The Divinity of Christ

[Dawnofhope]

Wow! That's quite a statement. In the interest of discussion (which I thought it was your intent) I'm harmonizing all scriptures to the best of my ability without simply dismissing scriptures that appear to speak of Jesus as God as if they didn't exist. Your definition of no dismissing scriptures is "intellectual contortions"?

Maybe we should reset. I apologise for my harsh words. I do appreciate you willingness to sincerely engage with this thread.

You said:

My name is Dad, Ken, Son, Brother Friend.

What if Jesus is God but when birthed into a human casing received the title Son of God and yet representing 100% man became the son of man?

I can see how that works for you and helps to reconcile the different scripture. The problem for me is then all the other scripture that clearly indicates Jesus was not God.

Another aspect is that I do not believe Jesus physically existed prior to His life in the womb of Mary. I doubt if He pre-existed spiritually either and then was incarnated into the womb of Mary. However I'm content to leave that all as a Divine mystery. The main problem is Jesus being God incarnate in the flesh. It simply makes no sense logically and there are too many scriptures that contradict it. I can not accept it.

Ok.. (in the interest of discussion). Then who was Jesus? What was Jesus? How did he come into being? How is it that "Emmanuel-God with us) is then translated into "son of God" as you mentioned?

Jesus was the most perfect reflection of God's attrubutes and virtues possible for a man and this enabled God to speak through Jesus to humanity. Therefore if Jesus were to say "I am God" He would speak the truth as He was the Mouthpiece for God and God could literally speak through Him. An analogy would be that of the rays of the sun reflected in a perfect mirror. God is the sun, the Holy Spirit the rays of the sun, and Jesus the perfect mirror reflecting His image. He had a Unique and Great role amidst men and was therefore given the designation 'Son of God' but because He was like a Messenger or Emmisary on behalf of God to humanity, he was also called 'son of man' to contrast 'Son of God.'

If so... "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, The Word was God"--God, of course being, Theos or God.

In the beginning was the mediator, (fits fine here)
The mediator was with God, (still good)
The mediator was God (broke down here)

When a Theory is presented and you find that it does not work, one must go back to the drawing board.

I see the problem and it is the verses from John 1:1 and 1:14 that present the final challenge.

Jesus could not have been physically in the flesh with God as flesh does not inherit the kingdom of God. The mediator who represents God, is considered as God. Therefore he who hearkens to the words of Jesus, it is as if he has heard the voice of God. He who obeys Jesus words, it is as if He is obeying God. So in that sense the Mediator was God. I doubt if Jesus's spirit was literally with God, but His chosen Mediator or Manifestation was always part of God's plan and so in that sense was with God, and was God.

There would still be questions to be answered if I were to simply hold to your position

However, (at this point), my position seems to remain part of the whole of the puzzle.

As The Word, He is God in the fullest sense.
By coming through a woman, He received the title Son of Man
By resurrecting He became the Son of God.

As we are all sons of God no doubt and Jesus is the first fruits.

I can better see where you are coming from.

Thanks for taking the time to post.

 

[wizanda]

What is the best way of understanding the spiritual reality of Christ?

Yeshua is physically David, with the Spirit of the Lord (YHVH) upon him...

YHVH is an Elohim, which is plural, and have been seen physically manifest within the reality, therefore it isn't the God Most High (El Elyon/CPU).

Isaiah 12:2 and other places say YHVH Elohim is to become Yeshua Elohim.

Elohim are arch angels, like avatars in Hinduism; which we're all capable of being.

Yeshua says he is the Lord of David, that the children of Israel are still casting out demons by him, even if they don't accept him, said that it is his House of prayer, and Israel was his House.

Could these principles be applicable to other faiths?

Think this is the clearest way to look at most theologies globally, there are a council of light beings that reside around the throne of the Most High; these have incarnated throughout history as key teachers.

We're all meant to be heading in the same direction, and learning to become divine again; whereas many go opposite to them, as they see religion as divided down here.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I must acknowledge that you have made a better effort to examine the issues so thank you.

