the deity of Jesus

[Shwagga]

Well you haven't answered my lasrt two questrions, be fair.

To him who sits on the throne and to the lamb
be praise and honour and glory and power
forever and ever
The four living creatures said 'Amen, and the elders fell down and worshipped. Rev5:13&14

Jesus was being worshipped alongside his Father here.

The Bible says the Father is the one true God. These are plain statements. I have given you the scriptures where Paul plainly says this along with Jesus also.

Are you saying we cannot pray to the Father?

I am saying if YOU believe the Son is ANY different than the Father in the sense of being God, than that would make the Son a different God, if there is ANY difference at all, so if you worship the Son believing He is a different God, you are praying to another God..

Do you see what I mean, and what questions did I not answer?

 

[livingbygrace]

I am saying if YOU believe the Son is ANY different than the Father in the sense of being God, than that would make the Son a different God, if there is ANY difference at all, so if you worship the Son believing He is a different God, you are praying to another God..

Do you see what I mean, and what questions did I not answer?

My position has always been simply that the Father is greater than the Son. This is not in any way trying ot diminish who Jesus is, but His Father I believe must have his rightful place.

Do I understand the complete working of the Trinity? No I don't and I don't know of anyone who claims to. But I do know that if it is not accepted that the Father is greater than the Son then much plainly written scripture must be ignored, that is indisputable.

You say that in relation to John17:3 Jesus was talking in his human role, but he also said that one greater than the temple was her, so he did not just speak in hisa human role, if I understand you correctly.

Jesus said the Father was the one true God. The Father said he was Jesus God, and Jesus once he had returned to Heaven refered to the Father as ;my God' Are we suppoosed to dismiss all of this? Or accept that the Father is greater than the Son as Jesus said.

Do I understand it all? No I don't. But I do accept the plainly written scripture

And I do not believe I have anywhere near the spiritual insight and knowledge the Apostle Paul had

 

[Shwagga]

My position has always been simply that the Father is greater than the Son. This is not in any way trying ot diminish who Jesus is, but His Father I believe must have his rightful place.

Do I understand the complete working of the Trinity? No I don't and I don't know of anyone who claims to. But I do know that if it is not accepted that the Father is greater than the Son then much plainly written scripture must be ignored, that is indisputable.

You say that in relation to John17:3 Jesus was talking in his human role, but he also said that one greater than the temple was her, so he did not just speak in hisa human role, if I understand you correctly.

Jesus said the Father was the one true God. The Father said he was Jesus God, and Jesus once he had returned to Heaven refered to the Father as ;my God' Are we suppoosed to dismiss all of this? Or accept that the Father is greater than the Son as Jesus said.

Do I understand it all? No I don't. But I do accept the plainly written scripture

And I do not believe I have anywhere near the spiritual insight and knowledge the Apostle Paul had

If the scriptures were so plain and your position is the orthodox belief, I don't see why so many people would have a problem with it. I don't see why you are still holding onto scriptures that have to do with the emptied Son.

There is only one God, not "my God, son God, Holy Spirit God", etc there is only one God, they all make up God, the echad God of the Hebrew scriptures, the one true God. The only problem I have with your position is that you are trying to take away the equality of the Son and the Father, I don't even know where the Holy Spirit fits in with that equation but you are using an interpretation of certain scriptures that is forcing you to believe in a weaker God or a lesser Son.

In John 17, the glory that was shared between the Father and the Son is spoken of.

 

[livingbygrace]

If the scriptures were so plain and your position is the orthodox belief, I don't see why so many people would have a problem with it. I don't see why you are still holding onto scriptures that have to do with the emptied Son.

There is only one God, not "my God, son God, Holy Spirit God", etc there is only one God, they all make up God, the echad God of the Hebrew scriptures, the one true God. The only problem I have with your position is that you are trying to take away the equality of the Son and the Father, I don't even know where the Holy Spirit fits in with that equation but you are using an interpretation of certain scriptures that is forcing you to believe in a weaker God or a lesser Son.

In John 17, the glory that was shared between the Father and the Son is spoken of.

It is gone midnight in England; this will have to be my final comment tonight. But I will reply in the morning to any more comments you may have

I was told on another Christian chat site that my opinions are the same as a Christian had in Rome in 200AD. I was told I should move on from there. I am glad I have not. It doesn't really concern me how many agree with me or not. What does concern me is following the most plain of Biblical statements on this subject, which I do.

If I am wrong, the Apostle Paul is wrong. He couldn't have been plainer in 1Cor15. Or 1Cor8:6

I believe it was on in roughly 400AD they came up with the idea you now believe. Why not before?

The first Christians were known as the way'. They lived their lives by a simple, childlike faith in Christ and a total reliance on the Holyv Spirit. By 400AD things had radically changed, as they have now.

