How is it true "Jesus is God"?

[Shiranui117]

Oh...I understand the Council of Nicea. I understand it as a gathering similar to the one described in Acts 15:4-22, which condemned the beliefs of Arius and wrote the first version of the now famous creed proclaiming that the Son was "one in being with the Father" by use of the Greek word "homoousius."

Yes, that's a good summary. But a more accurate translation of "homoousios" is "one in ESSENCE" or "consubstantial," or "of the same nature," not "one in being".

How about the First Council of Constantinople, or the Patristic understanding of the Trinity?

I take no offense and honor your belief; however, isn't your Eastern Orthodox Church also called the Orthodox Catholic Church?

Yes, it is. We're more commonly known as the Eastern Orthodox, though, for conventional purposes. Primarily so we don't get confused for the Roman Catholics.

I have issues with that Council at Nicea...not you....

What issues do you have with it?

 

[Katzpur]

Shiranui117 - “Jesus is not a "separate individual" from God the Father, but a "distinct Person." To say that He is a "separate individual" is tantamount to denying that the Trinity is One”.

Actually, as far as I'm concerned, this is all just splitting hairs.

I disagree...the doctrine of the Trinity is arrived at by looking at the whole of scripture, not in a single verse. It is the doctrine that there is only one God, not three, and that the one God exists in three persons: Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

But isn't each person "God" in His own right?

An analogy would be time. Time is past, present, and future. But, there are not three times, only one.

Granted, no analogy of anything is perfect, but this one really doesn't cut it for me. The past is not the same time as the present, and the present is not the same time as the future, and the future is not the same time as the past. Furthermore, they do not and cannot exist simultaneously, as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost do.

 

[Katzpur]

Yes, it is. We're more commonly known as the Eastern Orthodox, though, for conventional purposes. Primarily so we don't get confused for the Roman Catholics.

Just a quick off-topic question (which I hope can be answered in one brief sentence so we can get back on topic).

People who believe in Roman Catholicism are Catholics.
People who believe in Lutheranism are Lutherans.
People who believe in Mormonism are Mormons.

What are people who believe in Eastern Orthodoxy called? Whenever I post something in which I list Catholics, Lutherans, Mormons, (and members of the Eastern Orthodox Church), I'm stumped as to what I should call you.

 

[Shiranui117]

Just a quick off-topic question (which I hope can be answered in one brief sentence so we can get back on topic).

People who believe in Roman Catholicism are Catholics.
People who believe in Lutheranism are Lutherans.
People who believe in Mormonism are Mormons.

What are people who believe in Eastern Orthodoxy called? Whenever I post something in which I list Catholics, Lutherans, Mormons, (and members of the Eastern Orthodox Church), I'm stumped as to what I should call you.

You can say "Orthodox" (this works for both singular and plural) or Eastern Orthodox if you want to be specific and distinguish between us and the Oriental Orthodox. If you want to call someone Orthodox, there are two ways of doing it: "He/she is (Eastern) Orthodox" or "He/she is an (Eastern) Orthodox Christian."

 

[Katzpur]

You can say "Orthodox" (this works for both singular and plural) or Eastern Orthodox if you want to be specific and distinguish between us and the Oriental Orthodox. If you want to call someone Orthodox, there are two ways of doing it: "He/she is (Eastern) Orthodox" or "He/she is an (Eastern) Orthodox Christian."

Thank you!

 

[Shermana]

It's not true. The only way to make it work is to stamp the official "Too hard for the human mind to understand" position that the Orthodox, Catholic, and Most Protestant Churches officially take.

The Arian view however has absolutely no contradictions or illogical positions and is easily understood (and doesn't involve rampantly twisting the scriptural grammar).

 

[Shermana]

Actually, as far as I'm concerned, this is all just splitting hairs.

Exactly, Katzpur. It's just wordplay and Semantic scrambling that is an attempt to get away from what it logically leads to. As if "person" means something other than "distinct individual" just because they say so? Who gets to define what "person" means?

 

[savagewind]

From my perspective, Jesus Christ is God, but He is definitely not the same individual as His Father, who is also God. Are they they same God or two different Gods? Well, that all depends on what you understand the word "God" to mean. And does believing that they are two Gods constitute polytheism?