Here you go:
Luke 1:31 And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

You know I'm going to argue the Throne in heaven refers to Jesus exalted station in the heavenly realm and to assist our understanding how we turn to God through Jesus. It is not physical, as with the designation 'Son of the Most High' or 'Son of God.' They are figures of speech surely?

The verse refers to the Davidic Kingship and a figative fulfilment of prophecy. It is probably the key prophecy that the Jews misunderstood in regards to the Messianic claims.

I believe when God is in a body He has human attributes. So your reasoning is not correct.

I believe you are thinking of greatness as admirable qualities whereas I am thinking in material terms. Jesus is equal in all the admirable qualities but He has a material body as well which is something the Father does not have.

Flesh does not inherit the Kingdom of God, so the existence of a physically body shouldn't be seen as a sign of greatness that would compare with the Incomparable. I have never heard anyone argue that the Son is greater than the Father because the Son had a physical body.

I believe I never said anything about Jesus not having a father.

That is correct. I am highlighting that the Greatness of Jesus is nothing to do with Him not having a physical father, rather it is His Divine attributes, perfections, and virtues that make Him great.

I believe Jesus reflects the greatness of God because He is God.

But He is already great without having to be God. Why does one need to be God to be great?

There is a verse that says that Jesus is an intercessor which in a sense is an intermediary. However this is not based on Jesus having a different spirit but is based on the fact that God is present in the body which is able to speak and do things whereas the Father does not have that ability.

Here it is:

Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Romans 8:34

Other verses that support Jesus as an intercessor come from John not suprisingly.
John 14:13-14 and 1 John 5:14-15

I believe it means the same thing with one exception ie that it has the reality that the body is not God.

I believe that only works if you can prove it is a misunderstanding. I believe it is your position that is the misunderstanding. I believe the majority of Biblical scholars got it right.

That it is the issue we are debating. Were a group of Church leaders assembled by the Emperor Constantine in Nicea 325 AD correct?

believe that is a self congratulating attribution that is not based in reality. It is people who go into the fire but only if they have not accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior. I believe that is all that is needed and that there will be a myriad of people with false concepts and doctrines saved from the fire.

There is no room for ego in the kingdom of heaven. Doctrines and beliefs go into the fire too. What is the fire anyhow but a metaphor for seperation from God. Should one who soars on the wings of the revealed verses be scorned, mocked, and threatened with the fire of hell because he dares to ask questions and explores the mysteries of the relationship between God, Jesus, and humanity?

 

[Kenny]

Maybe we should reset. I apologise for my harsh words. I do appreciate you willingness to sincerely engage with this thread.

Reset it is!

I can see how that works for you and helps to reconcile the different scripture. The problem for me is then all the other scripture that clearly indicates Jesus was not God.

Yes, that has been a question that many have.

Another aspect is that I do not believe Jesus physically existed prior to His life in the womb of Mary. I doubt if He pre-existed spiritually either and then was incarnated into the womb of Mary. However I'm content to leave that all as a Divine mystery. The main problem is Jesus being God incarnate in the flesh. It simply makes no sense logically and there are too many scriptures that contradict it. I can not accept it.

OK. For factual understanding on my part, do you subscribe to a virgin birth? If not, how?

Jesus was the most perfect reflection of God's attrubutes and virtues possible for a man and this enabled God to speak through Jesus to humanity. Therefore if Jesus were to say "I am God" He would speak the truth as He was the Mouthpiece for God and God could literally speak through Him. An analogy would be that of the rays of the sun reflected in a perfect mirror. God is the sun, the Holy Spirit the rays of the sun, and Jesus the perfect mirror reflecting His image. He had a Unique and Great role amidst men and was therefore given the designation 'Son of God' but because He was like a Messenger or Emmisary on behalf of God to humanity, he was also called 'son of man' to contrast 'Son of God.'

I'm following you here (doesn't translate into agreement in all aspects) but certainly agree with the most perfect reflection of God's attributes.