Much of the core message of the Apostle Paul concerning salvation itself and victory over sin in the Christian life I have never heard preached in 25 years of going to church(sorry I digress). So I will stick with the plain words of the Bible and leave scholars, theologians and those who follow them to believe things that go against plainly wrtitten scripture

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Well maybe you can help me out here.

You say that now Christ is in submission to his Father in the economic Trinity. Thje Bible says there is coming a time in the future when Christ will become subject to the Father. How? According to you he already is in the economica Trinity. That would only leave one other role he could become subject to the Father wouldn't it? But you say this is impossibloe. How am I using flawed earthly logic? I am simply going by your own words

In addition to what I've already said, let me add the following. You think this is a problem for Trinitarianism with its ontological/economical distinction, right? Your reasoning seems to be that if Christ will be subject to the Father, how can he be subjected again in the future, right?

If I've got you right thus far then consider that whatever problem you think this creates for Trinitarianism it also creates for your own position.

Do you believe Jesus is NOT presently subjected to the Father? You do believe that Jesus is *both* economically and ontologically subject to the Father, right now, don't you?

So let me just turn your own dilemma back onto you: "The Bible says there is coming a time in the future when Christ will become subject to the Father. How? According to YOU he already is in both an ontological and economical sense."

 

[Shwagga]

It is gone midnight in England; this will have to be my final comment tonight. But I will reply in the morning to any more comments you may have

I was told on another Christian chat site that my opinions are the same as a Christian had in Rome in 200AD. I was told I should move on from there. I am glad I have not. It doesn't really concern me how many agree with me or not. What does concern me is following the most plain of Biblical statements on this subject, which I do.

If I am wrong, the Apostle Paul is wrong. He couldn't have been plainer in 1Cor15. Or 1Cor8:6

I believe it was on in roughly 400AD they came up with the idea you now believe. Why not before?

The first Christians were known as the way'. They lived their lives by a simple, childlike faith in Christ and a total reliance on the Holyv Spirit. By 400AD things had radically changed, as they have now.

Much of the core message of the Apostle Paul concerning salvation itself and victory over sin in the Christian life I have never heard preached in 25 years of going to church(sorry I digress). So I will stick with the plain words of the Bible and leave scholars, theologians and those who follow them to believe things that go against plainly wrtitten scripture

The apostle was not wrong, your interpretation of what is being said rather. I don't know what else to say really. You are in a position where you must believe in two separate Gods. (Like I said, I don;t know here the Holy Spirit falls in with your beliefs)


Let me give you this passage one more time to meditate on and pray on..

Philippians 2

5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,
11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Cross reference vs. 10 with..

Isaiah 45:23
I have sworn by Myself;
The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness,
And shall not return,
That to Me every knee shall bow,
Every tongue shall take an oath.

Who do you believe is speaking in Isaiah 45? Who is it applied to in Philippians chapter 2?

That's all I have to say for this discussion, I pray we will all come to a greater knowledge and revelation of who God is.

May the Lord bless you and keep you!

 

[livingbygrace]

In addition to what I've already said, let me add the following. You think this is a problem for Trinitarianism with its ontological/economical distinction, right? Your reasoning seems to be that if Christ will be subject to the Father, how can he be subjected again in the future, right?

If I've got you right thus far then consider that whatever problem you think this creates for Trinitarianism it also creates for your own position.

Do you believe Jesus is NOT presently subjected to the Father? You do believe that Jesus is *both* economically and ontologically subject to the Father, right now, don't you?

So let me just turn your own dilemma back onto you: "The Bible says there is coming a time in the future when Christ will become subject to the Father. How? According to YOU he already is in both an ontological and economical sense."

That is an easy one to answer. Paul explains this in 1Cor15:24-28

God the Father has put everything under Christ(but it is clear as Paul says this doies not include God Himself.) Christ has been given all authority in Heaven and on earth by his Father. When he has defeated all dominion, authority and Power then he will become subject to the Father as Paul says.
I have not said that Christ at this moment in time is subject to thew Father, he has been given free reign by his Father, but he will be subject to the Father at a later time.
Your argument cannot stand up if Paul is correct, no matter the lengthy reply you may give. At least a woman on another website who believes as you do did not try and reply.
For if Christr is as you say subject to thew Father in one of his roles now and is to be subject in the future to the Father then I honestly do not believe your argument can stand up

Let me ask you something. If someone is given authority must not the person who gave them the authority be greater than they are?

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Well in 1Cor8:6 Paul is clear, only God the Father is our God, he mentions Christ seperately. Paul is clear as well in 1Cor15:14-28

Now when it says that everything has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God Himself

And Jesus is clear in John17:3

Thomas called Jesus MY Lord and MY God (John 20:28).

Well you are baised and coming from an impossible viewpoint.

