How is it true "Jesus is God"?

[sojourner]

Jesus would drive a Kia Soul.

 

[outhouse]

The OT says that God is one

yes and Judaism does not follow duality of father and sprit or ghost. In Judaism it is just one god.

and Jesus said that He was one with the Father.

Nope, the gospel authors wrote that. These authors were far removed from Jesus life, they never knew or ,met him.

The baptism I referenced earlier shows that they were three distinct Persons.

Yes the NT used the three concepts but makes no mention they are all one in the same.

This is standard trinitarian theology

Understood.

But how else do you get scripture to align?

The scripture aligns by your quotes and making it fit by interpretation.

None of the scripture teaches the trinity because that is "man made" for multiple reasons, one maintaining monotheism to one all powerful god.

 

[outhouse]

Jesus would drive a Kia Soul.

Come on, he was smarter then that, im running with Prius

 

[outhouse]

By books, do you mean books of the NT? This event is told in all 3 of the synoptic gospels (Matthew 3, Mark 1 and Luke 3).

If im not mistaken the holy ghost visits him at different times in different gospels, correct?

Adoptionism of Mark tends to get contradictory to other text depending on who you follow.

 

[sojourner]

Come on, he was smarter then that, im running with Prius

Or he'd drive a CROSSover.

 

[BadDog]

Jesus' power does not prove he is God. God gave him God's throne. Jesus is he who does God's will from Heaven.

SavageWind,

Just a few NT texts that make Jesus' deity clear:

John 1:1-4. I dealt in detail earlier with the Greek here. If you disagree, please support your arguments.

Colossians 1:15-19 and Hebrews 1:1-3 as well as John 1:1-6 show that Jesus created all that has ever come into being. Sure sounds like deity to me.

Titus 2:13 (in context here) refers to Christ as God: For the grace of God has appeared, with salvation for all people, instructing us to deny godlessness and worldly lusts and to live in a sensible, righteous, and godly way in the present age, while we wait for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Not all translations get this one right. The Granville Sharpe rule makes it clear that "our great God and Savior are one and the same --> Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 1:8 but about the Son:Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,and the scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of justice.
Here He is referred to by the Father as God.

I already discussed John 8:58 in context and John 10:29-33 as well.

There are other texts, but this is a good place to start.

There was no early church. In Pauls time they were meeting in houses. The Koine Greek word means "assembly"

And just so you know, there was no orthodoxy for hundreds of years. And these people all had diverse views on divinity itself. Heck the Emperor was divine. But people all had different views on just how divine he was and when he became divine.

Nicea wasn't an argument or debate about divinity itself, they all assumed he was divine including the Arians.

OutHouse,

Thx. I do know that the Greek there (EKKLYSIA) is best translated 'assembly." But it has become a custom in English, as I'm sure you know, to refer to the assemblies we meet in as "church."

There was not as much orthodoxy, since they were under intense persecution, as there would be later. But the deity of Christ was never an issue. The Arians did not assume that Jesus was divine, at least not in a way that is feasible. You cannot come into being and be God. The Arian concept of Jesus Christ was that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by God the Father and is therefore distinct from the Father.

The orthodox teachings of early Christianity were always held by the Church, but were not formally affirmed until the first two councils of the Church (in Nicea and Constantinople). This is not surprising since the Church did not have freedom to assemble until Constantine.

But if Jesus came into being at a point in time, then He cannot be outside time and space, of course, and hence cannot truly be God.

This was written later by people making the Jews look bad, so this new movement would not be persecuted or looked at like Jews to the Romans. They were divorcing cultural Judaism.

With almost half a million people in the temple at Passover, only his actions were noticed that got him killed, not his words or teachings. He was literally invisible in the large crowds.

That's fine, you have a good grasp on things. Im still picking up pieces and relearning what the professors taught me.

As to when the various manuscripts of the NT were written, while we do not have complete NT MSS (manuscripts) until the 4th century (325 and #50 AD) we have hundreds of portions of the NT starting around 100 AD. Also we have countless correspondence within the Body of Christ in which portions of the NT were quoted. So we do know that these scriptures were not written hundreds of years later. And in 2 Peter 3:15, 16 Peter refers to Paul's writings, shortly after they were written as scripture. Peter died before 70 AD... probably around 64 - 66 AD, so we know this was written very soon after Paul's writings.

Hey, I have to go. You have a great weekend! I am not one who enjoys intense debate and putting down one another. I strive to respect and appreciate whatever someone has to say... I need to be willing to learn from whomever God brings into my path. So we do not agree here, and I think we need to agree to disagree. If you would like some specific details on the Greek text or my thoughts on some other texts, let me know. I have spent a lot of time in the Word (OT and NT) over the years, and I base my understanding, as best I can, on the Bible as the ultimate authority, just FYI. I will find it very difficult to correspond during the weekend, so I'll check out this thread Monday.

Take care,

BD

 

[outhouse]

But the deity of Christ was never an issue.

Agreed.

 

[BadDog]

If im not mistaken the holy ghost visits him at different times in different gospels, correct?

Adoptionism of Mark tends to get contradictory to other text depending on who you follow.

Uh, the baptism by John the Baptizer occurs at the beginning of His ministry. It is described in all three of the synoptic gospels, as I said earlier. The time is the same, then, of this event.

Each of the gospels have a different agenda, purpose and order of the events they describe, depending upon the unique purpose of that gospel.

BD

 

[outhouse]

So we do know that these scriptures were not written hundreds of years later

I understand.

Paul in the 50's ish
Marks 70 ish
Matthew 80 ish
Luke 90ish
John 100-110 ish

Hey, I have to go. You have a great weekend! I am not one who enjoys intense debate and putting down one another.

