Jesus is God

[dwight92070]

Hi Dwight,

...Jesus raised Himself from the dead, and you think that that's NOT indisputable evidence that He is God?..

Are you here referring to Jesus saying he had the power to lay his life down and power to take back up again?

Dwight - Yes, I tend to believe that Jesus means what He says. And there's no reason to believe otherwise.

Is this why you say he raised himself from the dead? If so, i think this is simply a misunderstanding of his statement. Every where i'm aware of in the new testament writings, it states either God or the spirit of God raised Jesus from the dead, explicitly. Not that he raised himself from the dead

Dwight - Well then, going by your reasoning, you are still left with a dilemma. Who raised Jesus? God or the Spirit of God? I see a simple answer. God raised Jesus, the Holy Spirit raised Jesus, and Jesus raised Himself. Since the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are One, there's no contradiction. If you're going by New Testament writings, you cannot leave out the last statement - that Jesus raised Himself. In fact, Jesus stated 3 times that He would raise Himself from the dead. Why did you not mention the 3rd time?

1. John 2:19 - "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up."
2. John 10:17 - "Therefore the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again."
3. John 10:18 - "No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father."

Dwight - Even His enemies heard what He said - they heard Him say that He Himself would raise "this temple", only they mistakenly, or falsely thought He was referring to the physical temple in Jerusalem.

1. Matthew 26:61 and Matthew 27:40 and
2. Mark 14:58 and Mark 15:29

If you're referring to John 2, even there I don't think you have a home run. Jesus indeed says to the pharisees "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again." But then John goes on in the couple sentences say, "When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered..." If John believed Jesus meant he[Jesus] would raise himself from the dead, why then did he not phrase the "rising" of Jesus as active? John uses the passive voice here in saying "he was risen from the dead", in flawlessl agrees with the rest of the new testament, wherein God raised Jesus from the dead.

Dwight - I thought you said that the Holy Spirit also raised Jesus. Now you've left Him out and simply said that God did it. You are not being consistent.

I think it's more likely Jesus was speaking prophetically by the spirit of God in saying he would raised it up again, or some other explanation. If John understood his words as you do, i think it most likely he would have said, "when therefore Jesus raised himself from the dead,
his disciples remembered..."

Dwight - On the other hand, if John understood Jesus' words as you do, I think he would have said, "when therefore Jesus was raised by God and the Holy Spirit ... "

[dwight92070]

Jesus was invited to a Pharisee's house for a meal. A sinful woman, most likely an immoral woman, who committed many sins and felt much guilt, had heard about Him, how gracious He was and how He had forgiven others for their sins. She heard that he had entered the Pharisee's house and she knew that she would not be welcome there. But at this point, she was desperate, and she didn't care what people thought. She just HAD to see Jesus! Then a thought came to her. She knew He would be reclining at a table (kind of like laying on His stomach or His side) with His feet behind Him. She immediately grabbed a vial of costly perfume and ran to the Pharisee's house, tears already starting to flow from her face. She boldly entered the house and somehow she knew which one Jesus was - maybe He turned to look at her, to encourage her faith - we don't know. She immediately went to Him and stood behind Him weeping profusely, with her tears dropping on His feet. Then she fell to her knees, began wiping His feet with her hair, and began to kiss His feet. Then she poured the perfume all over His feet.

In Luke 7:36-50, we read the whole story. Jesus made a point of telling Simon, the Pharisee, what he didn't do, and what the immoral woman did do. Jesus didn't shame her. He just noted that her sins were many, but that they all HAD BEEN forgiven, and that her great expression of love for Jesus made that clear. Then He told Simon and everyone there: "... but he who is forgiven little, loves little.", and then He turned to the woman and said to her, "Your sins have been forgiven."

Did you notice what Jesus didn't say? He didn't say that "If you express great, genuine love for GOD, then that shows that your sins are forgiven.

Rather, what He DID say was: If you express great, genuine love for ME, JESUS (which is exactly what the formerly immoral woman did), then that shows that your sins HAVE ALREADY BEEN FORGIVEN.
In fact, I MYSELF, JESUS, will declare that they HAVE BEEN forgiven."

The people reclining at the table with Jesus said, "Who is this who EVEN forgives sins?"

ONLY GOD FORGIVES SINS! But here we see Jesus forgiving sins. Why? Because HE IS GOD!

