus paid for mankinds sins, they believe he was a ransom or equal payment for Adam's transgression.

But how could an eternal payment be made by a mere created being? Adam's sin had eternal consequences, didn't it? It beats me. It also seems pretty shady.

And what about the 144,000 claptrap? I understand that they believe that the "quota" for those going to heaven has already been reached. What about us peons still on earth?

As for "paying for sins" with the idea of
"Jesus taking our punishment for us, vicariously", nowhere do the scriptures teach this. Oh, you can find verses which can be taken out of context and re-interpreted to support this concept. But it is a false idea that has served well to make people feel comfortable in their sins, and see no need to be delivered from them.

I agree with Sean, please explain. I think of the Old Testament symbol of the passover lamb. Did the blood of the lamb "sorta" or "halfway" make the Spirit of God pass over the house? Or did it completely make the Spirit of God passover? I don't think there is any middle ground. You can't sit on the messianic fence. It is full atonement or none. That's my stand.

Agape,

loaves

[Guest]

If the topic is going to drift into theories of the atonement (as I predict it is about to do), it might be wise to start another thread in the "Misc. Theological Topics" category. Anyone want to do that?

[_loaves]

Steve: I guess it is up to the brotherhood. Erich, in view of the fact that you started this topic, could you please direct the topic to the proper forum category? What do the other brothers say?

Agape,

loaves

[Guest]

Actually, I don't think Erich has any interest in whether we start another thread or not. His original question on this one was answered long ago, and the discussion is moving into new subjects unrelated to his question.

For the benefit of those who might be interested in the subject of theories of atonement (I have no reason to believe that Erich has more interest in that subject than does anyone else), but who might not think to look for it under the heading "Deity of Jesus for salvation," in the "Christian evidences/challenges" category, I am recommending that we carry on any such discussion in a category where it might be discovered by interested parties.

I have not visited other message boards much, so perhaps they tend to ramble on in random directions, but this one was specifically created for the purpose of people asking and answering Bible questions. I don't have a preference concerning which subjects are raised or what opinions are expressed about them, but I think the topics should be discussed under their labeled headings.

What I am sayiong is that it would be best to limit posts at this thread to discussion of the stated topic—unless it has been thoroughly discussed and there is nothing new to add. In that case, it would be good to start a new thread to discuss a new subject.

You may not be aware, but I am the moderator of this forum.

[Guest]

Hi Christopher,

Thanks for your reply.

I don't pretend to understand the nature of God and the relationship of the trinity, but preeminence doesn't seem to suggest subordinance to me.

Nor does preeminence suggest co-equality, so unless you are willing to say that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is preeminent over God the Father, I would not use Col. 1 to refute my assertion that he is voluntarily subordinate to God the Father. In Col. 1 15-18, Paul is establishing Jesus' preeminence over creation. I don't believe he is speaking to Jesus' relative position with respect to his Father.

If it's as easy as all that, then what do you make of Jesus' response to Phillip?:

John 14:8-11
8 Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us." 9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.
NKJV

Elsewhere, He says:

John 10:30
I and My Father are one."
NKJV

Seems to me Jesus himself is blurring the lines a little, wouldn't you say? Otherwise, Philips' request wouldn't be that unreasonable I think.

I do not believe that Jesus is blurring the lines at all. In John Chapter 1, John says, "And the word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.... No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known."
That is precisely how Jesus could say, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" and "I and my Father are one." John explicitly says that no one has seen God, but that Jesus has made him known.

In John Chapter 10, read the whole context. If Jesus wanted to really "blur the lines" why did he not say in verse 36 I am God instead of "I am the Son of God"?

Finally, read John chapter 17. This chapter gives clarity to the meaning of Jesus' oneness with his Father. Praying for the Church, Jesus says,"that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." When Jesus was praying that we, the Church, would be one in the same way that he and his Father are one, and "that they also may be in us," What exactly was he asking for? If Jesus' oneness with his Father means that Jesus = God, then the Church's oneness with Jesus and his Father must mean that the Church = God. This is certainly not the case. Oneness does not mean equality; it means unity of spirit and purpose.

[Guest]

Actually, I don't think Erich has any interest in whether we start another thread or not. His original question on this one was answered long ago, and the discussion is moving into new subjects unrelated to his question.