I see the problem and it is the verses from John 1:1 and 1:14 that present the final challenge.

Jesus could not have been physically in the flesh with God as flesh does not inherit the kingdom of God. The mediator who represents God, is considered as God. Therefore he who hearkens to the words of Jesus, it is as if he has heard the voice of God. He who obeys Jesus words, it is as if He is obeying God. So in that sense the Mediator was God. I doubt if Jesus's spirit was literally with God, but His chosen Mediator or Manifestation was always part of God's plan and so in that sense was with God, and was God.

I would like to delve deeper here. There is a truth that flesh does not inherit the Kingdom of God for it is cursed (IMO) and thus it dies.

But this goes back to the question of how was Jesus created (virgin birth or not)

As we are all sons of God no doubt and Jesus is the first fruits.

I can better see where you are coming from.

Thanks for taking the time to post.

Love having civil discourse. It is refreshing.

 

[Dawnofhope]

OK. For factual understanding on my part, do you subscribe to a virgin birth? If not, how?

I would like to delve deeper here. There is a truth that flesh does not inherit the Kingdom of God for it is cursed (IMO) and thus it dies.

But this goes back to the question of how was Jesus created (virgin birth or not)

The virgin birth IMHO remains as a sacred mystery that can not be resolved with the available information. Efforts to resolve it often generate more heat than light.

The two main considerations are the existence of an Omnipotent God and sacred scripture, the other is the laws of science/nature.

The possibilities could be considered in regards to genetics/DNA.

(1) Jesus had the DNA of both His earthly parents Joseph and Mary

(2) Jesus had the DNA of only His mother Mary.

(3) Jesus had neither the DNA of Mary or Joseph.

Options (2) and (3) are impossible without an Omnipotent, All-Powerful God that can defy His own laws of nature/science.

Option (1) though of in the usual manner runs contrary to the virgin birth prophecy. However (1) is still possible to have happened along with a virgin birth, with or without God's intervention. Saying more risks being irreverent and disrespectful.

We have no way of resolving the issue as far as I can see and so it can be whatever you want it to be, as long as one doesn't declare their opinion to be the only possible explanation or truth.

Love having civil discourse. It is refreshing.

Thank you for that. Civil discourse is the only way really and maybe too many much rubbing of shoulders on RF can cause momentary lapses of forgetfulness.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yeshua is physically David, with the Spirit of the Lord (YHVH) upon him...

Yeshua says he is the Lord of David, that the children of Israel are still casting out demons by him, even if they don't accept him, said that it is his House of prayer, and Israel was his House.

I haven't made those connections before. Would you elaborate please with reference to scripture?

Think this is the clearest way to look at most theologies globally, there are a council of light beings that reside around the throne of the Most High; these have incarnated throughout history as key teachers.

We're all meant to be heading in the same direction, and learning to become divine again; whereas many go opposite to them, as they see religion as divided down here.

Interesting worldview that is idiosyncratically your own. You are the only one so far that has considered the connections with other religions. I'm not too clear on your thought processes though. Would you clarify?

 

[Dawnofhope]

That's interesting but I would consider it a false teaching. Christians have not been instructed to gather wheat and burn tares. That task (reaping) is left for the angels (Revelation 14:14-19).

The angels are symbolic of positive spiritual forces that will influence those pure and devoted souls who recognise the Returned Christ and follow His Teachings.

From the discussions we have had you are more likely to see literal truths in the book of Revelations.

 

[wizanda]

Would you elaborate please with reference to scripture?

Some of these verses specifically say that David is the Messiah appointed by God at the beginning of the Messianic age (Revelation and Isaiah say line of David): Ezekiel 34:23-24, Jeremiah 23:5, Ezekiel 37:24-25, Jeremiah 30:8-9, Hosea 3:5, Isaiah 55:3, Isaiah 22:22, Isaiah 9:6-7, Revelation 5:5, etc.

