The Great Debate: Is Jesus God?

[jriccitelli]

I suppose no one will argue that Jesus spoke to the Father, and prayed to the Father, so Jesus is the one who gives us the impression that they are two distinct individuals. If they were 'not' two seperate persons, the whole conversation and praying thing becomes meaningless.
In another place; Jesus says 'Father restore me to the Glory I once had with you before the incarnation' (paraphrase) so Jesus left His outer glory with the Father and indwelt a human body.
I do not see how the incarnation makes Him not preexistent.
Jesus 'made' himself a body like the tent He indwelt in the wilderness. And like our bodies his body was also flesh and bone of this creation. I do not think of His body of flesh as God, because like us His Spirit just indwelt a body of flesh. His body was atomic like ours; nothing indicates Jesus needed a body prior to creation. (I have no idea what His post resurrection body was like, but I do know that His body is the Church and all of us indwell therein)

I suppose we all believe the following but I will throw this out there anyways, to be sure;
Jesus must be Jehovah because He fulfills and was all things Jehovah is;
He is the Living Water, the Husband of Israel, the Great Shepherd of Israel, The Savior, the Rock, the I Am, the Creator, the beginning and the end, etc. yet all the while scripture says there is only One God, one Savior, one Rock, one Creator and that he will not share his Glory with another.
So, if the only option is that Jesus is God, then Jesus and the Father together are the One God. Scripture is the one responsible for making the case, not 'trinitarians'.

Also, we were made in Gods image, nothing says we were made in the image of Angels, neither did the angels create man. So those speaking in Genesis 1 must be those in the Godhead.
I just read Paidion's post so I will say to that; that there is 'no other option' to Christ's divinity, being Trinitarian is not a denomination or club, it's just the new Testament math. Jesus is the one who speaks of Himself and the Father as distinct but equal, not our idea.
Whatever God 'is' this is what he has revealed to us, I do not personally find it difficult that they should function and be as one, and be One. As something so magnificent and above all, it only seems plausible and 'fitting' that He should be Greater than One person, but not greater than any of His parts.

As for hints in the Old Test. to the duality within the Godhead, there 'are' hints, but it was not 'necessary' to reveal this so early for any reason. We still hold that 'God is One' so nothing has changed about that, after all it says that no-one knew the Father 'until' the Son revealed Him.

[Paidion]

I suppose no one will argue that Jesus spoke to the Father, and prayed to the Father, so Jesus is the one who gives us the impression that they are two distinct individuals. If they were 'not' two seperate persons, the whole conversation and praying thing becomes meaningless.
In another place; Jesus says 'Father restore me to the Glory I once had with you before the incarnation' (paraphrase) so Jesus left His outer glory with the Father and indwelt a human body.

I agree with you there, JR, — except that the Son of God didn't "indwell a human body." Rather He BECAME a true human being.
But what you say about "the praying thing" is why I can't make sense of Modalism.

I do not see how the incarnation makes Him not preexistent.

No, that's not what Modalists are saying when they affirm that before the incarnation there was no Son of God.. They agree that He pre-existed. But they would say that He pre-existed as the only God. But after He was born, that same divine Individual,who is the only God, then existed also as the Son.

Jesus 'made' himself a body like the tent He indwelt in the wilderness. And like our bodies his body was also flesh and bone of this creation. I do not think of His body of flesh as God, because like us His Spirit just indwelt a body of flesh. His body was atomic like ours; nothing indicates Jesus needed a body prior to creation. (I have no idea what His post resurrection body was like, but I do know that His body is the Church and all of us indwell therein)

I don't think Jesus "made himself a body" like a tent. It wasn't simply the pre-existent Son dwelling in a human body. That's how some of the gnostics of the second century understood the incarnation. They reported that Jesus as a baby stood up and gave great orations! And, of course, if the baby Jesus were simply the pre-existent Son living in a baby's body, this would be credible. However, the Son of God didn't merely put on man; He BECAME man. As a baby, he wet his diapers (or their equivalent) just like any other baby. He cried when he was hungry just like any other baby (in spite of the Xmas carol to the contrary). He astonished the Jewish teachers in the temple at age 12, but He was still immature. He "grew in wisdom and stature..." So if He GREW in wisdom, then He had a greater level of wisdom as an adult than He had when He was a child.

