The Great Debate: Is Jesus God?

[steve7150]

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?





There is one God yet somehow Jesus being separate in existence and having a will that is his own "not my will but your will be done" deserves and accepts worship.

He appears to be another God but that must be impossible (The Lord is ONE) therefore the only explanation that seems to meet the reality of scripture which says,
Jesus has his own will and he contrasted his will from his Father's will.
Jesus exists independently
Jesus accepts worship
Jesus controlled nature from the boat, which only God can do
Jesus prayed to the Father and told others to pray to the Father

It seems that whatever Jesus has was given to him by his Father and Jesus must be a divine extension of God and may simply be what John called him, "the Word of God."
When John says "the Word was God" perhaps he means the Word was "divine" or "diety" or given God Status by his Father, otherwise we have two gods.

[darinhouston]

Just to clarify that I'm not defending a position of my own, just exploring the presuppositions to test others' positions where I'm not firm in my own just now.

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?

I don't understand how this is an example of somone worshiping Jesus

Jesus controlled nature from the boat, which only God can do

Why do you presume that? I would think that only God or someone God gives that power and authority to could do that. But, only God controls life and death as well and we see the Apostles raising people from the dead and doing other miracles some might say are "reserved for God."

[Perry]

I actually have been thinking along binitarian lines (see http://www.cogwriter.com/binitarian.htm)...

Hah! And here I thought binitarian was a coinage of my own. That's why I was saying I didn't want to sound like I was being cute.

Forgive me if I table any kind of in-depth conversation on this right now. I've got other things going on.

I will say that the link seems to be to a site by a guy who, like me, comes from a heritage of Worldwide Church of God. (The name COGWriter is kind of a clue, and he gives credit to Herbert Armstrong in other places.) I haven't yet read that article you linked, but this binitarian idea is what WCOG taught (though I don't recall it ever being referred to as "binitarian"), and I admit that I'm greatly influenced, some might say corrupted, by this teaching. I'm no longer convinced it's 100% correct.

Right now I limit myself to the following:

1). Christ is God... and worthy of worship.
2). The One who became Christ has always existed.
3). The Father is God... and worthy of worship.
4). The Holy Spirit is divine.
5). There is one God.

That's as much as I got. There may be more. It may be that 4, could be worded "The Holy Spirit is God... and worthy of worship." I'm not denying that may be true. I'm admitting I'm not certain it's true.

[darinhouston]

Thanks, Perry -- I just myself don't see the need personally to have any Chrstological affirmations beyond the following (off the top of my head), though I'm not opposed to other statements which could be true.

(1) God has always existed
(2) God uniquely incarnated and indwelt the Christ, Jesus
(3) As Christ, Jesus has all authority and dominion of God over this world and beyond
(4) Having that unique authority and power, He deserves of our praise, worship, and obedience

I don't presently believe the Apostles understood anything further about Jesus, nor did they make positive affirmations more clear than this about Him. There are some ways in which John speaks of Him which give us hints beyond this, but the nature and subject matter of his writings is somewhat less (and more) than plain and clear dialectic.

[Perry]

Darin,
There's nothing in your four propositions with which I disagree. I'm comfortable affirming all of them.

I just myself don't see the need personally to have any Chrstological affirmations beyond [those four propositions]

My off-the-cuff answer is that, it was because of some questions that were being asked in the early church about the nature of Christ? Just how divine was/is He, and how does there being a Father and a Son jive with there being only one God. The church felt the need to wrap all that up in a neat framework. In this regard, I'd like to echo what anochria said in a recent post to me.

It's fine to try and understand and explain Scripture coherently, but I think we need to let the parts that don't sit super well with our current understanding remain untamed rather than force them to fit in a box.

[steve7150]

steve7150 wrote: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?



I don't understand how this is an example of somone worshiping Jesus

Jesus controlled nature from the boat, which only God can do



Why do you presume that? I would think that only God or someone God gives that power and authority to could do that. But, only God controls life and death as well and we see the Apostles raising people from the dead and doing other miracles some might say are "reserved for God."