Thus to make everything make sense that Yeshua and David is Messiah, with YHVH to be their king; Yeshua needs to be both David, and the Spirit of the Lord upon him (Isaiah 11:1-2).

Matthew 22:41-45 (David's Lord), Luke 11:17-20 (House divided against its self), Matthew 21:13, Mark 11:17, Luke 19:46 (My House of Prayer; only John says 'my fathers'), Matthew 10:25 (Calls himself Master of the House in multiple places).

Thus when we remove the faulty ideology superimposed by the Pharisees John, Paul and Simon; what Yeshua was declaring himself as seems to be the Lord (YHVH), and people have assumed after he is only the son.

Other specific references are Gabriel saying he is the son of the Most High (Luke 1:32), in ancient times, YHVH is son of El Elyon, and in Revelation it calls God almighty, which is possibly from El Shaddai, which is again applied to the Most High.

So in Revelation there is the one who sits on the throne (EL Shaddai, EL Elyon, The Most High, CPU); and then the Lamb to be Christ...

So the question to then ask, is where is David who is prophesied to be the Messiah?

Is the Lord Yeshua to reign as king, as it says that the Lamb is king of kings, and Lord of Lords (Revelation 17:14)?

If YHVH sent Yeshua to die, that is murder; yet if YHVH sent himself in another form, it is fine, and the scripture state YHVH shall be the one who does all these things prophesied (Zechariah 10:3-4).

Would you clarify?

In Revelation 10:11 the Angel teaches of many peoples, nations, kings, and languages....

These simple divisions, have made many conclude religions are separate, when they're all talking about the same source from different angles.

You are the only one so far that has considered the connections with other religions.

It is only logical to be as scientific as possible with all available data; thus why wouldn't we seek additional references that might clarify what is taking place.

Based on numerous explanations of the divine, we can clarify what is wrong with some of them, as we've then got alternative perspectives to compare the data against.

Interesting worldview that is idiosyncratically your own.

If we went back three to four thousand years, many cultures have similar concepts back then...

As the majority of religious structures is the same, within the last few thousand years tho, the world has been deceived to follow something not from divine instruction; yet what they wanted to believe.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Some of these verses specifically say that David is the Messiah appointed by God at the beginning of the Messianic age (Revelation and Isaiah say line of David): Ezekiel 34:23-24, Jeremiah 23:5, Ezekiel 37:24-25, Jeremiah 30:8-9, Hosea 3:5, Isaiah 55:3, Isaiah 22:22, Isaiah 9:6-7, Revelation 5:5, etc.

Thus to make everything make sense that Yeshua and David is Messiah, with YHVH to be their king; Yeshua needs to be both David, and the Spirit of the Lord upon him (Isaiah 11:1-2).

Matthew 22:41-45 (David's Lord), Luke 11:17-20 (House divided against its self), Matthew 21:13, Mark 11:17, Luke 19:46 (My House of Prayer; only John says 'my fathers'), Matthew 10:25 (Calls himself Master of the House in multiple places).

Thus when we remove the faulty ideology superimposed by the Pharisees John, Paul and Simon; what Yeshua was declaring himself as seems to be the Lord (YHVH), and people have assumed after he is only the son.

Other specific references are Gabriel saying he is the son of the Most High (Luke 1:32), in ancient times, YHVH is son of El Elyon, and in Revelation it calls God almighty, which is possibly from El Shaddai, which is again applied to the Most High.

So in Revelation there is the one who sits on the throne (EL Shaddai, EL Elyon, The Most High, CPU); and then the Lamb to be Christ...

So the question to then ask, is where is David who is prophesied to be the Messiah?

Is the Lord Yeshua to reign as king, as it says that the Lamb is king of kings, and Lord of Lords (Revelation 17:14)?

If YHVH sent Yeshua to die, that is murder; yet if YHVH sent himself in another form, it is fine, and the scripture state YHVH shall be the one who does all these things prophesied (Zechariah 10:3-4).