Wouldn't it have been better for Jesus to tell that immoral woman: "Direct your great love toward God, not me - I'm not God."?
Yes, that would have been what Jesus should have said - IF HE WASN'T GOD.
But He didn't say that, because He was God.

[darinhouston]

A simple online search reveals many Unitarian churches is this country - and that they reject the Trinity. The Revised English Version seems to be closely associated with a Revised English Version commentary, which is closely associated a Unitarian church. Exactly what that association is, I don't know. Up til now, I haven't seen a real plain explanation of all that. I will continue to research, but I did notice that you seemed to prefer the REV translation for some of your posts, and I believe you also quoted the REV commentary. At first glance it appears that the REV was written with an anti - Trinitarian bias, along with the REV commentary. Is that correct?

Most of those Unitarian churches don't believe in virtually anything biblical and the use of the term "unitarian" means something completely different from the more recent movement of what they call "biblical unitarian" churches. Those others mean unitarian in the sense of one religion unifying the world of all sort of faith beliefs without any grounding in the scriptures or the God of the Bible. The more recent movement is quite small and is trying to "reclaim" the use of the term to refer to a unity in a strictly monotheistic God of the Bible in contrast with the tri-unity of trinitarian churches. I think it's quite unfortunate and inconvenient because of this confusion. The particular group that is behind the REV translation is a ministry called Spirit and Truth. I don't know a lot about its structure, but I have followed some of their contributors and find them to be honestly seeking truth. The translation direction is described in its introduction - it recognizes inherent bias in all texts and their own as well - but it's more of an effort to correct what it sees as historic bias in a number of areas, but principally verses that have been clearly mistranslated or based on clear manuscript problems in the area of the trinity - but also things such as gender bias and other such things. All translation efforts have some purpose behind them and this is no different. Reformed groups have done the same thing and other efforts - but the difference here is the extent to which they explain themselves (much like the NET) in their commentary notes - while you have to be careful with any such effort, I find the information they provide to be very useful and is a good source of explanation for how non-trinitarians see these passages in a pretty concise way. Which is why I quote from it. Not because I think they're perfect or because I'm affiliated with them in some way. But, because we have millenia of trinitarian texts and very few sources like this - most ancient/historic texts have been destroyed and are known only by others' commentary. There are many academic treatments of these subjects even from trinitarians which support most of these positions, but they are not concise and are hard to share. And so forth.

[dwight92070]

Have you noticed that Jesus never "turned the steering wheel" over to His apostles? When Mary and Martha sent word to Jesus that Lazarus was sick, He didn't turn to Peter and say: "Okay, Peter, why don't you show us what you would do, given this news about Lazarus. I've modeled my ministry for you guys, giving you an example on how to go about it. Now it's time for you to act on what you've learned. I will just sort of hold back and watch you handle the situation."

How about the widow in the city of Nain, who just recently lost her only son. What if Jesus said, "Philip, you take the lead today, as we approach Nain and I and the other eleven apostles will follow your direction on this."

We know He did send them out two-by-two to minister to people's needs, but He never physically went with them. Every time Jesus was with them, He was in charge, He made the decisions. There was no on-the-job training, so to speak, while He was present. Everything was done His way, according to His direction. He never allowed any of them to lead, while He was there.

When they approached the naked demoniac who had been living in the tombs, gashing himself with stones, why didn't Jesus say, "Okay Bartholomew, what should we do here? I want you to take over now."?

In a normal job training situation, doesn't the trainer observe first-hand what the trainees are doing? Why didn't Jesus do that? Even after He sent them out and gave them power over demons and authority to heal, He never came to a blind or lame person or dead body - and turned to one of His apostles, and asked, "Why don't you handle this?"

Isn't it because He was ALWAYS in charge, even when He was not physically with them? They had to do everything IN HIS NAME, trusting in His power and authority. If they didn't put there faith in Him, nothing would have happened. There's only ONE who fits that description - God! But in this case, it was Jesus, so are there two Who fit that description? Yes and No. Jesus is God, and yet He is also His Son.

God always has to be in charge, because once His leadership is ignored, nothing of any consequence will occur.

[darinhouston]

Isn't it because He was ALWAYS in charge, even when He was not physically with them? They had to do everything IN HIS NAME, trusting in His power and authority. If they didn't put there faith in Him, nothing would have happened. There's only ONE who fits that description - God! But in this case, it was Jesus, so are there two Who fit that description? Yes and No. Jesus is God, and yet He is also His Son.

