If we consider Jesus's function as a man, it can be interpreted as the manifestation of the Logos, a divine attribute, if not the very essence of God. Perhaps this is why Jesus declared that He was in the Father, a statement of great magnitude.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus is not God
- Thread starter andy
- Start date
Bible_Student
Member
I am trying to understand your comments, but I am a little scared of what you seem to be trying to imply:
are you trying to say that when Jesus talks about his God, he shouldn't be taken seriously?
This rule, to resolve the matter at hand, based on all the Sacred Books, is taken from a chapter of Paul's letter, where this distinction is made clear. It says: He had the divine nature, and did not consider equality with God something to be grasped at. But he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men (Phil 2:6-7). The Son of God is, therefore, equal to the Father by nature, inferior by external condition. In the form of a servant, which he assumed, he is inferior to the Father; in the form of God, which he possessed before assuming our condition, he is equal to the Father. In the form of God, he is the Word by which all things were made (John 1:3); in the form of a servant, "born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law" (Gal 4:4-5). Consequently, in the form of God, he created man; in the form of a servant, he became man. For, if only the Father, without the Son, had created man, it would not be written: "Let us make man in our image and likeness" (Gen 1:26). Thus, by taking the form of God and receiving the form of a servant, he is both God and Man. He is both God because it was God who received the form of a servant; and he is both man because he received the human condition. In the act of assuming, there is no conversion or change of condition: neither does divinity change by becoming a creature, nor does the creature become divinity, ceasing to be a creature. Saint Augustine
If we follow these inquiries, the entire philosophical development of the Trinity will be addressed here ad infinitum, and I am not a defender of the Trinity using only the sacred writings.
Bible_Student
Member
Oeste
Well-Known Member
Actually, Pharoah considered himself a God, which would give us 3 Gods which is something Trinitarians certainly don't believe in.
I read this not on its own (as a "proof-text") for polytheism, but in conjunction with the overwhelming evidence of scripture that there is only one true God.
Moses is "as" or "like" a god to Pharoah. He is not the Pharoah's true God, and Pharoah is not a true God. The one speaking through Moses is true God to both Pharoah and Moses.
Later we see the plagues sent by God as a strike against an Egyptian God. Here we have Moses being sent as a strike against Pharoah as Egypt's most visible God.
Correct. There is only one true God and no indication Moses experienced a transformation as man to a God.
I would say "No!" right along with you.
My bible reads this verse a bit differently.
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ.
Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.
Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ.
This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
and this is the life age-during, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and him whom Thou didst send -- Jesus Christ;
The verse you gave suggest we need to obtain "knowledge" about God, whereas a more literal translation suggests we develop a personal relationship with Him.
The Jews certainly rejected Jesus, but I don't think it was for a lack of new Commandments.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I fully agree that Jesus was more than just a man because I believe He had a twofold nature -- one nature human, the other divine.
“Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself. To this testifieth the tradition: “Manifold and mysterious is My relationship with God. I am He, Himself, and He is I, Myself, except that I am that I am, and He is that He is.” …. The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.” “Say, praise be to my Lord! Am I more than a man, an apostle?” (Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67)
But having a divine nature does not mean that Jesus was God incarnate, which would be God in the flesh.
It means Jesus was a Manifestation of God in the flesh because Jesus was God manifested in the flesh.
1 Timothy 3:16 KJV
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Last edited:
Oeste
Well-Known Member
Ah, my bad. I don't believe we've conversed before, and I did not fully explain my answer. I am greatly rushed when I post here, so I don't always have the opportunity to re-explain things when conversing with new readers.
Fully human means just that, Jesus is fully man. The pre-existent Jesus was born to Mary as human. As the Son of God Jesus was not born but always existed. As the Son of Man he has a birthday.
@Betho_br explained some of this in post 1063, so I'll only give a partial quote here:
So, to answer your question:
There is no reason why Jesus could not have brother and sisters. Jesus was born through Mary fully human in all respects. Once Mary had other children, they would become his brother and sisters. Also, as a man, he would worship God, as all men are required to do.
As stated earlier, your question points to Jesus as the Son of man but appears to ignore Jesus as the begotten Son of God. No one is questioning that Jesus is a Son of Man. As such, he has all the responsibilities to follow God as we do. He is also entitled to certain privileges, such as calling his siblings brother and/or sister.
Correct. He was born as Son of Man. So of course, his God will be his brother's God, as there is no other God but God. Following anything else, like money, fame, fortune, Caesar or Baal is simply following a false god.
This is expected. It was the Son of Man who died, and it was the Son of Man who was resurrected. Christ has a two-fold nature, and as the Son of God it would be impossible to crucify him on a cross.