I have respected and enjoyed the back and forth, its not personal, I have a passion and study this in depth.

I didn't think I was putting you down. If you think that im sorry, not intended that way.


Enjoy your weekend too brother.

 

[BadDog]

Agreed.

OutHouse,

Nice avitar, BTW. So then yuo agree that Jesus was always seen as deity, but believe that He was created by the Father, and created all else?

Take care,

BD

 

[savagewind]

Jesus symbolizes what God's purpose is. God exists for God's purpose, nothing else. If you believe God exists for something other than God's purpose what is it?

 

[savagewind]

OutHouse,

Nice avitar, BTW. So then yuo agree that Jesus was always seen as deity, but believe that He was created by the Father, and created all else?

Take care,

BD

A good laugh. Thanks!@BadDog

 

[BadDog]

I understand.

Paul in the 50's ish
Marks 70 ish
Matthew 80 ish
Luke 90ish
John 100-110 ish




I have respected and enjoyed the back and forth, its not personal, I have a passion and study this in depth.

I didn't think I was putting you down.


Enjoy your weekend too brother.

OutHouse,

You were not! I was just trying to make it clear that though we disagree on some points, I will be careful to respect your position and not get too intense. I enjoy discussions such as this as, according to Proverbs 9:10, "Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another."

Since John died before 100 AD, his gospel must have been written before that. The same goes for Luke, who died before 90 AD most think. Mark is generally considered to be the first gospel, written around 45 - 48 AD. Haven't recently checked out Luke's specifics.

BD

 

[outhouse]

So then yuo agree that Jesus was always seen as deity

Yes he was.

But how much of a deity and his relationship to the father was debated fiercely early on.

but believe that He was created by the Father, and created all else?

No brother, I have a passion for history, I don't believe the divine or deity aspect at all. I think Jesus was a remarkable man who suffered for the good of the people fighting the corruption in the temple.

 

[outhouse]

You were not!

Great

I was just trying to make it clear that though we disagree on some points

Which is perfectly acceptable. I don't want to change your faith and do not expect you to think or follow what I have to say.

Hats off to you for a great attitude.

Since John died before 100 AD, his gospel must have been written before that

Modern scholarships follow it was a Johannine community that wrote it in at least 3 parts. No scholar thinks John was involved in its completion.

Luke,

The author is unknown.

Mark

Also unknown, as is the author of Matthew

 

[BadDog]

yes and Judaism does not follow duality of father and sprit or ghost. In Judaism it is just one god.

BD: Understood, though I see some clear hints to it in the OT.​

Nope, the gospel authors wrote that. These authors were far removed from Jesus life, they never knew or ,met him.

BD: These authors knew Christ. Matthew (Levi) was one of His 12 disciples. Mark is thought to have followed closely, and since he spent much time with Mark, Mark's gospel is essentially seen as Peter's gospel. Luke may have been the young man who barely escaped when Jesus was captured by running away, leaving some of his clothes! John was "the disciple whom Jesus loved."​

Yes the NT used the three concepts but makes no mention they are all one in the same.

BD: ?? What three concepts?​

Understood.

The scripture aligns by your quotes and making it fit by interpretation.

None of the scripture teaches the trinity because that is "man made" for multiple reasons, one maintaining monotheism to one all powerful god.

2 Peter 1:20, 21 says that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of personal interpretation. IOW, there is only one valid interpretation:

2 Peter 1:20, 21 First of all, you should know this: no prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the will of man; instead, moved by the Holy Spirit, men spoke from God.
​

Take care,

BD

 

[BadDog]

Great

Which is perfectly acceptable. I don't want to change your faith and do not expect you to think or follow what I have to say.

Hats off to you for a great attitude.

Modern scholarships follow it was a Johannine community that wrote it in at least 3 parts. No scholar thinks John was involved in its completion.

The author is unknown.

Also unknown, as is the author of Matthew

OutHouse,

Actually, many scholars are convinced that John wrote all of his gospel and 1 John as well. Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies, early in the 2nd century, attributed John's gospel to John, and he was known by Polycarp, who was a close associate of the apostle - probably discipled by John.

 

[outhouse]

2 Peter 1:20, 21 says that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of personal interpretation.

Circular methodology.

Second Epistle of Peter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most biblical scholars have concluded Peter is not the author, and consider the epistle pseudepigraphical

Authorship of the Petrine epistles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Most scholars today conclude that Peter was not the author of the two epistles that are attributed to him and that they were written by two different authors

the authorship of which was debated in antiquity

The letter contains about thirty-five references to the Hebrew Bible, all of which, however, come from the Septuagint translation, an unlikely source for historical Peter the apostle

 

[outhouse]

many scholars are convinced that John wrote all of his gospel

You need credible sources.

Gospel of John - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gospel of John was written in Greek by an anonymous author.

Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,[20][21] the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,[22][23][24][25][26][27] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD

Within this view of a complex and multi-layered history, it is meaningless to speak of a single "author" of John, but the title perhaps belongs best to the evangelist who came at the end of this process


The majority do not follow apologetic based scholarships.

 

[outhouse]

What you may not be understanding is that the NT is a Greek Koine group of documents written by people in the Diaspora far removed from the events in Israel that took place.

Jesus and his inner circle were Aramaic Galileans who were probably all illiterate peasants, against Hellenism as the demands of Sepphoris and Tiberius were placed on these Aramaic peasants.

The NT authors were well educated Greek speaking residents with different amounts of Roman citizenship, which just about amounts to Jesus mortal enemies.