is jesus god ?

[Dirty Penguin]

Interesting the MODS haven't moved this to the (Religious Debate Sections).

If we start with God and we say ......God is everything and God is nothing then YES......we are part of God. If the general concensus is "God but has to say BE and it is" then whatever it is must be from God. If the general concensus is "Nothing would exist if God didn't create it" and when there was nothing there was God then God caused all that there is then it is all God.....

Ofcourse this reasoning assumes you believe there is a god who is the ALL (one true god). If you're and Athiest or some one of a different religion then this may not apply.

Let's assume that it is true then the line "Ye are gods" or "Is it not writen in your law I said you are gods".......then we must be part of God......That's what I think it means.

Now the question that has been raised is "Is Jesus (god)".......Well YES......

Is Yeshua GOD (the almighty sole controller and sustainer)?.....NO

He did not implicity or explicity say he was. He did not teach his followers he was. They did not take him to be God. He knew that he wasn't. He left suttle and direct words in the four gospels to show he wasn't.

Was he divine?....Well, YES, that goes wthout questioning.

Does one have to be deity in order to be divine?....Well, NO......

 

[Popeyesays]

Ah but thats part of my definition of God, that God = existence. So by saying only God existed you are agreeing with me, as only God exists PERIOD. There cannot be anything that exists separate from God, ever. This is why salvation cannot be conferred onto another person, it has to be done by you yourself, simply recognizing that God is everywhere and everything. Once that happens, you then realize you are part of God, as well as every other person you meet today, and maybe as the awareness grows you begin to treat people as being inherently sacred, not just because they act a certain way or talk a certain way, or follow the mosaic law,etc.
The purpose of a preisthood can never be to confer salvation on anyone, because other people are no more or less sacred than anyone else. The only purpose of a priesthood can be to remind us of the inherent sacredness of All, because we are finite beings and fallible, and we need to be reminded from time to time.

Personal salvation is not an issue to me, all humanity is "saved", in that there is no damnation in the first place.

Regards,
Scott

 

[obscurus]

Obviously this is only addressed to those who believe that the Bible is a sacred text but how would you interpret this particular passage?

But you disowned the Holy and Just One, and asked that a murderer should be granted to you; but the author of life you killed, whom God has raised up from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. - Acts 3:15

St. Paul refers to Jesus as the author of life but only God can be the author of life therefore Jesus is God.

Also this next passage:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature. For in him were created all things in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether Thrones, or Dominations, or Principalities, or Powers. All things have been created through and unto him, and he is before all creatures, and in him all things hold together. - 1 Col. 1:15-17

Accordingly the greek for firstborn is "prototokos" which can be defined as pre-existence. This can only be attributed to God therefore Jesus is God.

Also you still didn't address why the Jews took up stones and why they ultimately sent Him to the Cross.

They did so because He claimed equality with God. Also I find it rather convenient that you would dismiss the Church Fathers. Yet you would claim that your interpretation is correct yet theirs wasn't?

I find the idea of God becoming Man entirely fitting. Although not absolutely necessary, as Jesus would later say to St. Philip "He who sees me sees the Father" it gave humanity the idea that God is not entirely aloof from human affairs because He came down to our level in a manner of speaking.

Here is St. Thomas Aquinas' reasoning for the fittingness of the Incarnation:

It would seem most fitting that by visible things the invisible things of Godknown; for to this end was the whole world made, as is clear from the word of the Apostle (Romans 1:20): "For the invisible things of God . . . are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." But, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 1), by the mystery of Incarnation are made known at once the goodness, the wisdom, the justice, and the power or might of God--"His goodness, for He did not despise the weakness of His own handiwork; His justice, since, on man's defeat, He caused the tyrant to be overcome by none other than man, and yet He did not snatch men forcibly from death; His wisdom, for He found a suitable discharge for a most heavy debt; His power, or infinite might, for there is nothing greater than for God to become incarnate . . ." - Summa, III Q.1, Art. 1

The idea of Christ's Divinity (i.e. He is of the same ESSENCE with the Father) touches on so many other points of doctrine that the Christian religion simply falls apart if you deny it.

 

[Lucian]

These are my thoughts on the subject:

St. Paul refers to Jesus as the author of life but only God can be the author of life therefore Jesus is God.

Jesus brought eternal life through his death and resurrection, as can be seen from what you quoted. Therefore it would be odd in my opinion if he couldn't be said to be the author of life.

Accordingly the greek for firstborn is "prototokos" which can be defined as pre-existence. This can only be attributed to God therefore Jesus is God.

God is not born, he is eternal. Jesus being born (especially as first of all creatures) means that he is inferior to God and that he has a beginning, which God does not have. There are quite a few beings besides God that have been before Jesus' ministry on earth, so pre-existence doesn't mean only God. God is the only one who is unbegotten though, having no beginning.

They did so because He claimed equality with God. Also I find it rather convenient that you would dismiss the Church Fathers. Yet you would claim that your interpretation is correct yet theirs wasn't?