This gets really interesting then. There has been discussion in this thread about the titles or designations 'son of man' and 'Son of God.' Now we have 'son of David.' Lets examine this:

There are numerous verses in the New Testament describing Jesus as the “son of David.”

Jesus could not literally be the son of David as David lived approximately 1,000 years before Jesus. The 'Son of David' is a Messianic title. He was the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies you have mentioned.

Jesus was addressed as 'Lord, thou son of David' several times. The woman whose daughter was being tormented by a demon:
And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
Matthew 15:22

The two blind men by the wayside cried out to the Son of David for help:
And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou son of David.
Matthew 20:30

The Pharisees hated Jesus because He wouldn’t give them the honour they thought they deserved, so when they heard the people hailing Jesus as the Saviour, they became displeased:
And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the son of David; they were sore displeased
Matthew 21:15

Jesus asked the Pharisees about the title:
And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the son of David?
For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.
Mark 12:35, Psalms 110:1

 

[wizanda]

Now we have 'son of David.' Lets examine this:

So based on what both of us posted, the root of Jesse quote (Isaiah 11:1-2) is that Yeshua is of the same line as the House of David, making him the prophesied king they'd been expecting.

Yet this was an expectation by the masses based on the prophets saying the Messiah would be of the line of David....

When Yeshua was asked he quotes the Psalm saying, David calls him Lord...

David's Lord was YHVH, so therefore to me it makes sense Yeshua was saying that is who he is....

Everyone else with their own opinion of who he is, has muddied the water, and really doesn't know properly.

In Dr Margret Barker's books, she explains this is why the early church has no problems with calling Yeshua Lord, and being the Son of the Most High, as that earlier knowledge was still common.

Since that time, there has been multiple religious theologies insisting on strict monotheism, and at the same time misunderstanding the Oneness of Heaven...

That all Elohim are only a representation from the God Most High (EL Elyon), all consciousness is one with the Most High, everything that exists only happens because the Most High (CPU) allows it.

 

[Kenny]

The virgin birth IMHO remains as a sacred mystery that can not be resolved with the available information. Efforts to resolve it often generate more heat than light.

LOL... I think that just depends on the heart of the person.

Jesus preached a beautiful message that brought light to the prostitute but heat for the religious.

I don't think that it can't be resolved... or let me say it another way. It just depends on ones philosophical paradigm as it becomes unsolvable if one has a particular belief system that makes it so.

The following is just my viewpoint.

The two main considerations are the existence of an Omnipotent God and sacred scripture, the other is the laws of science/nature.

The possibilities could be considered in regards to genetics/DNA.

(1) Jesus had the DNA of both His earthly parents Joseph and Mary

(2) Jesus had the DNA of only His mother Mary.

(3) Jesus had neither the DNA of Mary or Joseph.

Option (1) though of in the usual manner runs contrary to the virgin birth prophecy. However (1) is still possible to have happened along with a virgin birth, with or without God's intervention. Saying more risks being irreverent and disrespectful.

I don't think this is a possibility for the following reasons:

1) He would also be like any other man with the eventual natural death. It takes sin to die and therefore it would run contrary to too many scriptures.
2) It does run contrary to the virgin birth.
3) With the prophetic shadow of Sarah and Abraham (Isaac), it was God who had to produce the miracle of Isaac vs Ishmael, the product of man and woman.

Options (2) and (3) are impossible without an Omnipotent, All-Powerful God that can defy His own laws of nature/science.

Which, as you pointed out, it is either 2 or 3 since we are dealing with a God who defies the laws of nature and science.

But #2 creates the same problem as #1. To have a corrupted DNA creates a person who cannot help but eventually produce a corrupted life (at some measure). Whether it is a lie, a disrespectful moment with parents, an unjustified anger etc. It just takes one disobedience to produce sin that produces death.

#3 conforms with all requirements that scripture provides.

(Perhaps the bigger problem is whether or not we believe scripture to be true in its expressions and message)

We have no way of resolving the issue as far as I can see and so it can be whatever you want it to be, as long as one doesn't declare their opinion to be the only possible explanation or truth.