Darin,
The first quote "Get behind me Satan" was actually from Homer. Re my presuming Jesus was divine because he controlled nature from the boat, i presumed it because i think the words simply say that it was Jesus who controlled the wind and in the OT it says only God controls nature. However i agree that any power or divinity Jesus may have was given to him by his Father but the difference between this and the Apostles occasional miracle creating power is that with Jesus it's a permanent power as he is the same yesterday,today and forever.

Jesus makes many statements that the OT or Rev attributes to Yahweh or simply sound like divinity such as,

I am the light of the world John 8.12
I am the way, the truth and the life John 14.6
I am the only way to the Father John 14.6
I am the resurrection and the life John 11.25
I am the Good Shepherd John 10.11
I am the door John 10.9
I am the living bread John 6.51
I am the true vine John 15.1
I am the Alpha and the Omega Rev 1.7 & 1.8

Also John says "the Word was God" which although confusing seems to indicate the Word was Divine although this power and authority originates from Yahweh, IMHO.

[jriccitelli]

I totally agree with 7150s post above, yeah.
I might also clarify that although I am defending a position of my own (at least on this subject) I accept people regardless of their theology, yet as this is a bible forum I feel it is necessary to layout the best reasons, explore the alternative ideas, and test everything.
I have experienced that challenging biblical research on the fundamental doctrines of the Faith result in a deeper and wider relationship with - and understanding - of God, and others. I suppose that is why we are all on this forum. It is also important if you are supposing to teach others. This is one subject I find rewarding to many believers, and that is this; the deeper discovery of the relationship within God, moves us more into relationships with other people, thus it is good for the Church. (I feel good coffee can also have a similar effect also)

I haven’t been able to listen to the whole debate, because you must watch rather than just listen in order to know who of the four is talking, and I cant listen here in the morning because everyone is sleeping. I was amazed at the non-trinitarians insistence that it is 'so unbelievable that God could possibly indwell a mans body' (doesn't God indwell every believer?) yet at the same time giving worship to a man, albeit an ambassador, prince or whatever. This guy says "well if God tells me to worship this guy (Gods son) than so be it", or to that effect (I can't remember how he says it, and I can't play with the volume here at 5am) Well;
1. God clearly 'has told us' not to worship anybody, or thing but Him.
2. And if God simply says this is my Son, why cannot this guy simply accept 'that' statement, since this is what God actually said.
This man is 'accepting' a 'statement of his own', that is; "if God tells me to worship this guy (Gods son) than so be it" (paraphrase) instead of accepting the statement God has given; "You shall not worship them or serve them"
It is one thing to worship Jesus because you believe Jesus is God (thus you believe God came in the flesh) but another thing to worship a 'man' because you 'think' he is Gods messenger.

[jriccitelli]

Of course I agree with the Trinitarians arguments, except for the one point about 'seeing God and living'. I have to side with the Non-trin point that you 'cannot see' God and live, the trin point was that Abraham and Moses saw the God man Jesus in the flesh, I would agree that it was Jesus in the body, or form, of a man (one like unto the son of man) but it was not the full glory of God who met Abraham, or wrestled with Jacob.
And when Moses talked with God face to face (Exodus 33:11) it was while God was in the cloud, not in His fullness, otherwise Moses wouldn’t have requested that he see his fullness as he requests in 33:18, God partially discloses His Glory but God does not fully disclose His Glory, obviously because like God said it would kill Moses, and everyone else;

"And it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by.23 Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen" (Exodus 33:23)

So, God still hides the fullness of His Glory (described here as His face) because it would kill humans, so I do not understand why the two Trinitarians would argue for 'being able' to see God and live (?) they must know God 'must' cover Himself, clothe Himself, or appear to us in another form, after all He is also 'invisible'.
(God can create Stars 100 times larger than our Sun, thus God is more powerful than a star 100 times bigger than our Sun, His reach is a trillion light years across, I do not imagine all this is something to comprehend or gaze upon)
So when God says this is my Son, I say ok, God is One, God says this is my Son so I believe Him.
At the same time you cannot get rid of the fact that God just made a point of addressing another personal pronoun, calls the personal pronoun Son (thus establishing the Sons essence and nature of Godhood) and that the other personal pronoun (who has a God nature) carry on a conversation with each other. So it 'must' be deduced that although there is only One God, a conversation is going on within the One God.

