POLL: The Deity of Christ

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

The Deity of Christ?


  • Total voters
    61
  • Poll closed .
S

senzi

Guest
i agree, he didnt act rude, he backed his words with scripture but rather than question and test his viewpoint he was silenced.
The true test as to whether a person is a christian is if the holy spirit resides in them rom8:9. I am sure the holy spirit resides in you. Therefore, if you find affinity with anyone concerning the gospel message of grace, you can be sure the holy spirit resides in them also, for only the spirit can bring you to be of one heart and mind with another, and only he can lead you into spiritual truth

That is the true test, one that is sadly lost on many an academically minded person
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
I will not be responding to anymore of your posts. The notion I am contradicting rom 12:2 by my usage of 1cor3:19-22 is ridiculous.
Not when you use it to indicate intellect is of no use in spiritual learning.
 
F

flob

Guest
How do you assume God is one organic being?
I both assume and know, if that's possible, that He is not a polytheism or Arian 3
who are one only in agreement or purpose.

In regard to life, Jesus Christ said, I am the Life. The eternal life isn't plural, but is singular.
He came that we might have Life, and have Him abundantly. The Triune God is Life,
the 'really life,' 1 Tim 6:19; Jn 1:4; 5:20-21, 24, 26; 1 Cor 15:45; Rm 8:2.
The only way to know God is by His life, Jn 1:4, 12; Rev 22:17
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
I both assume and know, if that's possible, that He is not a polytheism or Arian 3
who are one only in agreement or purpose.

In regard to life, Jesus Christ said, I am the Life. The eternal life isn't plural, but is singular.
He came that we might have Life, and have Him abundantly. The Triune God is Life,
the 'really life,' 1 Tim 6:19; Jn 1:4; 5:20-21, 24, 26; 1 Cor 15:45; Rm 8:2.
The only way to know God is by His life, Jn 1:4, 12; Rev 22:17
Anything Organic in exclusive to the natural world, not the spiritual world. This is why it is called the spiritual realm. That which is flesh is flesh. That which is spirit is spirit - not organic.
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
Elin said:
The NT reveals that the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is likewise God,
both separate persons from God the Father (Mt 3:16-17, 28:19).
To the contrary of the word 'separate':
You, Father, are in Me and I in You,
Jn 17:21.
Speaking of language: Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct. But not separate.

He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, 8:29.
Come to know and continue to know that the Father is in Me and I am in the Father, 10:38.
Indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you...Christ is in you, Rm 8:9-10.
He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit, 1 Cor 6:17.
The characteristics of the divinity of the Son do not apply to the humanity of the Son.

When involving the humanity of the Son, the divinity of the Father operates the same as it does in us,
but it operates in the divinity of the Son as it does in the Trinity.
 
Last edited:
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
no that is a bible verse above.

yes The word of God says God gave Jesus the Spirit without measure,


never said he did not, verse says the spirit is Gods great power, and gave to Jesus.
Nope. . .does not say that.
 

SolidGround

Senior Member
Jan 15, 2014
904
17
18
Yep. . .it's not a matter of debate. . .it's a matter forever settled in heaven.
But it is good to go over such things. It was only this past two weeks that I have even questioned such doctrines.
I am not fully convinced of the side I am presenting, but I desire to regain full conviction.
Therefore, this topic must be proved to me, that I may stand approved, and have resolution about the issue.
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
The true test as to whether a person is a christian is if the holy spirit resides in them rom8:9. I am sure the holy spirit resides in you. Therefore, if you find affinity with anyone concerning the gospel message of grace, you can be sure the holy spirit resides in them also, for only the spirit can bring you to be of one heart and mind with another, and only he can lead you into spiritual truth

That is the true test, one that is sadly lost on many an academically minded person
Word of God got it wrong when transforming is by the renewing of your mind?
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
I am with you Mr Hermit,
Do please continue.
As I was saying, in the phrase "και θεος ην ο λογος", we see that λογος has an article (o) and θεος does not. Thus, o λογος is the subject, while θεος is the predicate.