I see "God" as a title reserved for the three individuals who make up "the Godhead," as the word is used in the scriptures. Granted, there are a great many dictionaries to choose from, so my statement may not be 100% accurate, but I would say that most of the commonly used dictionaries will give the word "God" as a synonym for "Godhead." This would mean that, at least in certain situations, the words could be used interchangeably. When we use the word Godhead, we are using a word that is known to be a "collective noun" -- a noun that describes an entity composed of more than one individual. Other collectives nouns include "team," "corps," "congregation," and "family." When we use one of these words in a sentence, we use it with a singular verb. In other words, we say, "The family is coming to dinner," and "The team is playing very well." We know, however, by virtue of the fact that these words are collective nouns, that each one is made of several (or at least two) individuals. When we use the word "Godhead," we know the same thing to be true. We are speaking of an entity comprised of three members who are together referred to in the singular form. Since "God" and "Godhead" are synonyms, we can substitute the word "God" for "Godhead" and be referring to three individual beings at once.

So, Jesus Christ is not both the Son and the Father. People will tell you that one individual can be both a father and a son, and that's true. No father, however, can be his own son and no son can be his own father. This is the same whether we're talking about you and your father or Jesus Christ and His Father. They are two distinct individuals who, along with the Holy Ghost, are "one God" (or "one Godhead"). They are each fully divine, so they are each entitled to be called by the same title: God. But because they are absolutely and perfectly united in virtually every other aspect (will, purpose, mind, heart, power, glory, etc.), they are said to be "one." You don't have to believe that they are "one in substance" to accept the fact that Jesus Christ is God. The Bible never says they're "one in substance." It just says they're "one" and I just explained how that's possible.

This is the only sensible explanation I have ever read about it. Thank you.

Simply put I believe being led by Jesus The Son is the same as being led by God The Father.

 

[Shermana]

For the record, there is no such thing as "The Godhead" in the scriptures, the concept of it being an entity or a noun beyond its use as a qualitative noun of "Godhood" is a later development. The word "Godhead" originally and SHOULD only ever mean "godhood", (just like how Maidenhead means maidenhood) it only later came to develop into the idea of some penultimate combination of the 3 persons of the Trinity. Theototes is a purely descriptive noun, not a nominative. Godhead is something you can possess, not a construct of entities. If English dictionaries correlate "God" to "Godhead", it's because of the way the Church changed the definition. The Greek and the ORIGINAL English meant nothing more than the quality of being Divine. Not a Divine being or a makeup of Divine Beings. But the STATE of being a divine being.

Sites like the following perpetuate this lie and are an example of why the definition is used as such so commonly, though erroneously:

http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp218.htm

The Wikipedia article however gets it right to the point in two sentences:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhead_in_Christianity

I can imagine that the Mainstream churches wouldn't like this original understanding to be well known for whatever reason.

The statement that "Godhead" is a "Collective noun" is simply untrue. At least in its Original sense and the way the Greek uses it. If it does mean that in modern speak, it's an example of how definitions changed to suit mainstream Church Theology. It CAN be used but much as in the same way I could say that Shermana means the coolest guy in the world. It's hard to be such a Shermana. There are quite a few words that are used incorrectly but have become mainstream use.

Jesus has "godhood" which means that he is "a god". Angels are called "gods". Or "Divine beings". The word "Angel" itself is a later development in which the Greek turned "Elohim" into "Angel". Jesus is indeed "a god". But not THE god.

 

[savagewind]

For the record, there is no such thing as "The Godhead" in the scriptures, the concept of it being an entity or a noun beyond its use as a qualitative noun of "Godhood" is a later development. The word "Godhead" originally and SHOULD only ever mean "godhood", (just like how Maidenhead means maidenhood) it only later came to develop into the idea of some penultimate combination of the 3 persons of the Trinity. Theototes is a purely descriptive noun, not a nominative. Godhead is something you can possess, not a construct of entities. If English dictionaries correlate "God" to "Godhead", it's because of the way the Church changed the definition. The Greek and the ORIGINAL English meant nothing more than the quality of being Divine. Not a Divine being or a makeup of Divine Beings. But the STATE of being a divine being.

Sites like the following perpetuate this lie and are an example of why the definition is used as such so commonly, though erroneously:

What is the Godhead?

The Wikipedia article however gets it right to the point in two sentences:

Godhead in Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can imagine that the Mainstream churches wouldn't like this original understanding to be well known for whatever reason.