However, as I pointed out earlier, as a man, Jesus certainly could not be tempted to change stones into bricks, and he most certainly could not be expected to tempt or trick the Father into doing it for him, which is why Satan tempted the Son of Man into proving he was "the Son of God".
The Son of God is God and can change bricks into bread, while the Son of Man is man and cannot. I see no way around this unless Christ has a twofold nature.
I have to get up early in the morning and it's after 1am. I am enjoying our discussion, but I'll be gone for a day or two.
Oeste
Well-Known Member
Hi @Trailblazer,
I have one more response but then I really, really need to go:
If Jesus were simply the only begotten Son of the divine, I would agree with you, but he is the only begotten Son of God, which makes him God.
The same rational that makes Son of Man, man, when logically and consistently applied, makes the begotten Son of God, God.
This is not to say that God is not Divine.
Have a great morning and day! I'll get back to this as soon as I can.
I have one more response but then I really, really need to go:
If Jesus were simply the only begotten Son of the divine, I would agree with you, but he is the only begotten Son of God, which makes him God.
The same rational that makes Son of Man, man, when logically and consistently applied, makes the begotten Son of God, God.
This is not to say that God is not Divine.
Have a great morning and day! I'll get back to this as soon as I can.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Just because the Son of man is a man that does not mean that the Son of God is God.
A Son is not His Father.
The only begotten Son of God makes Jesus the Son of God.
The Bible clearly demonstrates that Jesus was not God.
Jesus could not have been God because Jesus was a man and God is not a man.
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Jesus was a man so we know that Jesus could not have been God since God is not a man.
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
Also, no man has seen God at any time, yet we know that man men saw Jesus, so Jesus could not have been God.
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
sew.excited73
Wendy-Anne - I am Dutch/British
Really, I read that passage quite differently.Philippians 2:5. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
This one passage is clear enough for me. Jesus is God incarnate, and that is right from the scriptures.
I read it as saying the opposite!
"Who, being in very nature God, "- I take 'nature' here to mean nothing more than "he behaves like", which is confirmed by the next bit:
" did not consider equality with God something to be grasped," - i.e. he did not think that one (including himself) could ever even consider to obtain equality to God, and therefore he:
" but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." And because he could never attain Godness, he subjected himself to God and decided to become human (like so many others.)
Does that interpretation make sense to anyone else?
Maybe not, but that's how I read it. But maybe that is because I tend to believe that Jesus was an example of how to be a good person, (who probably was very psychic, like the prophets in the bible were). So, more akin to Mohammed than Allah - to put it in Islamic terms.
Last edited:
sew.excited73
Wendy-Anne - I am Dutch/British
Could this be a matter of putting the wrong punctuation in the wrong place?
For example: No man hath seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
But I might just think that because to me: 'The Father' is God and the 'Son of God' is the son... just like you and I are 'the children' of God.
Really, I read that passage quite differently.
I read it as saying the opposite!
"Who, being in very nature God, "- I take 'nature' here to mean nothing more than "he behaves like", which is confirmed by the next bit:
" did not consider equality with God something to be grasped," - i.e. he did not think that one (including himself) could ever even consider to obtain equality to God, and therefore he:
" but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." And because he could never attain Godness, he subjected himself to God and decided to become human (like so many others.)
Does that interpretation make sense to anyone else?
Maybe not, but that's how I read it. But maybe that is because I tend to believe that Jesus was an example of how to be a good person, (who probably was very psychic, like the prophets in the bible were). So, more akin to Mohammed than Allah - to put it in Islamic terms.
Jesus, as understood in Christian theology, is often regarded as divine (Elohim,: Ex 21:6; 1 Sam 2:25) and possessing authority that was not universally recognized by all Jewish groups during his time. This recognition or lack thereof was influenced by various factors, including differing interpretations of scripture and expectations regarding the Messiah. Jesus himself stated that he came specifically for the lost sheep of Israel (Matthew 15:24), indicating a focus on his ministry among the Jewish people first.
When you read "theos" in the Christian Bible Greek (New Testament) and replace it with "Elohim," you will see that Romans 9:5 and Philippians 2:5 suggest that Jesus possesses a divine nature, rather than implying that he is identical to the all-powerful God.
sew.excited73
Wendy-Anne - I am Dutch/British
Hmmm, but isn't Elohim 'Gods' multiple? So, can you just use them interchangeably?
Trailblazer said:
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
The New International Version reads like this:
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and[a] is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
Footnotes
[a] Some manuscripts but the only Son, who
The passage in question, John 1:18, presents a notable textual variant that has been the subject of scholarly debate. The key issue revolves around whether the original text referred to Jesus as "the only Son" (ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός) or "the only God/god=Elohim" (ὁ μονογενὴς θεός). Some early manuscripts, including the highly regarded Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, support the reading *"God/god=Elohim"* (ὁ μονογενὴς θεός), while others, like some versions of the Western text type, contain the reading *"the only Son"* (ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός).