When translated into English, because λογος is the subject, we have to put it first. English has syntactical rules that must be followed as well. So, this is properly translated "And the Word was God."
Now, pay attention because it is critical that this be understood. There are THREE things this could mean (depending on the construction):
a. The Word was a LESSER god than the Father who is the τον θεον (the God) in the previous clause.
b. The Word was the father.
c. The Word was fully God, but was NOT the Father.
If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην θεος, it would mean "the word was A god." That is, the word was a LESSER god than the father. The reason is since λογος is the subject, and is first, there is no grammatical reason to leave the article OFF of θεος, thus the absence of the article means something (since even if we gave it the article, it would STILL be the predicate). Therefore, the absence of the article would mean "A" god. In other words, since the inclusion of the article would not change the grammatical function of θεος, the exclusion of the article must therefore change the MEANING of θεος.
The absence of the article in a position where the inclusion of the article would NOT change the word's grammatical function would tell us there is a difference in specificity: the λογος is not the same individual as the Father.
Further, if it does not have an article, the position of θεος at the end of the sentence would tell us there is a difference in emphasis (θεος would be be “de-emphasized”): λογος is less of a god than the Father. Thus, "και ο λογος ην θεος" could ONLY mean "the Word was a god." BUT, John did NOT use this construction.

If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην ο θεος, it would mean "the word was THE God." That is, the word was exactly the same person as the Father. Meaning there is only ONE person, not two, and there would then be no trinity. The Father and the Son would then be nothing more than manifestations of the SAME GOD. They would not be separate individuals. There would simply be one God who "appears" at times in different forms. This would then lend support to the monotheist argument. The inclusion of the article with θεος would make it specific: the λογος was exactly the same individual as the Father (the exact same θεος just mentioned in the previous clause). Since both nouns have the article, θεος is grammatically LOCKED into occurring AFTER λογος. If it moved in front of λογος, it would change its grammatical function, and become the subject. Thus, in this construction, the position of θεος would not mean anything. It MUST appear there. Thus, the clause "και ο λογος ην ο θεος" can only mean "Jesus was THE God (the exact same individual as the Father)." BUT again, John did NOT use this construction either.

By writing it: και θεος ην ο λογος, John does TWO critical and deliberate things. First, he leaves the article OFF of θεος, thus indicating that word is NOT the same individual as the father. Second, he places θεος to the front of the clause thus placing extra emphasis on that word. By doing that, he makes it clear by the increase in emphasis, that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." Since the absence of the article does not mean "lesser god," it leaves us only one choice as to what it can mean: Not exactly the same individual as the "τον θεον" of the second clause, but every bit as much GOD as the "τον θεον" of the second clause. Thus, the absence of the article tells us that the θεος of the third clause is NOT the same individual as the τον θεον of the second clause. The position tells us that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." By placing θεος in a position of emphasis, John is doing the equivalent of bolding it, underlining it, and adding an exclamation point: The Word was God!

I know this is a lot to absorb but are you with me so far?
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
But it is good to go over such things. It was only this past two weeks that I have even questioned such doctrines.
I am not fully convinced of the side I am presenting, but I desire to regain full conviction.
Therefore, this topic must be proved to me, that I may stand approved, and have resolution about the issue.
Michael56 denied the deity of Christ. . .is that questionable to you?

". . .and the Word was God. . .The Word became flesh. . ." (Jn 1:1, 13).
 
F

flob

Guest
The characteristics of the divinity of the Son do not apply to the humanity of the Son.
To the contrary:
His humanity has been deified.
You are My Son, this day I have begotten You.




When involving the humanity of the Son, the divinity of the Father operates the same as it does in us,
To the contrary:
The Son's Humanity is now part of the Godhead, incorporated into the Triune God.
Glorify Me along with Yourself, Father, with the glory which I had with You before the world was
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SolidGround

Senior Member
Jan 15, 2014
904
17
18
Michael56 denied the deity of Christ. . .is that questionable to you?

". . .and the Word was God. . .The Word became flesh. . ." (Jn 1:1, 13).
We are debating who the Word is right now. You're too far ahead. Wait a moment.
 

SolidGround

Senior Member
Jan 15, 2014
904
17
18
As I was saying, in the phrase "και θεος ην ο λογος", we see that λογος has an article (o) and θεος does not. Thus, o λογος is the subject, while θεος is the predicate.