For the benefit of those who might be interested in the subject of theories of atonement (I have no reason to believe that Erich has more interest in that subject than does anyone else), but who might not think to look for it under the heading "Deity of Jesus for salvation," in the "Christian evidences/challenges" category, I am recommending that we carry on any such discussion in a category where it might be discovered by interested parties.

I have not visited other message boards much, so perhaps they tend to ramble on in random directions, but this one was specifically created for the purpose of people asking and answering Bible questions. I don't have a preference concerning which subjects are raised or what opinions are expressed about them, but I think the topics should be discussed under their labeled headings.

What I am sayiong is that it would be best to limit posts at this thread to discussion of the stated topic—unless it has been thoroughly discussed and there is nothing new to add. In that case, it would be good to start a new thread to discuss a new subject.

You may not be aware, but I am the moderator of this forum.

For the record, I am still very much interested in the "Deity of Jesus"
topic, whether in this forum or another.

Thanks.

[Guest]

I would love a discussion on the atonement. That's a topic I haven't studied nearly enough.

But I would like to answer something pertaining to the soul sleep thing Paidion raised since that is not really part of the atonement discussion.

Paidion wrote:

"Eternal in the heavens" is actually a poor translation. The word is "aiōnios", which should be translated as "permanent" (literally "agey").
The Greek word for "eternal" is "aidios" which is used in the scripture with reference to "His eternal power and Deity." The resurrection body is a permanent body. It will not be subject to decay. When you are raised you will become immortal.

I guess I don't get your point here. This word is used almost every time the word "eternal" is used, is it not? Do you know of a better word for "eternal" or "everlasting" in the greek that the authors should have used instead?

When John wrote:
1 John 5:11-13
11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.
NKJV

I'm taking that to mean I'm living forever if I abide in Christ. The eternal life I am in is present and continuous if I'm understanding that correctly. Since I'm presently in Christ, I don't see any room for a nap break there IMO.

The 2 Cor 5:1 verse says this "eternal building" is in the "heavenlies" not the "earthlies" .

So when Paul a few verses later says:

2 Cor 5:8
8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.
NKJV

In my opinion, it is quite natural to take this to mean my spirit or soul that will immediately be with the Lord when I die.

Also, verse 5 says:

2 Cor 5:5-6
5 Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
NKJV

So then, are we to understand that the Spirit abandons us when we die, or should we say that it is He is there as a guarantee from God that we shall never be seperated from Him?

Am I wrong? If so, I must be missing something that isn't so obvious to me and the majority of evangelicals (not to say the majority is right).

[Guest]

Hi Peter,

Nor does preeminence suggest co-equality, so unless you are willing to say that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is preeminent over God the Father, I would not use Col. 1 to refute my assertion that he is voluntarily subordinate to God the Father. In Col. 1 15-18, Paul is establishing Jesus' preeminence over creation. I don't believe he is speaking to Jesus' relative position with respect to his Father.

Sorry, I guess I must have missed the word "voluntarily" in your previous post. I think it may be useless to try and establish a pecking order in the God-head because I doubt the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit jockey for position as we power hungry humans do. The Holy Spirit sends the Son into the desert to be tested (Mark 1), the Son is given all authority in heaven and earth (Matt 28 ), and the Son delivers the kingdom to the Father (1Cor 15). I see perfect harmony here, not an org chart.

If you're able to give the true answer to the myterious nature of the Godhead, I think you may be the first in history to do so. It's not entirely clear to me. But when Jesus says:

John 8:58-59
"Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."
NKJV

I don't see how anyone can miss the clear allusion to Exodus 3:

Ex 3:14
14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
NKJV

The Jews didn't miss it, they almost stoned him for it.

I won't say that yours and Paidion's view are not a possible way to the limited explanation that scripture gives us about the nature of Jesus, but what I am saying is that the Trinity view is at least equally as tenable IMO.

If Jesus' oneness with his Father means that Jesus = God, then the Church's oneness with Jesus and his Father must mean that the Church = God. This is certainly not the case.

I don't know. If the Church is the body of Christ, and it is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, then in some sense, maybe the church is = to God on earth.

Anyway, my brain is wracked for now. Talk more later Ok?

[Guest]

Okay. Discussion of the sacrifice of Christ indeed belongs to another thread. So I will not attempt to explain my statements on this thread.

In a day or two, I will begin a thread called "Supreme Sacrifice." All statements and questions about what Christ really did for us, when He died for our sake, and also statements and questions about the true gospel can be addressed there.

May God be glorified in that discussion, and may the enabling grace of the Altogether Lovely One be with all!