The difference in these readings is significant, but both highlight a similar theological truth. If the text reads "the only Son," it affirms Jesus's unique sonship and his intimate relationship with the Father. If the text reads "the only God," it emphasizes Jesus's divinity, identifying him as the unique revelation of God. In both readings, the concept is clear: Jesus, as the Logos, reveals God to humanity in a manner reminiscent of the theophanies to figures like Moses, with whom God spoke "face to face" (Exodus 33:11).
This debate over the textual variant mirrors early Christological disputes. The reading ὁ μονογενὴς θεός ("the only Elohim" or "the only God") would align with a high Christology, emphasizing Jesus as fully divine and in direct communion with the Father, thus reflecting early Christian belief in the divine nature of Christ as both distinct from and yet one with God. Alternatively, ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός ("the only Son") emphasizes his unique sonship and close relationship with God, still affirming Jesus’s role as the supreme agent of divine revelation.
It is also possible, particularly within a broader biblical-theological framework, to understand Jesus as an Elohim in the sense of being a divine representative, akin to how Moses was spoken of as an Elohim to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1) and Quran 3:39; 3:45; 4:171. In this reading, Jesus would be seen as an intermediary or divine figure, who, like Moses, stood in a unique position of authority and direct communication with God. However, while Moses was a mediator of the covenant, Jesus is portrayed as the ultimate revelation of God’s presence and essence, fulfilling a far higher role as the embodiment of God's Word (John 1:1) and the definitive expression of divine will.
This concept reinforces the view that Jesus not only shares a deep intimacy with the Father but also functions as the unique divine mediator, in a way that goes beyond Moses, participating fully in the divine identity as expressed in Christian theology.
Ultimately, the passage, in either form, underscores the idea that no one has seen God directly, but Jesus, the Son, or Jesus, as God, as Elohim has made Him known, thereby serving as the ultimate manifestation of the divine to humanity.
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
The New International Version reads like this:
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and[a] is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
Footnotes
[a] Some manuscripts but the only Son, who
The passage in question, John 1:18, presents a notable textual variant that has been the subject of scholarly debate. The key issue revolves around whether the original text referred to Jesus as "the only Son" (ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός) or "the only God/god=Elohim" (ὁ μονογενὴς θεός). Some early manuscripts, including the highly regarded Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, support the reading *"God/god=Elohim"* (ὁ μονογενὴς θεός), while others, like some versions of the Western text type, contain the reading *"the only Son"* (ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός).
The difference in these readings is significant, but both highlight a similar theological truth. If the text reads "the only Son," it affirms Jesus's unique sonship and his intimate relationship with the Father. If the text reads "the only God," it emphasizes Jesus's divinity, identifying him as the unique revelation of God. In both readings, the concept is clear: Jesus, as the Logos, reveals God to humanity in a manner reminiscent of the theophanies to figures like Moses, with whom God spoke "face to face" (Exodus 33:11).
This debate over the textual variant mirrors early Christological disputes. The reading ὁ μονογενὴς θεός ("the only Elohim" or "the only God") would align with a high Christology, emphasizing Jesus as fully divine and in direct communion with the Father, thus reflecting early Christian belief in the divine nature of Christ as both distinct from and yet one with God. Alternatively, ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός ("the only Son") emphasizes his unique sonship and close relationship with God, still affirming Jesus’s role as the supreme agent of divine revelation.
It is also possible, particularly within a broader biblical-theological framework, to understand Jesus as an Elohim in the sense of being a divine representative, akin to how Moses was spoken of as an Elohim to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1) and Quran 3:39; 3:45; 4:171. In this reading, Jesus would be seen as an intermediary or divine figure, who, like Moses, stood in a unique position of authority and direct communication with God. However, while Moses was a mediator of the covenant, Jesus is portrayed as the ultimate revelation of God’s presence and essence, fulfilling a far higher role as the embodiment of God's Word (John 1:1) and the definitive expression of divine will.
This concept reinforces the view that Jesus not only shares a deep intimacy with the Father but also functions as the unique divine mediator, in a way that goes beyond Moses, participating fully in the divine identity as expressed in Christian theology.
Ultimately, the passage, in either form, underscores the idea that no one has seen God directly, but Jesus, the Son, or Jesus, as God, as Elohim has made Him known, thereby serving as the ultimate manifestation of the divine to humanity.
Last edited:
Bible_Student
Member
Hopefully next time you have a real answer to my question:
What do we do with Jesus' God?
Do we replace Him with Jesus, or do we give Him the place that Jesus said: our God and Father?