IMV, it is important for if he is the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world, he also must be spotless.

Each sacrificed lamb went through a process of judgment making sure there wasn't any defect to disqualify it. The whole of the procedure was what Jesus went through.

 

[Muffled]

I must acknowledge that you have made a better effort to examine the issues so thank you.



You know I'm going to argue the Throne in heaven refers to Jesus exalted station in the heavenly realm and to assist our understanding how we turn to God through Jesus. It is not physical, as with the designation 'Son of the Most High' or 'Son of God.' They are figures of speech surely?

The verse refers to the Davidic Kingship and a figative fulfilment of prophecy. It is probably the key prophecy that the Jews misunderstood in regards to the Messianic claims.





Flesh does not inherit the Kingdom of God, so the existence of a physically body shouldn't be seen as a sign of greatness that would compare with the Incomparable. I have never heard anyone argue that the Son is greater than the Father because the Son had a physical body.



That is correct. I am highlighting that the Greatness of Jesus is nothing to do with Him not having a physical father, rather it is His Divine attributes, perfections, and virtues that make Him great.



But He is already great without having to be God. Why does one need to be God to be great?



Here it is:

Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Romans 8:34

Other verses that support Jesus as an intercessor come from John not suprisingly.
John 14:13-14 and 1 John 5:14-15





That it is the issue we are debating. Were a group of Church leaders assembled by the Emperor Constantine in Nicea 325 AD correct?



There is no room for ego in the kingdom of heaven. Doctrines and beliefs go into the fire too. What is the fire anyhow but a metaphor for seperation from God. Should one who soars on the wings of the revealed verses be scorned, mocked, and threatened with the fire of hell because he dares to ask questions and explores the mysteries of the relationship between God, Jesus, and humanity?

I believe it does not say that but says the throne of David which is a physical throne on earth.

I believe they mean what they say. Please try to point out a figure of speech if you can.

I just finished watching the movie "Luther. " In one scene he burns a paper representing an indulgence by the Church. The doctrine didn't burn because it was in the

I believe this is an oft misunderstood verse. It does not mean there will be no flesh in The Kingdom of God.

I believe you are still using the same definition of greatness you used before. Try rereading it with my definition.

I believe it is due to the fact that people in general have not thought deeply on a metaphysical level.

I believe I don't look at an apple and think it looks like an apple but I think it is an apple because I know apples. When I look at God in Jesus I don't say it is a reflection of the attributes of Jesus but I say it is God because I know God.

I believe then that you think a man can be as great as God. I don't agree; only God can be that great.

I believe I just finished watching the movie "Luther." In one scene Luther burns a paper representing an indulgence of the Church. The paper burned but the doctrine and belief stayed with the person who wrote it. That person being saved does not have his doctrine or belief burned in the fire but simply has it erased as all evil will be in the Kingdom of God.

I believe real fire burns real things. There is nothing metaphoric about it.

I believe I would debate that it seems more like a nose dive than soaring. I had a day dream today that I was preaching and saying that a person may be saved and still suffer consequences for false beliefs. I believe the consequence of not believing in the Trinity is that God will not be pleased with you. That might not be so bad but I wouldn't want to be in that position.

 

[MJFlores]

Jesus is the Son of the Living God

“Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16 NIV)

Although the apostles teach that Jesus is the Son of the living God, however, the Bible also tells us that Jesus, the Son of the living God, is man in nature:

“And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and saw how he died, he said, ‘Surely THIS MAN WAS THE SON OF GOD!’” (Mark 15:39, NIV, emphasis mine).

Thus, the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is the Son of the living God, and not the living God.

 

[metis]

either 2 or 3 since we are dealing with a God who defies the laws of nature and science.

Are sure it's not that God may actually be Nature/Science and vice-versa?

I can't remember (an age thingy) but didn't we discuss Spinoza's and Einstein's theology many moons ago over at IF?

 

[Kenny]

Are sure it's not that God may actually be Nature/Science and vice-versa?

