Jesus is God

[dwight92070]

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.

Dwight - No, I don't see that there is a distinction between the two. Yes, I'm aware of His statement: "for My Father is greater than I", John 14:28, which appears to contradict that. But we also cannot throw out Colossians 1:19 and 2:9, that all the fullness of the Godhead dwelled in Him bodily? We could just conclude, as you did, that Jesus isn't God, and then there wouldn't be any contradiction - EXCEPT for the scores of other scriptures that reveal to us that He IS God. Instead of ruling out ALL of those other scriptures, it would behoove us to come to a proper understanding of John 14:28. Here we come back to kenosis again - some have said, and I agree that the Father was only temporarily greater than the Son, because the Son "emptied" Himself and made Himself of no reputation, and humbled Himself by appearing as a man, and becoming obedient to the Father, to the point of death on a cross. Before that, He was in the form of God and He did not consider it robbery to be equal with God. If He WAS NOT God, then IT WOULD be robbery to consider Himself equal with God. But He took the form of a bondservant, and came in the likeness of men. Philippians 2:5-8

[darinhouston]

Dwight - No, I don't see that there is a distinction between the two.

It's just grammar - you truly don't see any distinction at all? If I fill a cup with ice, that's different than saying I have a cup made from ice (that just "is" ice).

[dwight92070]

Dwight - No, I don't see that there is a distinction between the two.

It's just grammar - you truly don't see any distinction at all? If I fill a cup with ice, that's different than saying I have a cup made from ice (that just "is" ice).

You can't accurately compare ice and a cup to the Godhead and Jesus. Ice and cups are inanimate. The Godhead is 3 persons. If a cup is filled with ice, that doesn't make the cup ice. But if Jesus is filled with all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, that DOES make Jesus God.

[dwight92070]

Try your ice and cup comparison with a different verse: Jesus said, "I am in the Father and the Father is in Me." Would you say "The ice is in the cup and the cup is in the ice."? You can't actually say that, going by the laws of science. Obviously the Godhead or the Trinity is not bound by the laws of science. You can't compare the two, at least not in that way.

[darinhouston]

Dwight - No, I don't see that there is a distinction between the two.

It's just grammar - you truly don't see any distinction at all? If I fill a cup with ice, that's different than saying I have a cup made from ice (that just "is" ice).

You can't accurately compare ice and a cup to the Godhead and Jesus. Ice and cups are inanimate. The Godhead is 3 persons. If a cup is filled with ice, that doesn't make the cup ice. But if Jesus is filled with all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, that DOES make Jesus God.

Well, that just is not reasonable to me. Not sure there's much left to say.

[darinhouston]

Try your ice and cup comparison with a different verse: Jesus said, "I am in the Father and the Father is in Me." Would you say "The ice is in the cup and the cup is in the ice."? You can't actually say that, going by the laws of science. Obviously the Godhead or the Trinity is not bound by the laws of science. You can't compare the two, at least not in that way.

Totally different grammatical construct, and has nothing to do with science. But, yes, being in the Father doesn't mean he IS the Father. And the Father being IN Jesus doesn't make him Jesus. It means something else just as your other verse does. Being "in" one another almost certainly means aligned with and in agreement with and so forth - not really talking about indwelling to my understanding.

[dwight92070]

Try your ice and cup comparison with a different verse: Jesus said, "I am in the Father and the Father is in Me." Would you say "The ice is in the cup and the cup is in the ice."? You can't actually say that, going by the laws of science. Obviously the Godhead or the Trinity is not bound by the laws of science. You can't compare the two, at least not in that way.

Totally different grammatical construct, and has nothing to do with science.

Dwight - I think your cup/ice illustration has everything to do with science and logic. I also agree that we must look at the grammar. But God is not bound by either the laws of science or the rules of grammar. When you start discussing the Trinity and/or the Godhead, it appears to me that both the rules of grammar and the laws of science are often "violated".

But, yes, being in the Father doesn't mean he IS the Father. And the Father being IN Jesus doesn't make him Jesus.

Dwight - I think it does in both cases. "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." Philip wanted to physically SEE the Father. Do you think Jesus was being coy with Philip, or was He being straightforward and truthful? Yes, He ONLY speaks the truth. Do you want to physically see the Father? You can by just looking at Me.

It means something else just as your other verse does. Being "in" one another almost certainly means aligned with and in agreement with and so forth - not really talking about indwelling to my understanding.