John 4:21 Jesus said to her: “Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation begins with the Jews. 23 Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.”
Sometimes it is stated that the Son is sufficient for us, and only the reward of His vision is promised to our love and desire. Thus, He said: "Whoever has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and the one who loves Me will be loved by My Father. I too will love him and reveal Myself to him" (John 14:21).
But in this passage, since He does not say, "I will reveal the Father to him," is He excluding the Father? On the contrary, as He Himself said, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). When the Father is revealed, the Son, who is in Him, is also revealed (John 14:20, 30); and when the Son is revealed, the Father, who is in Him, is also revealed. Thus, when He says, "I will reveal Myself to him," the Father is also implied. And when Scripture affirms, "When He delivers the kingdom to God the Father" (1 Corinthians 15:24), the Son is not excluded. Therefore, when He leads the believers to the contemplation of God the Father, He will also lead them to the contemplation of Himself, He who said, "I will reveal Myself to him."
Furthermore, when Judas asked Him, "Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?" Jesus answered, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him" (John 14:22-23).
This is why He does not reveal Himself alone to the one who loves Him: because He comes to him along with the Father, and They will make Their dwelling with him. Saint Augustin
Bible_Student
Member
I don't think that ignoring Jesus' teachings about who our God and Father should be is something a true Christian should do.
From what I've gathered from some "trinitarian" commentaries, to stop exclusively worshipping Jesus' Father, Jehovah, you need to ignore Jesus' teachings, with the false justification that he spoke "only as a human." It's like belittling the real Jesus in order to replace him with one who doesn't appear in all of the Scriptures.
A true Christian would never abandon Jesus' teachings to follow some tradition that is based on later human theologies that contradict Jesus' words.
From what I've gathered from some "trinitarian" commentaries, to stop exclusively worshipping Jesus' Father, Jehovah, you need to ignore Jesus' teachings, with the false justification that he spoke "only as a human." It's like belittling the real Jesus in order to replace him with one who doesn't appear in all of the Scriptures.
A true Christian would never abandon Jesus' teachings to follow some tradition that is based on later human theologies that contradict Jesus' words.
sew.excited73
Wendy-Anne - I am Dutch/British
Yes, that's how I see Jesus, I think. The best of 'us' humans because he had a bond with God none of us other humans could match. But that doesn't mean he is one and the same as the one and only True God. He's just the 'favourite son' if you like.
Indeed, the Son is in the Father, and the Father is in the Son (John 14:10), since the former is like the latter, and the latter is like the former, and thus they are one. Therefore, according to the property of the persons, they are one and one, but according to the communion of nature, the two are one. Basil of Caesarea.
Basil of Caesarea (Basil the Great) and Augustine of Hippo did not live exactly at the same time, but their lives overlapped to some extent. Basil lived from approximately 329 to 379 AD, while Augustine was born in 354 AD and died in 430 AD.
Basil was one of the Cappadocian Fathers, a key figure in Eastern theology, whereas Augustine was one of the most important figures in Western theology. Although Augustine was born before Basil died, he was significantly younger, and his theological work flourished after Basil's death. Both had a profound impact on the development of Christian thought, but in different geographical and cultural contexts.
Basil was involved in discussions about the Trinity and in combating Arianism, and his life coincided with the height of those theological controversies. Augustine, on the other hand, lived later and focused on issues like original sin, grace, and predestination, as well as controversies like Donatism and Pelagianism.
Basil of Caesarea (Basil the Great) and Augustine of Hippo did not live exactly at the same time, but their lives overlapped to some extent. Basil lived from approximately 329 to 379 AD, while Augustine was born in 354 AD and died in 430 AD.
Basil was one of the Cappadocian Fathers, a key figure in Eastern theology, whereas Augustine was one of the most important figures in Western theology. Although Augustine was born before Basil died, he was significantly younger, and his theological work flourished after Basil's death. Both had a profound impact on the development of Christian thought, but in different geographical and cultural contexts.
Basil was involved in discussions about the Trinity and in combating Arianism, and his life coincided with the height of those theological controversies. Augustine, on the other hand, lived later and focused on issues like original sin, grace, and predestination, as well as controversies like Donatism and Pelagianism.
Bible_Student
Member
I am Christian, not basilian or augustinian.
What did Jesus teach about our God?
He said ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’ (John 20:17).
And he said later:
Rev. 3:12 The one who conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out from it anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the New Jerusalem that descends out of heaven from my God, and my own new name.
So who should a follower of Jesus consider as God?
What did Jesus teach about our God?
He said ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’ (John 20:17).
And he said later:
Rev. 3:12 The one who conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out from it anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the New Jerusalem that descends out of heaven from my God, and my own new name.
So who should a follower of Jesus consider as God?