God always has to be in charge, because once His leadership is ignored, nothing of any consequence will occur.

What do you make of Jesus telling them that all authority had been "GIVEN" to him? It was his father's power and authority on which he gave honor and to whom all glory was to be given. We, likewise, have been given authority and it is as his delegates that we do it "in his name." But, it is still a derivative authority if you will ultimately of the Father. Just as the Father sent him, he sent us. Luke 9:1 says he gave the apostles powers and authority. That didn't make them God either.

But, it is the Father who is the source of all authority and power and to whom all glory is to be given. Even if Jesus gets glory, he reflects that back to the Father from whom he derives all power and authority.

[dwight92070]

Isn't it because He was ALWAYS in charge, even when He was not physically with them? They had to do everything IN HIS NAME, trusting in His power and authority. If they didn't put there faith in Him, nothing would have happened. There's only ONE who fits that description - God! But in this case, it was Jesus, so are there two Who fit that description? Yes and No. Jesus is God, and yet He is also His Son.

God always has to be in charge, because once His leadership is ignored, nothing of any consequence will occur.

What do you make of Jesus telling them that all authority had been "GIVEN" to him? It was his father's power and authority on which he gave honor and to whom all glory was to be given.

Dwight - Apparently, as the Word, and as God, He already had all authority in heaven and on earth, before He became the Son of God at His birth. The statement in Matthew 28:18-20, was made for the sake of His disciples, to give them courage and comfort as they went out to make disciples. Especially since Jesus was crucified, and now was risen, we are told that some of them had doubts. To say that since the Father gave Him this authority and therefore all glory should be rightfully given solely to the Father and not equally to Jesus is unbiblical. It PLEASED the Father that ALL THE FULLNESS OF THE GODHEAD DWELLED IN JESUS BODILY. This PLEASED the Father. Apparently it DOES NOT PLEASE YOU.

But, it is the Father who is the source of all authority and power and to whom all glory is to be given. Even if Jesus gets glory, he reflects that back to the Father from whom he derives all power and authority.

Dwight - In Revelation 5, the Lamb, who is Jesus, receives equal praise and worship as the One Who sits on the Throne. Yet we do NOT see the Lamb, who is Jesus, bowing down and worshiping the One Who sits on the Throne. So how is Jesus reflecting the glory that He receives, back to the Father here in Revelation 5?

[dizerner]

What do you make of Jesus telling them that all authority had been "GIVEN" to him?

Check out the Biblical descriptions that Jesus gave something up.

This is why it could be given to him.

[darinhouston]

This PLEASED the Father. Apparently it DOES NOT PLEASE YOU.

Are you not capable of a rational discussion without a personal attack? I have said no such thing.

[dwight92070]

This PLEASED the Father. Apparently it DOES NOT PLEASE YOU.

Are you not capable of a rational discussion without a personal attack? I have said no such thing.

I'm sorry if you took it that way. I did not mean that as a personal attack, just my opinion, given that you don't believe Jesus is God. The "ALL CAPS" does not mean I'm angry or yelling or anything like that. I just use them for emphasis. My point was that something that pleases the Father should please us too. But I didn't think that you would be glad that the Father is pleased that His Son is equal to Him.

[darinhouston]

This PLEASED the Father. Apparently it DOES NOT PLEASE YOU.

Are you not capable of a rational discussion without a personal attack? I have said no such thing.

I'm sorry if you took it that way. I did not mean that as a personal attack, just my opinion, given that you don't believe Jesus is God. The "ALL CAPS" does not mean I'm angry or yelling or anything like that. I just use them for emphasis. My point was that something that pleases the Father should please us too. But I didn't think that you would be glad that the Father is pleased that His Son is equal to Him.

Caps aside, you ascribed to me a motive or belief I never expressed - that of a displeasure in clear scripture. This is disparaging with or without tone. But, now you've twisted that further and added that my displeasure isn't just in the indwelling of deity but in equality - something not stated in the scripture at hand. This is either from sloppiness, ignorance or dishonesty. This is why it's so hard to engage with you on this issues.

Further question in this regard: do you see any distinction between saying Jesus "is" the fullness of God and saying Jesus "had" the fullness of God "dwell in him?" To my mind, that distinction leads to a natural conclusion that Jesus "isn't" God.