Jesus was a true human being. He willingly divested Himself of all of His divine attributes ("emptied Himself" Phil 2:7). He retained nothing except His identity as the Son of God. He was not the God-Man, but a Man. The gospel writers record references to Him calling Himself "the son of man" 78 times, but they do not record Him calling Himself "the Son of God" even once! Others called Him "The Son of God" and He never denied it, and even affirmed it on a couple of occasions, but His emphasis was on the fact that He was a human being — a complete human being — not a hybrid of God and man. All of the miracles attributed to Christ were actually done by the Father through Jesus. Jesus entrusted Himself entirely to the Father so that the Father could fully work through Him. Jesus said that He could do nothing of Himself. The Father who dwelt within Him did the works.

I suppose we all believe the following but I will throw this out there anyways, to be sure;
Jesus must be Jehovah because He fulfills and was all things Jehovah is;
He is the Living Water, the Husband of Israel, the Great Shepherd of Israel, The Savior, the Rock, the I Am, the Creator, the beginning and the end, etc. yet all the while scripture says there is only One God, one Savior, one Rock, one Creator and that he will not share his Glory with another.

No, I don't believe that Jesus is Yahweh ("Jehovah" if you will). Rather Jesus and the Father share the same name "Yahweh."
Genesis 19:24 speaks of TWO Individuals called "Yahweh". When the three "men" came to visit Abraham regarding Sodom and Gomorrah, one remained behind and talked with Abraham, while the others went ahead to Sodom. Abraham addressed the one remaining as "Yahweh". After their conversation, Yahweh went on to Sodom also to destroy it. Then we read this amazing verse:

Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of heaven. (Gen. 19:24)

One Yahweh was in heaven — the other on earth. The One in heaven acted through the One on earth. The One on earth was the agent through whom the One in heaven rained sulfur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah. There's no doubt in my mind that the Yahweh in heaven was the Father, and that the Yahweh on earth was the Son.

So, if the only option is that Jesus is God, then Jesus and the Father together are the One God. Scripture is the one responsible for making the case, not 'trinitarians'.

No, Trinitarianism is not the only option. The early Christian option that God begat His Son, as a single act before all ages, and that the holy spirit is the blended spirit of the Father and of the Son, which I described in my previous post, fits the scriptural record better.

[steve7150]

When Jesus is described in relationship with God isn't he usually described as "of God" such as ,

Son of God
Word of God
Breath of God
Angel of the Lord
Arm of God



Something "of God" yet Father God always existed apparently apart from Jesus (at least at the creation of the universe) even though Jesus was "of God" therefore to me it sounds like Jesus is in some way may be an extension of God or a part of God existing apart, yet divine but not God Almighty.

[Paidion]

A Trinitarian might say that Jesus is distinct from the Father, but not separate. Actually, I agree with that thought myself! But my understanding of it may differ from that of Trinitarians.

[Perry]

Paidion,
I'm not trying to be cute here. Would you consider it correct to think of yourself as a BInatarian? (probably not the correct way to say that.)

[darinhouston]

Paidion,
I'm not trying to be cute here. Would you consider it correct to think of yourself as a BInatarian? (probably not the correct way to say that.)

I'll let Paidion answer for himself, but I don't think he would. I actually have been thinking along binitarian lines (see http://www.cogwriter.com/binitarian.htm), and in considering the lack of personhood in the Holy Spirit has led me to consider that it is, in fact, the Holy Spirit that could perhaps be most purely identified as "God" and that the notions of "Father" and "Son" might be relational constructs that only arose when the Spirit indwelled the incarnated Christ.

I think we may have built significant theologies around snippets of narrative that could well be literary devices (such as "Let US make man in OUR image"). That seems shaky and unnecessary to me.