The statement that "Godhead" is a "Collective noun" is simply untrue. At least in its Original sense and the way the Greek uses it. If it does mean that in modern speak, it's an example of how definitions changed to suit mainstream Church Theology. It CAN be used but much as in the same way I could say that Shermana means the coolest guy in the world. It's hard to be such a Shermana. There are quite a few words that are used incorrectly but have become mainstream use.

Jesus has "godhood" which means that he is "a god". Angels are called "gods". Or "Divine beings". The word "Angel" itself is a later development in which the Greek turned "Elohim" into "Angel". Jesus is indeed "a god". But not THE god.

Thank you. It is even better. I personally would never say "godhead". It would seem like I was talking about Someone. You know what I mean? I understand Katzpur saying they are one team. I believe that.

 

[savagewind]

I appreciate all the great responses. The question I have still goes unanswered. It was touched upon. Who is The Jesus Who is God? Is it the man who was born and died that is god or what? Usually in my culture whenever anyone hears the name Jesus we think of the Bible stories about the man. Surely a man is not Almighty God. So now I would say "was he?". But that doesn't make sense to me because I believe God is always IS.

 

[savagewind]

If Jesus was God then God was Jesus. If it is possible to think of god past tense, then god changes. I believe the scripture that says God does not change. Please explain how believing The God is a trinity leaves room for the real possibility the scripture is true that says The Lord God does not change.

I am now graciously allowing for scriptural evidence.

 

[savagewind]

Malachi does not say change. Nevermind.

 

[savagewind]

Just one question then please. Some say Jesus is God. OK. Is God Jesus?

 

[Katzpur]

This is the only sensible explanation I have ever read about it. Thank you.

You're welcome. It's really not rocket science. It's logical and it's biblical.

Simply put I believe being led by Jesus The Son is the same as being led by God The Father.

You got it!

 

[Green Kepi]

If Jesus was God then God was Jesus. If it is possible to think of god past tense, then god changes. I believe the scripture that says God does not change. Please explain how believing The God is a trinity leaves room for the real possibility the scripture is true that says The Lord God does not change.

I am now graciously allowing for scriptural evidence.

Jesus was not 'God the Father'. He never prayed to Himself. He always did the 'will of God the Father'... John 15:26 - “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.

 

[outhouse]

OK Why is it in scriptural debates. It's a good question. I think it is because without The Holy Bible noone in their right mind would believe a man is Almighty God.

Who in their right mind would believe in a almighty god?


Its my view man making Jesus a deity is exactly the same as man making any other deity like the god concept.

my answer is they are both man made, what is your point?

 

[savagewind]

Who in their right mind would believe in a almighty god?


Its my view man making Jesus a deity is exactly the same as man making any other deity like the god concept.

my answer is they are both man made, what is your point?

Everything and everyone flows in one continuity. I believe it is powered by "Almighty God". The continuity I realize is intelligent. Is the continuity powered by Jesus or by Jesus' Father? I believe Jesus was a man on Earth. The question of the thread is, was Almighty God, who is the power of the continuity, on Earth for awhile?

 

[outhouse]

was Almighty God, who is the power of the continuity, on Earth for awhile?

No.

Would you like to learn how the god concept was created from a compilation of Canaanite deities according to scholars?

Now in reality and unbiased opinion, your question is not really answerable. What evidence do we have Jesus was god, and what evidence is there for a god?


You may want to know "son of god" was a common term given to mortal men and they were considered divine. BUT you would never claim they were divine.


So who do you want to place faith in, is what it all comes down to.

 

[savagewind]

No.

Would you like to learn how the god concept was created from a compilation of Canaanite deities according to scholars?

Now in reality and unbiased opinion, your question is not really answerable. What evidence do we have Jesus was god, and what evidence is there for a god?


You may want to know "son of god" was a common term given to mortal men and they were considered divine. BUT you would never claim they were divine.


So who do you want to place faith in, is what it all comes down to.

I'm asking those people who believe Jesus is God. I think I will never believe YHVH and Yehsua are the same person. There are people who have said to believe YHVH and Yehsua are the same person means truth and according to my understanding truth means saved. I will never be saved (according to that premise). I don't know if I care about that.

You missed a step imo. You say the Canaanites were the ones who developed the whole notion. But they might be right. How do you know they are wrong?