When translated into English, because λογος is the subject, we have to put it first. English has syntactical rules that must be followed as well. So, this is properly translated "And the Word was God."
Now, pay attention because it is critical that this be understood. There are THREE things this could mean (depending on the construction):
a. The Word was a LESSER god than the Father who is the τον θεον (the God) in the previous clause.
b. The Word was the father.
c. The Word was fully God, but was NOT the Father.
If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην θεος, it would mean "the word was A god." That is, the word was a LESSER god than the father. The reason is since λογος is the subject, and is first, there is no grammatical reason to leave the article OFF of θεος, thus the absence of the article means something (since even if we gave it the article, it would STILL be the predicate). Therefore, the absence of the article would mean "A" god. In other words, since the inclusion of the article would not change the grammatical function of θεος, the exclusion of the article must therefore change the MEANING of θεος.
The absence of the article in a position where the inclusion of the article would NOT change the word's grammatical function would tell us there is a difference in specificity: the λογος is not the same individual as the Father.
Further, if it does not have an article, the position of θεος at the end of the sentence would tell us there is a difference in emphasis (θεος would be be “de-emphasized”): λογος is less of a god than the Father. Thus, "και ο λογος ην θεος" could ONLY mean "the Word was a god." BUT, John did NOT use this construction.

If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην ο θεος, it would mean "the word was THE God." That is, the word was exactly the same person as the Father. Meaning there is only ONE person, not two, and there would then be no trinity. The Father and the Son would then be nothing more than manifestations of the SAME GOD. They would not be separate individuals. There would simply be one God who "appears" at times in different forms. This would then lend support to the monotheist argument. The inclusion of the article with θεος would make it specific: the λογος was exactly the same individual as the Father (the exact same θεος just mentioned in the previous clause). Since both nouns have the article, θεος is grammatically LOCKED into occurring AFTER λογος. If it moved in front of λογος, it would change its grammatical function, and become the subject. Thus, in this construction, the position of θεος would not mean anything. It MUST appear there. Thus, the clause "και ο λογος ην ο θεος" can only mean "Jesus was THE God (the exact same individual as the Father)." BUT again, John did NOT use this construction either.

By writing it: και θεος ην ο λογος, John does TWO critical and deliberate things. First, he leaves the article OFF of θεος, thus indicating that word is NOT the same individual as the father. Second, he places θεος to the front of the clause thus placing extra emphasis on that word. By doing that, he makes it clear by the increase in emphasis, that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." Since the absence of the article does not mean "lesser god," it leaves us only one choice as to what it can mean: Not exactly the same individual as the "τον θεον" of the second clause, but every bit as much GOD as the "τον θεον" of the second clause. Thus, the absence of the article tells us that the θεος of the third clause is NOT the same individual as the τον θεον of the second clause. The position tells us that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." By placing θεος in a position of emphasis, John is doing the equivalent of bolding it, underlining it, and adding an exclamation point: The Word was God!

I know this is a lot to absorb but are you with me so far?
Yes, do continue. In agreement thus far.
(Currently fact checking and analysing, but will likely be done by your next post)
 
May 3, 2013
8,719
75
0
I am with you Mr Hermit,
Do please continue.
I´m alone, friend. (If I´m not an offender, saying it that way)

The approval I need is from God and, whatever I lack (or lacked) in knowing Him, it´s up to Him, who does always the best and, His own Son, knows the robes well (Joh 6:44 No one can come to me, unless the Father who sent me makes them want to come. But if they do come, I will raise them to life on the last day. )
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
As I was saying, in the phrase "και θεος ην ο λογος", we see that λογος has an article (o) and θεος does not. Thus, o λογος is the subject, while θεος is the predicate.