[Homer]

Exodus 34:14
New King James Version (NKJV)

14. (for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),

Luke 4:8
New King James Version (NKJV)

8. And Jesus answered and said to him, “Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’

So how is it Christians have always worshipped Jesus with His appoval?

[jriccitelli]

Sorry I was not particularly addressing Modalism (Maybe Jews and Muslims) in my reference to Jesus being existent prior to the incarnation. I was addressing the 'general' argument against Jesus' eternal existence.

And I do agree that Jesus incarnation included being born into the spiritual being of man, possibly for the first and only time, grew into that being, received the Holy Spirit as we would, and was reunited with his own God nature after His resurrection. This means that he now possesses two natures. But still, the body as we discussed under the thread 'Gods creation of souls ' is made of organic materials of this world. (I think the preceding we can glean from scripture, but whether or not Jesus retained the essence of His preincarnate 'Jesus' personhood when He was born, or was the person simply of 'God' becomes difficult. My hypothesis is that John 17:5 is the only clue to how Jesus could preexist yet be born not knowing everything. Jesus certainly preexisted as Jesus so then He must have left His 'knowing' Himself when He left His Glory. He had God as His father so that should account for His being able to be sinless and if anything it should account for being at least a bit like his own father, as we are. He received the indwelling Spirit when he was with John in the Jordan and He received His own 'knowledge and fullness' back after His resurrection)

"Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was" (John 17:5)

Darin, I've noticed also that when the focus leans too far towards Jesus only the Father is a bit overlooked, and like you said Jesus came to lead us to the Father. I too have noticed problems develop from this (sometimes big problems). In your second post you tried to combine the persons of Christ and the Father but it seems to me in the end you still had two persons when you said; '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'

The 'agency' thing seems to be dispelled by quite a few verses concerning Christ's divinity (like Matt said), for instance; 'before Abraham was I Am', there is only one I Am.

Darin said; "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" I agree one can be saved without understanding the Godhead. Yet I will try and demonstrate that I feel a lot is lost, overlooked, and reinterpreted in order to construct Modalism and other ism's that would take away the personhood of the members within the Godhead. I also will show that scripture seems to 'require' that we believe in the Son that’s a given, and an excuse seems to be given (1John 2:23) for those who do not see the separateness (meaning also a relationship) between the father and the Son. But 1John 2:22 (and 5:10, and 2John 1:9) seems to warn us that not accepting the scriptures plain revelation of the Father 'and' the Son - becomes thin ice. I always look to 1Peter and 1John to get the concluding statements on all the preceding Bible books. John is not using allegories or parables in these epistles, John is not rambling here.

Darin said; 'A declarative statement doesn't need an audience' Yes but it should make sense to who it was addressed, and be understood by those who heard it. The subject was Jesus of whom the first person was talking of, two persons.

[jriccitelli]

(Darin I know you are not disagreeing, just thinking, so I am just giving the explanation and points that I usually try to go over with Mormons, Apostolics, and especially JW's)

If Jesus calls Him 'Father' then Jesus is His Son; two people, this seems pretty straight forward.
Although I think God uses the terms Father and Son to explain this relation to us, the relation could be more than this and even more complex, I think this is just the best example and illustration God could use to describe Himself(s). Never the less, God is using this illustration and example for a 'reason', the reason is that he is describing a 'relationship of some sort' within the larger Godhead, something we couldent know otherwise, and yet it is His suggestion of such by making this illustration. There is really not much difference between a father and son except for age, but they are never the same person. (Above in blue added in edit)

"What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?"… If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his son?" (Matt 22:42-45)
The same 'logical reasoning' applies to other scripture. When scripture has two personal pronouns talk to each other, there are two persons. If Jesus referred to Himself as 'both' the Father and the Son it makes no sense at all, but it does make sense if He is referring to 'Himself' as God, as 'God' is 'both' the Father and the Son.
What is the point of making such a glaring description and distinction about God if there was no distinction between or within God?
Why does God need to 'illustrate' Himself as something He is not, in order to reveal Himself?
The New Testament verses continue to use the terms Father and Son over and over, if there was not meant to be a distinction, then why does the Bible keep bringing it up?
Jesus is the one pointing out these distinctions not us. If this were 'not' true Jesus is just making things more difficult than necessary, and confusing. Jesus is not trying to confuse us, Jesus is enlightening us;