Dwight - I disagree. It means a lot more than that.

[Otherness]

Dwight>>>Try your ice and cup comparison with a different verse: Jesus said, "I am in the Father and the Father is in Me." Would you say "The ice is in the cup and the cup is in the ice."? You can't actually say that, going by the laws of science. Obviously the Godhead or the Trinity is not bound by the laws of science. You can't compare the two, at least not in that way.<<<

Darinhouston>>>Totally different grammatical construct, and has nothing to do with science. But, yes, being in the Father doesn't mean he IS the Father. And the Father being IN Jesus doesn't make him Jesus. It means something else just as your other verse does. Being "in" one another almost certainly means aligned with and in agreement with and so forth - not really talking about indwelling to my understanding<<<

Science is saying something much different these days concerning these concepts. That is, the old classical paradigms (built upon the natural human experience and its intuition dictating a materialistic understanding) of nature has been deconstructed by the revolutionary discoveries of the last century. There is a whole new way that SCIENCE is talking about “the natural world” that, when rightly understood, is actually turning the mind of man back to an “immaterial” (spiritual) view of REALITY. Fitting this into a governing context of a Biblical Worldview is well worth the labor because it strengthens the Judeo-Christian witness of what REALITY is.

For instance, by the “laws of (classical) science” you can't have a fire in a bush, and a bush in a fire without the bush being consumed and the fire going out. In a Biblical Worldview you have these phenomena coexisting because there is SOMETHING about REALITY that is magnitudes above and beyond our common reality.

Quantum Mechanics “reveals” that “the cup and the ice” are made of the very same identical “stuff.” It's just that the phenomenal identity of this “stuff” is being determined by a mysterious “force / action” that is not understood. But essentially “the ice is in the cup, and the cup is in the ice” because both derive their being from an identical “substance.”

The clearer we “perceive” what REALITY is (oneness / otherness), the “easier” it is to “understand” the dynamic of the Godhead : the Trinity (oneness / otherness).

Jesus and the Father are of the same (identical) substance and their respective (distinct) identities are determined by a “mysterious force / action” : the Sovereign Will of the Creator Who chooses to exist this WAY because this is Who He IS in being the Creator of that which He desires to create : the Body of Christ.

Were God not Father, not Son...the Body of Christ would not (could not) have being. The inevitable fruit of Creation, its predestined outcome...the Body of Christ...is truly a “spiritually organic ” consequence of Who (What) the Creator IS.

Love, from a fellow witness of the Triune Nature of our Creator.

[dwight92070]

Jesus is so pure, so loving, so kind, so merciful, so unselfish, so humble, so generous, so patient, so meek, so gracious, so peaceful, so good, so faithful, so unblemished, so Holy, that it is impossible that He could not be God. ONLY God could be all of those - but Jesus is even more besides all of those! He is our Lord, our Creator, our Savior, our Redeemer, our Righteousness, our Healer, our Provider, our Sacrifice, Ruler of heaven and earth, our Teacher, having all the fullness of the Godhead dwelling in Him bodily, having all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, our Judge, the Word, the Son of Man, the Son of God, God.
Given these vast character qualities and attributes, the only ONE HE COULD BE IS GOD!!!

[dwight92070]

John 17:2 - Notice that Jesus was given authority over all flesh EVEN BEFORE He was raised from the dead. - Matthew 28:18

John 17:8 - " ...they (the disciples) ... have known surely that I CAME FORTH FROM (or literally came out of) YOU. The Greek word is "exerchomai" (1831 in the Strong's Concordance), which means "to go or come out of". Jesus literally CAME OUT OF the Father. He says it again in John 8:42 - "I CAME OUT OF God." John 13:3 - He knew He had "come out of" God. John 16:27 - "I came out of the Father." John 16:28 - "I came out of the Father."

John 8:42 is fascinating: " ... for I proceeded forth (came out of - 1831) and came (to have come - 2240 in Strong's) from God." So He literally said: " ... for I came out of and have come from God."

Jesus IS PART AND PARCEL OF GOD. He came out of God.

The Greek word "exerchomai" is used multiple times in the New Testament, always meaning "to come out of" something. When the demons came out of people, the word is exerchomai. When Lazarus came out of the tomb - it is exerchomai. It's not the same word as or "come" which is "erchomai" (2064). So the "ex" in the front adds the meaning "out of".