Again, using your own rhetoric against you: You only think that because you are trying to use human logic to see how there can be three equal persons in the Godhead.

After all, you asked me if I believed there was only one true God, suggesting there wasn't. This directly goes against Christ's own words

There is only one true God. This one true God has three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Paul is clear, only God the Father is our God, he mentions Christ seperately.

Thomas said Jesus was MY Lord and MY God (John 20:28).

Well once Jesus had returned to Heaven he was not in human form, was he, so that would not apply

Him who overcomes I will make as pillar ion the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God the new Jerusalem that will come down oput of Heaven from my God Rev3:12

According to Christian theology, Jesus eternally exists in the hypostatic union. So Jesus is eternally the God-man. So your statement that he is no longer in human form is false. And, therefore, your attempted proof from Revelation 3 fails to accomplish what you want it to.

It seems to me that your entire confusion is based upon your rejection of the economical/ontological distinction. The only reason you've given for rejecting that distinction is 1 Cor. 15. (You haven't even spelled out *how* 1 Cor. 15 disproves the distinction).

I've demonstrated several times now that whatever you think 1 Cor. 15 means, it cannot be used as an argument against the economic/ontological distinction. So you have no reason to reject it and, thus, your entire system falls apart because all your "proof texts" that the Father is greater than the Son can be swept aside.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

That is an easy one to answer. Paul explains this in 1Cor15:24-28

God the Father has put everything under Christ(but it is clear as Paul says this doies not include God Himself.) Christ has been given all authority in Heaven and on earth by his Father. When he has defeated all dominion, authority and Power then he will become subject to the Father as Paul says.

Do you agree that the authority he has is an economical property? Obviously ruling isn't an ontological thing. I can be a rule or not a ruler, this has nothing to do with my ontology. Only my economy. So do you admit that this "authority in Heaven" is economical?

I have not said that Christ at this moment in time is subject to thew Father, he has been given free reign by his Father, but he will be subject to the Father at a later time.

Do you think this means Christ is EQUAL to the Father in his *economy*? Or do you understand that Christ, while having this "free reign" is still in some sense subject to the Father?

Your argument cannot stand up if Paul is correct, no matter the lengthy reply you may give. At least a woman on another website who believes as you do did not try and reply.

Follow the rabbit trail and we shall see.

For if Christr is as you say subject to thew Father in one of his roles now and is to be subject in the future to the Father then I honestly do not believe your argument can stand up

How? Spell it out. Put it in a syllogism.

Let me ask you something. If someone is given authority must not the person who gave them the authority be greater than they are?

Economically greater, yes. My boss at work can give me authority to manage the place. That means he is greater than me economically. Does this mean he is ontologically higher than me? That would be an odd form of racism. We are both human. We both have the same ontology. We both are therefore both equal ontologically even though he gave me functional authority.

 

[livingbygrace]

The apostle was not wrong, your interpretation of what is being said rather. I don't know what else to say really. You are in a position where you must believe in two separate Gods. (Like I said, I don;t know here the Holy Spirit falls in with your beliefs)


Let me give you this passage one more time to meditate on and pray on..

Philippians 2

5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,
11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Cross reference vs. 10 with..

Isaiah 45:23
I have sworn by Myself;
The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness,
And shall not return,
That to Me every knee shall bow,
Every tongue shall take an oath.

Who do you believe is speaking in Isaiah 45? Who is it applied to in Philippians chapter 2?

That's all I have to say for this discussion, I pray we will all come to a greater knowledge and revelation of who God is.

May the Lord bless you and keep you!

My interpretation of 1Cor15:24-28 is wrong?

Then the end will come when he(Jesus)hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after hew has destroyed all dominion,authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet, the last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he has put everything under his feet. Now when it says that everything has been put under him it is clear that this does not include God Himself who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the son Himself will be made subject to Him who put everything under him so that God may be all in all 1Cor15:24-28

And Christ did not accept equality with God, he spoke of the opposite in fact, and yes, it was God who exalted him and gave him the name above other names.

And that every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ isd Lord to the Glory of God the Father

 

[livingbygrace]

Do you agree that the authority he has is an economical property? Obviously ruling isn't an ontological thing. I can be a rule or not a ruler, this has nothing to do with my ontology. Only my economy. So do you admit that this "authority in Heaven" is economical?




Do you think this means Christ is EQUAL to the Father in his *economy*? Or do you understand that Christ, while having this "free reign" is still in some sense subject to the Father?



Follow the rabbit trail and we shall see.



How? Spell it out. Put it in a syllogism.



Economically greater, yes. My boss at work can give me authority to manage the place. That means he is greater than me economically. Does this mean he is ontologically higher than me? That would be an odd form of racism. We are both human. We both have the same ontology. We both are therefore both equal ontologically even though he gave me functional authority.

I don't follow your economic and ontological line, I would have problems if I did, as you have now, but are unable to admit.