[jriccitelli]

God is not trying to make things difficult when He discloses something about Himself, He always does so for our edification. And as the Bible deals with complex subjects God always speaks in very simple forms of speech using anthropomorphic terms that we can understand, yet still the anthropomorphic earthly terms have a direct corollary to real things that are spiritual. Things that God describes in 'our' terms have a reality in the spiritual that is very similar to the earthly, they represent 'something'.
So, if God uses the term 'Son', then the reality is that, like any listener would deduce, is that 'God has a Son'. Not God is a Son of Himself. You can't comprehend eternity, but it is. I cannot even comprehend the size or depth of the Pacific Ocean, but I cannot 'deny' it because I cannot see the whole thing. The construct is simple - if God said He has a Son, and if Jesus talks of God as His Father as another being (and Jesus talks of the Spirit as another being also) - then it must be that 'it is so'. To deny it is to deny plain speech, and God uses plain speech, and God seems to expect us to be able to understand and believe 'plain speech'. It seems to take effort, under the guise of 'higher' thinking, to 'formulate' why God cannot be two (or three) persons within One God. Millions of very simple people, and millions of complex people have believed the Trinitarian concept without much problem for 2000 years, so it must be 'reasonable' enough to believe.

I do believe it is a loss to not take it 'as it reads', and understand the words of Jesus just as they read;
My judgment is true; for I am not alone in it, but I and the Father who sent Me.17 Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true.18 I am He who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me." (John 8:16)

Darin wrote; "I don't presently believe the Apostles understood anything further about Jesus, nor did they make positive affirmations more clear than this about Him. There are some ways in which John speaks of Him which give us hints beyond this, but the nature and subject matter of his writings is somewhat less (and more) than plain and clear dialectic"

It seems like the Apostles, and Paul understood that Jesus was the 'Son' of God, and that God was also the 'Father', using these terms define the clear meaning, to deny the meaning is to deny the terms. John wrote down just what Jesus 'said', John is not making up his own theory, Jesus said these things Himself, believe it or not.

The 'Christ' is not a thing to be indwelt, not anymore than the 'Savior' is a thing or position to be indwelt, the Savior is Jesus. And Jesus is The Messiah. I think it dangerous to start going down the God indwelt 'the Christ' road.

What appeared to the disciples in the boat as unique, was not that Jesus commanded God to calm the waves, but it seemed to them that Jesus commanded the waves Himself.

You do not need to force your understanding of the Pacific Ocean into a box in order to believe, it is, what it is.

[darinhouston]

Darin,
There's nothing in your four propositions with which I disagree. I'm comfortable affirming all of them.

I just myself don't see the need personally to have any Chrstological affirmations beyond [those four propositions]

My off-the-cuff answer is that, it was because of some questions that were being asked in the early church about the nature of Christ? Just how divine was/is He, and how does there being a Father and a Son jive with there being only one God. The church felt the need to wrap all that up in a neat framework. In this regard, I'd like to echo what anochria said in a recent post to me.

It's fine to try and understand and explain Scripture coherently, but I think we need to let the parts that don't sit super well with our current understanding remain untamed rather than force them to fit in a box.

OK, fine -- so why did the early church (and today's church) feel the need to define such a thing where Scripture says very little in a positive dialectic manner on the subject. I believe I'm the one trying to let it remain untamed. It is the Trinitarian formulations that seem to be forcing things in a box.

I have to say it's at least relevant that this doctrine could VERY easily have been taught very easily and that the Apostles and Jesus seem to be going out of their way to avoid it or beat around the bush or paint it in abstract passages. Precisely because the Scripture IS so very clear about monotheism and the like that I suggest a doctrine equating Jesus with God would need to be equally clear.