I can't remember (an age thingy) but didn't we discuss Spinoza's and Einstein's theology many moons ago over at IF?

I don't remember about moons ago. But I would liken God to Nature as to David and the Statue of Michelangelo

 

[MJFlores]

GOD IS THE FATHER AND
JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD

Numerous verses of the Bible clearly state that the Father alone is the true God. However, Jesus explicitly proves that He is not the Father when He said that:

John 14:28 NKJV
“You have heard Me say to you, 'I am going away and coming back to you.' If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, 'I am going to the Father,' for My Father is greater than I.”

The Lord Jesus Christ said that “My Father is greater than I.” thus, it is wrong to say that Jesus is also the Father, the one true God. Jesus is different from the One True God, from the Father, and He himself testified to this truth when He said “My father is greater than I.” Who then is the Lord jesus:

Matthew 16:16 NKJV
“Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

The Bible clearly teaches that the Lord Jesus christ is the Son of God of the living God.


Thus, God is the Father and Jesus is the Son of God. Hence, the Lord Jesus (the Son of God) is different from the One true God (the Father). Take note that although I believe that Jesus Christ is not God, but we firmly believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

 

[MJFlores]

Who is the father according to you?

Not according to me but

According to the Lord Jesus Christ:

John 17:1-3 New King James Version (NKJV)

Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

 

[trablano]

Maybe it would be interesting to throw in a shot of panentheism. That the divine things are always also cosmic things because that's where they come from and that's what came from them. The gods cannot be fickle or superfluous, they must be diligent and earnest. The cosmos and the god of the gods are one, the background, the cause of it all, where everything comes from. Medieval monks called this the great Nothing but Krause's Panentheism speaks of a something that blooms there, that keeps us going and lifts us up. In Israel there was a teacher who held a cosmotheism, that the Cosmos in on his way to become a truly omnipotent God. The planets, solar systems, as organisms. I remember reading an old scifi book about this once, that cosmic immune cells are on their way to Earth to righten things. The deities must be as careful as we are ethically and morally. And they are, but they have not always been, that's why Jesus came to give a new example, to birth a new man. Since then man has his honor in Christ. Although the critique of the Cosmos is strong, it is not without hope and not without mercy. Those who feel pain need mercy, not more judgment. That again is the new creature, not just divine but also cosmic. We need reach forward, save this world, save our solar system, break out into the cosmos the new frontier. On the Earth, the reign of the US is reaching its end and China and Russia have new heights. Communism and socialism will reinvent themselves and become attractive again in the world. Social consciousness will rise again and overcome class restrictions that cannot hold together meaningfully and will erode again and be powerless to mankind awakening.

 

[MJFlores]

Maybe it would be interesting to throw in a shot of panentheism. That the divine things are always also cosmic things because that's where they come from and that's what came from them. The gods cannot be fickle or superfluous, they must be diligent and earnest. The cosmos and the god of the gods are one, the background, the cause of it all, where everything comes from. Medieval monks called this the great Nothing but Krause's Panentheism speaks of a something that blooms there, that keeps us going and lifts us up. In Israel there was a teacher who held a cosmotheism, that the Cosmos in on his way to become a truly omnipotent God. The planets, solar systems, as organisms. I remember reading an old scifi book about this once, that cosmic immune cells are on their way to Earth to righten things. The deities must be as careful as we are ethically and morally. And they are, but they have not always been, that's why Jesus came to give a new example, to birth a new man. Since then man has his honor in Christ. Although the critique of the Cosmos is strong, it is not without hope and not without mercy. Those who feel pain need mercy, not more judgment. That again is the new creature, not just divine but also cosmic. We need reach forward, save this world, save our solar system, break out into the cosmos the new frontier. On the Earth, the reign of the US is reaching its end and China and Russia have new heights. Communism and socialism will reinvent themselves and become attractive again in the world. Social consciousness will rise again and overcome class restrictions that cannot hold together meaningfully and will erode again and be powerless to mankind awakening.