In 1John1:3 it says;
'…our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ' (Yet in the next verse it refers to Theos again as Him)
Then again to the distinction in 2:1;
'And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ'
We have a paraklētos inferring that this is 'one' who comes along side us when we stand before 'another' person; the Father (I know you that Paidion and others read Greek, and this is not an insinuation, I am just expounding for someone else's sake). In 1John 4:9 it makes a distinction made between the Father and Son again;
'God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him .10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins'
Note the Son is the propitiation, the Father does not become the propitiation for sins.
How can the sacrifice presented to the Father be the Father, that becomes odd, and unlike the example of Abraham offering his son, our prime example. In 1John 4:14, John says;

'that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world'

So the Father sends (apostellō) the Son, not the father becomes the son.
There is an overwhelming emphasis on Jesus being the Son of God, why the clarification if it could not just simply say Jesus is God, He came to earth, and yet is also in heaven?

'This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us' (1John 3:23)
'This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.24 As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father' (1John 2:22-24)

'for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son.10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life' (1John5:10-12)
Grace, mercy and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love…For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.8 Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward.9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house (2John 1:3, 7-10)

John does not seem to be influenced by Modalism or any thing less than two distinct persons, John shows no sign of uniting or dispelling with the notion of duality within the Godhead, even in these closing statements that contain also stern warnings against stray teachings.

This seems like a rather dangerous position to take (modalism) if scripture is making such a mandate of distinction between the Father and Son, why the trouble if Jesus is 'simply' the Father and nothing else? Scripture has brought up this distinction, not philosophy or other religions, it's demanded by the use of the two distinct pronouns that, in all practical and earthly examples, would indicate two distinct persons.

[jriccitelli]

There is a lot about the inter relation of beings that we do not understand. There are scriptural revelations about oneness in the Bible that we can 'only take for granted by faith' because we do not always see or understand their reality. We may not 'fully' see or understand their reality yet, but we do experience the reality of this phenomenon to different degrees now and then in our relation with our children, our family, with believers, and it is especially experienced between man and wife (certainly with variations).
So, God having a relationship within the Godhead, mirrors the relationships we were meant to have with others around us, and seems to be the model that we were 'made in the image of', that is;

Mankind as a unity, a multi-unity of all as one. This is the image that Jesus prayed for, and this seems to have been the intention and will of God for humans from the beginning; to be like Him, like the relation of the Father and the Son, like Steve says the Family of God. Only for mankind this was broken by sin.

I propose that God has always had a duality (or Triality) of persons within Himself, this is something that God willed to create in us, in His Image, and in the 'Body of Christ' the Church, at least in image and design. This certainly seems to be the scriptural emphasis of divine purpose and goal for man from the Garden all the way to the Gospels and to the culmination in Johns Epistles when the emphasis is on being one with one another, one with God, being in Him, having Him in us, (and the emphasis also on having both the Father and the Son, and the Spirit).
We cannot understand fully the ability to be in Him, and to simultaneously have Him in us but it is something we are 'beginning' to understand as we 'become' as one, as they are one (John 17:11-17) it is in Gods Word and it is Gods will.

To me, when scripture refers to Adonai, Kurios, Elohim, Theos, etc. it is speaking of the three collectively as One. When speaking of the Father Son and Spirit it is giving unique attention to one, yet all have the same will. So when I think of the Godhead I think of distinct individual persons within yet all having the same Will.

'But if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father' (John 10:38)
'Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works' (John 14:10)
This 'is' a great debate, not because the answer is large or elusive, but that the answer is also Gods goal and desire for us also, that is; to be one with God and with others.

My new browser does not seem to be allowing me to correct any mistakes on long posts so pardon any mistakes.