Do you think the Jews were right? The Jews did not understand Jesus. No, Jesus didn't claim to be equal, as can be shown from the scriptures*. Because I don't recognize the exact same Church Fathers as you do (Athanasius, Augustine...), mine believed in subordination (Justin Martyr, Wulfila, Mercurinus...).

I find the idea of God becoming Man entirely fitting.

I find God's omnipresence and his Son coming to earth to be entirely fitting.

The idea of Christ's Divinity (i.e. He is of the same ESSENCE with the Father) touches on so many other points of doctrine that the Christian religion simply falls apart if you deny it.

Christ being divine isn't in question. It is whether Jesus is the only true God, his own, and our, Father**. Denying that doesn't make the Christian religion fall apart.


*After the Jews make their claims:
John 10:34. Jesus answered them: "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, Ye are Gods'?"
35. "If he called them Gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
36. do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?"
Psalm 82:6. I said: "You are Gods, And all of you are Sons of the Most High."
1. Cor. 11:3. "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ."
John 14:28 "... my Father is greater than I am."
**Eusebius Pamphilus thinks thus: [And it is also written in the same letter:] But he teaches that that one [the Father] is alone true when he says, “that they may know you, the only true God” [John 17:3], not as if one only is God, but that one is the (only) true God, with the very necessary addition of true. For also he himself is Son of God, but not true, as God is. For there is but one true God, the one before whom nothing existed. But if the Son himself is true, it is simply as an image of the true God, and he is God, for [Scripture says] “and the Word was God” [John 1:1], but not as the only true God.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Obviously this is only addressed to those who believe that the Bible is a sacred text but how would you interpret this particular passage?

Quote:
But you disowned the Holy and Just One, and asked that a murderer should be granted to you; but the author of life you killed, whom God has raised up from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. - Acts 3:15
St. Paul refers to Jesus as the author of life but only God can be the author of life therefore Jesus is God.

First I must state the obvious. Paul/Saul never met or heard the man speak. All we have is his word that he spoke to Yeshua and Yeshua chose him. Now that we have gotten that out of the way let's address this quote....;

The greek word for "author" being used is (archegos). Well, that word has a couple of meanings and (author) is just one of them. You have to be careful and do the research to see how or why scholars such as the Septuagint rendered certain words the way they did. Here the definition as well as other words that would most likely be the one to use;

Strong's Greeek Lexicon
747. archegos ar-khay-gos' from 746 and 71; a chief leader:--author, captain, prince.

Becareful of the agenda of translators. Some translate with a particular bias. Additionally you need to observe the second half of that verse;

"the author of life you killed, whom God has raised up from the dead"

It says, basically, They killed Yeshua and it was God who raised (him) from the dead. It says nothing about (You killed Yeshua and he raised himself from the dead). Some one died and some one else raised the one who died up from the dead.

Quote:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature. For in him were created all things in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether Thrones, or Dominations, or Principalities, or Powers. All things have been created through and unto him, and he is before all creatures, and in him all things hold together. - 1 Col. 1:15-17
Accordingly the greek for firstborn is "prototokos" which can be defined as pre-existence. This can only be attributed to God therefore Jesus is God.

Again, this is Paul's opinion on how he saw Yeshua. Being in the image of something does not make you that thing. "God created man in his own image. In God's image he created him; male and female he created them."

Now does this mean we too are GOD???? If a criteria for being God in the flesh is to be created in his image then man is (God). But I'm quite sure you don't agree with that......

Yeshua was not God but he was the best "representation" of God on earth. His authority and power came from his god who sent him.

Heb 1:2,3 "but in these last days he (GOD) has spoken to us by his (GOD's) Son (Yeshua), whom he (GOD) appointed heir of all things, and through whom he (GOD) made the universe. The Son (Yeshua) is the radiance of (God's) glory and the exact (representaion) of his (GOD's) being, sustaining all things by his (GOD's) powerful word."

Paul says pretty much what I have been saying all along here. Observe the wording in this verse. This straight from the RKJV Bible. It says "he has spoken to us by his son......" Now observe the following;

Haggai 1:3
Then came the word of God by Haggai the prophet, saying,

This goes back to what John (The Baptist) said;

John 3:34
For he whom God has sent speaks the words of God: for Gd gives not the Spirit by measure to him.


Should we consider Haggsi God in the flesh to?

Also you still didn't address why the Jews took up stones and why they ultimately sent Him to the Cross.

They wanted to kill him because they misunderstood what he was trying to tell them. They seriously doubted he was the promised Messiah to come let alone given power and authority by God to do what he did. As far as the cross, that was nothing new as history repeats itself. Look at most of histories activist who came telling people something they didn't want to hear. What ultimately happened to them?.....Exactly......They were Killed...!

They did so because He claimed equality with God.

He never claimed to be equal to God. If you have to claim to be equal to something then you are claiming that there is something in existence to which you can compare yourself to. The reference you are speaking of is John 10:30. He was trying to tell them he and his god were one in purpose. This is reflected in his prayer to his god later in the same book of John 17:11, 22 and 23. This oneness is of purpose as he prayed to his god that we would be one in purpose with them.