You like to try and reason everything out to fit your preconceived ideas. I simplyt accept the plain statements as written. I know man in his wisdom is quite prepared to contradict the plainest of statements in the Bible. But mans own natural wisdom is his downfall with God.

 

[Shwagga]

My interpretation of 1Cor15:24-28 is wrong?

Then the end will come when he(Jesus)hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after hew has destroyed all dominion,authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet, the last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he has put everything under his feet. Now when it says that everything has been put under him it is clear that this does not include God Himself who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the son Himself will be made subject to Him who put everything under him so that God may be all in all 1Cor15:24-28

And Christ did not accept equality with God, he spoke of the opposite in fact, and yes, it was God who exalted him and gave him the name above other names.

And that every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ isd Lord to the Glory of God the Father

Take the time to read Isaiah 45 and note when it says "Me, my" etc, first person personal pronouns, then this is all directly applied to Yeshua our Savior! How incredible, amen all the glory to God our wonderful Father!

 

[livingbygrace]

Take the time to read Isaiah 45 and note when it says "Me, my" etc, first person personal pronouns, then this is all directly applied to Yeshua our Savior! How incredible, amen all the glory to God our wonderful Father!

I delight greatly in the Lord
my soul rejoices in my God Isiaih61:10

That is Isiaih too. It seems to be getting repetetive doesn't it? Christ refering to God as 'My God'

And did Paul not understand tha OT including the book of Isiaih?

 

[Shwagga]

I delight greatly in the Lord
my soul rejoices in my God Isiaih61:10

That is Isiaih too. It seems to be getting repetetive doesn't it? Christ refering to God as 'My God'

What would you prefer Him to call the Father? Once again, your interpretation is forcing you to believe in at least two separate gods. Not one eternal God that the bible teaches.

In Hebrews 1 the Father refers to Yeshua as God as well... So I don't see the big issue with Yeshua calling the Father God.


Is the Father lesser than the Son because He calls Him God?

Hebrews 1:
8 But to the Son He says:
“ Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”

 

[Shwagga]

And did Paul not understand tha OT including the book of Isiaih?

The question is not "did Paul understand the OT including the book of Isaiah", it's "Does livingbygrace understand the OT including the book of Isaiah?"

 

[StraightPath]

26Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them.(AM) Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you." 27Then he said to Thomas, (AN) "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe." 28Thomas answered him,(AO) "My Lord and my God!" 29Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me?(AP) Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Why did Thomas said '' My Lord my God! '' ?
It is weak to say that this quote proves the deity of Jesus.

I have a different understanding of the meaning of this verse. For me, this quote proves that Thomas had doubt on Jesus being physically alive, even once he saw Jesus, he couldn't believe it, and that is why Jesus tell him ''Touch my hand'' and then he touch Jesus and he realize that it's not a mirage nor a dream, Jesus is REALLY in front of him physically and that is why surprised he say '' My Lord my God ''


Peace,

 

[livingbygrace]

What would you prefer Him to call the Father? Once again, your interpretation is forcing you to believe in at least two separate gods. Not one eternal God that the bible teaches.

In Hebrews 1 the Father refers to Yeshua as God as well... So I don't see the big issue with Yeshua calling the Father God.


Is the Father lesser than the Son because He calls Him God?

Hebrews 1:
8 But to the Son He says:
“ Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”

Is the Father lesser than the Son because he calls Him God?

Come on, later in your post God says he is Jesus God

And BTW Paul stated there are many Gods and many Lords in Heaven and on earth, but to us there is only one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ

 

[charisenexcelcis]

I think you should allow livingbygrace to go to bed and pick it up in the morning. i actually believe that your disagreement is a matter of degrees and semantics, so I hope you can continue the discussion with the same respect for one another that I know that you have...

 

[livingbygrace]

The question is not "did Paul understand the OT including the book of Isaiah", it's "Does livingbygrace understand the OT including the book of Isaiah?"

The answer is plain. Paul understood the OT far better than either of us. He was taken up to the third Heaven I believe and heard things he was not allowed to tell any man. Yet you will not accept what he wrote.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Why did Thomas said '' My Lord my God! '' ?
It is weak to say that this quote proves the deity of Jesus.

I have a different understanding of the meaning of this verse. For me, this quote proves that Thomas had doubt on Jesus being physically alive, even once he saw Jesus, he couldn't believe it, and that is why Jesus tell him ''Touch my hand'' and then he touch Jesus and he realize that it's not a mirage nor a dream, Jesus is REALLY in front of him physically and that is why surprised he say '' My Lord my God ''


Peace,

I already answered this objection in an earlier post. The idea that a 1st century Jew would have used God's name in such a cavalier manner is reading 21st century idioms into 1st century Judaism. Using God's name in such a way would have most likely been considered blasphemy by them.