When translated into English, because λογος is the subject, we have to put it first. English has syntactical rules that must be followed as well. So, this is properly translated "And the Word was God."
Now, pay attention because it is critical that this be understood. There are THREE things this could mean (depending on the construction):
a. The Word was a LESSER god than the Father who is the τον θεον (the God) in the previous clause.
b. The Word was the father.
c. The Word was fully God, but was NOT the Father.
If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην θεος, it would mean "the word was A god." That is, the word was a LESSER god than the father. The reason is since λογος is the subject, and is first, there is no grammatical reason to leave the article OFF of θεος, thus the absence of the article means something (since even if we gave it the article, it would STILL be the predicate). Therefore, the absence of the article would mean "A" god. In other words, since the inclusion of the article would not change the grammatical function of θεος, the exclusion of the article must therefore change the MEANING of θεος.
The absence of the article in a position where the inclusion of the article would NOT change the word's grammatical function would tell us there is a difference in specificity: the λογος is not the same individual as the Father.
Further, if it does not have an article, the position of θεος at the end of the sentence would tell us there is a difference in emphasis (θεος would be be “de-emphasized”): λογος is less of a god than the Father. Thus, "και ο λογος ην θεος" could ONLY mean "the Word was a god." BUT, John did NOT use this construction.

If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην ο θεος, it would mean "the word was THE God." That is, the word was exactly the same person as the Father. Meaning there is only ONE person, not two, and there would then be no trinity. The Father and the Son would then be nothing more than manifestations of the SAME GOD. They would not be separate individuals. There would simply be one God who "appears" at times in different forms. This would then lend support to the monotheist argument. The inclusion of the article with θεος would make it specific: the λογος was exactly the same individual as the Father (the exact same θεος just mentioned in the previous clause). Since both nouns have the article, θεος is grammatically LOCKED into occurring AFTER λογος. If it moved in front of λογος, it would change its grammatical function, and become the subject. Thus, in this construction, the position of θεος would not mean anything. It MUST appear there. Thus, the clause "και ο λογος ην ο θεος" can only mean "Jesus was THE God (the exact same individual as the Father)." BUT again, John did NOT use this construction either.

By writing it: και θεος ην ο λογος, John does TWO critical and deliberate things. First, he leaves the article OFF of θεος, thus indicating that word is NOT the same individual as the father. Second, he places θεος to the front of the clause thus placing extra emphasis on that word. By doing that, he makes it clear by the increase in emphasis, that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." Since the absence of the article does not mean "lesser god," it leaves us only one choice as to what it can mean: Not exactly the same individual as the "τον θεον" of the second clause, but every bit as much GOD as the "τον θεον" of the second clause. Thus, the absence of the article tells us that the θεος of the third clause is NOT the same individual as the τον θεον of the second clause. The position tells us that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." By placing θεος in a position of emphasis, John is doing the equivalent of bolding it, underlining it, and adding an exclamation point: The Word was God!

I know this is a lot to absorb but are you with me so far?
Ain't Greek grand!

Sure helps to know the conclusion and where it's going before you get to it.
 

SolidGround

Senior Member
Jan 15, 2014
904
17
18
I´m alone, friend. (If I´m not an offender, saying it that way)

The approval I need is from God and, whatever I lack (or lacked) in knowing Him, it´s up to Him, who does always the best and, His own Son, knows the robes well (Joh 6:44 No one can come to me, unless the Father who sent me makes them want to come. But if they do come, I will raise them to life on the last day. )
Yes, but an elder must stand approved before the Assembly.
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
To the contrary:
His humanity has been deified.
Nope. . .then it wouldn't be humanity, it would be deity.

You are My Son, this day I have begotten You.
Fully God and fully man, neither diminished nor altered.

To the contrary:
The Son's Humanity is now part of the Godhead, incorporated into the Triune God.
Glorify Me along with Yourself, Father, with the glory which I had with You before the world was
Yes, and it is still humanity, while his divinity is divine.

We will likewise be incorporated the same, for we will share his inheritance.
 
Last edited:
F

flob

Guest
Anything Organic in exclusive to the natural world, not the spiritual world.
To the contrary, dear sir, I'm using the word 'organic' here in the sense of life. The eternal life is Christ,
and Christ is the eternal life. The life far transcending the natural realm. The life of God, the uncreated life.




This is why it is called the spiritual realm. That which is flesh is flesh. That which is spirit is spirit - not organic.
Like I said, I use the word 'organic' purely in meaning 'life.' Not flesh or physical. Although now, Jesus' mortal body was saturated with His divine life. That is His transfigurative resurrection. In which He also became a life-giving Spirit. (The Greek New Testament word is 'zoe.') To give Himself to us as the eternal life. First to our spirit, then to our soul, and ultimately transfiguring our bodies