Also I find it rather convenient that you would dismiss the Church Fathers. Yet you would claim that your interpretation is correct yet theirs wasn't?

There's nothing written where it says I have to agree with them because they are in charge of the christian church. They have rendered their opinion on the matter and I flat out don't agree with them.

I find the idea of God becoming Man entirely fitting.

And I find it to be nonsense so where does that leave us? Our planet alone, not man, is but a microscopic spec when compared to the vastness of the universe. If God is above ALL THAT then changing the hearts and minds of his creation can be done without becoming part of his creation and being subject to its creation. The fact his we know he did not become part of his creation. He always sends forth representatives to speak for him. This is why Yeshua says over and over and over that it was his god that "sent him".

John
4:34 Yeshua saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.


John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know you, the only true god, and Yeshua the Messiah, whom you have sent.

Although not absolutely necessary, as Jesus would later say to St. Philip "He who sees me sees the Father" it gave humanity the idea that God is not entirely aloof from human affairs because He came down to our level in a manner of speaking.

All it shows is that he is here representing the one that sent him. He is God's (mouthpiece - He speaks for God).

The idea of Christ's Divinity

No one is questioning divinity. You can be divine and not be deity. I'm simply saying he was not deity.

(i.e. He is of the same ESSENCE with the Father)

All of God's creation is of his essence. Does this make Yeshua solely the one true God in the flesh? Nope. Not if you accept his prayer to his god saying his god was the one true god and he was the messiah and it was his god that sent him. In order to be sent there must be a sender. If you accept Genesis then Yeshua was not the only one created in God's image.

 

[Te Deum]

I don't think that anyone will reach a conclusion to this argument based solely on Scripture. Each side has Scripture that they believe answers and supports their viewpoint. However, which side can account for the opposing side's support? This debate occurring here already occurred centuries ago between Athanasius and Arius. And I believe that Athansius has the better position.

Here are some valuable websites that I think both sides should consider:

CHURCH FATHERS: The Deposition of Arius (Athanasius)
THE EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE PRIMERS

 

[obscurus]

I don't think that anyone will reach a conclusion to this argument based solely on Scripture. Each side has Scripture that they believe answers and supports their viewpoint. However, which side can account for the opposing side's support? This debate occurring here already occurred centuries ago between Athanasius and Arius. And I believe that Athansius has the better position.

Here are some valuable websites that I think both sides should consider:

CHURCH FATHERS: The Deposition of Arius (Athanasius)
THE EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE PRIMERS

Yes that is correct. For example, some groups (e.g. Evangelical Christians etc..) who believe in the Divine inspiration of the Bible claim that Christ never instituted the Holy Eucharist and they will point to the Bible itself to support their arguments. While other groups (e.g. Catholics, Greek Orthodox and others) say otherwise using the Bible as well.

History and Tradition should not be trumped by an individual's reading of the Bible. The multitude of opinions regarding the Bible are proof that the Bible is not sufficient to tell us what to believe.

P.S. I do thank DreGod07 and others for keeping a level-headed discussion.

I might start a new thread with an long excerpt from what I believe to be an excellent book on Jesus Christ.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I don't think that anyone will reach a conclusion to this argument based solely on Scripture. Each side has Scripture that they believe answers and supports their viewpoint. However, which side can account for the opposing side's support? This debate occurring here already occurred centuries ago between Athanasius and Arius. And I believe that Athansius has the better position.

I think I'll stick to what Yeshua said above all these men......

You are God, I am the Messiah. You sent me

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yes that is correct. For example, some groups (e.g. Evangelical Christians etc..) who believe in the Divine inspiration of the Bible claim that Christ never instituted the Holy Eucharist and they will point to the Bible itself to support their arguments. While other groups (e.g. Catholics, Greek Orthodox and others) say otherwise using the Bible as well.

History and Tradition should not be trumped by an individual's reading of the Bible. The multitude of opinions regarding the Bible are proof that the Bible is not sufficient to tell us what to believe.

P.S. I do thank DreGod07 and others for keeping a level-headed discussion.

I might start a new thread with an long excerpt from what I believe to be an excellent book on Jesus Christ.

No problem here. I'm not anti tradition.....It's just a fact that there were traditions in place before the church solidified on doctrine. I can't ignore those traditions as well.

 

[Popeyesays]

I don't think that anyone will reach a conclusion to this argument based solely on Scripture. Each side has Scripture that they believe answers and supports their viewpoint. However, which side can account for the opposing side's support? This debate occurring here already occurred centuries ago between Athanasius and Arius. And I believe that Athansius has the better position.

Here are some valuable websites that I think both sides should consider:

CHURCH FATHERS: The Deposition of Arius (Athanasius)
THE EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE PRIMERS

If you can pick and choose what traditions you will follow, why do you not consider the traditions of the Ebionites, the Nestorians and the Arians?

I know, because they are heretics and the church traditions are doctrine.

Why should I accept that?

Regards,

Scott