Live long and prosper!

You should read less science fiction stuff, these things are just products of the mind - it would come, go and disappear.

 

[Oeste]

I enjoyed the clip from 'Being there' so thanks for sharing.

I think its important to acknowledge that you are engaging with this debate thoughtfully, sincerely and with references to scripture although we clearly have different perspectives on the Divinity of Christ.

I’m enjoying our conversation also, and the one you’re having with Kens and others. It’s not every day you can have conversation like this. Thank you!

It is important to realise that sacred texts are an entirely different proposition to other literature. Parables is one example, apocalyptic writing is another. The Olivet discourse, Daniel and Revelations are good examples of style of biblical writing. It is important to recognise the spiritual inspiration of the writers of the gospels and apostles...
...So even the style of writing of the NT author is influenced by these spiritual forces.

Yes, all the writers of the canon were influenced by the Holy Spirit. However the Spirit knows how we speak and interpret language. If you’re going to give symbolic meaning to a passage there should be a good reason for it. It is never a first option because no human society can communicate intent that way. We would never have progressed or survived. Throwing out this rather well defined rule of interpreting language because it’s scripture is a classic example of special pleading.

Imagine the farmers and shopkeepers wondering and mulling what Paul Revere really meant by “The Red Coats are coming!”

I think we need discernment in how we view scripture.

The point I'm making is that there are excellent reasons to view 'Son of God' and 'son of man' figuratively rather than literally. The phrase Son of God is used 30 + times and 'son of man' 80+ times throughout the gospels. There is no good reason why we should interpret these specific phrases literally.

Here is another puzzle for you. Jesus when asked how many times we should forgive others, replied seven times seventy times.

Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
Matthew 18:21-22

Should we take this literally or symbolically?

We should interpret “seventy times….” consistently just as we interpret “seven times…” consistently. I see no reason to take seventy times literally while taking seventy times symbolically. Nor do I see the need to take both symbolically without first attaching a literal meaning and determining if that literal meaning makes sense.

The approach one uses to interpret should be consistent rather than inconsistent. This would include a look at how the same terms are used by the author in other passages, or how other authors used them in scripture.

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Matthew 24:29-30

Literal or symbolic?

If we are to exegete this properly than we look not only at the words but also the verse in context, the same way we interpret anything else as either literal or figurative. I don’t see the need to make a special pleading for scripture.

Unless the words imply an absurdity or impossibility we take it literally. My daughter says “I’m the greatest Dad ever” which is a good example of hyperbole. There’s no way she could have possibly evaluated every Dad that has ever lived, and yes, she would argue a special pleading for Dad. I see your argument making similar assertions.

If Jesus is "a perfect reflection of the Divine attributes and virtues" then no human should have been able to approach him anymore than they were able to approach the Father or enter the inner sanctum. Your Christology needs to resolve this.

The Divine attributes and virtues are not the literal image of God.

Remember no one has seen God at any time...EVER

No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
John 1:18

No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
1 John 4:12

I’m taking your argument to its logical. deductive conclusion. No one claims the reflection in the pool is the perfect image of the sun. However you did claim Jesus is the “perfect reflection of the Divine attributes and virtues” of God.

The only reason we can view the sun for any length of time is because we can reflect the sun on water or paper or perhaps filter it through some other medium. like television. This makes the reflection imperfect, but useful for viewing. If the pool reflected the sun’s image perfectly we could no more look at the sun in the pool than we could at the sun in the sky. A mirror does not reflect all the attributes of the sun perfectly, but it does reflect enough attributes so that the sun’s image on the mirror is extremely difficult to view.

Your claim that Jesus cannot be God because no one has seen God at any time, while yet claiming Jesus is God’s “perfect reflection” is inconsistent. We would no more be able to view Jesus than we would God. The Trinity resolves this but I don’t see how your Christology does, except to say there is no need for reconciliation.

I don't want to start criticising denominations. Suffice it to say there is no justification in any scripture that supports the authority of the Nicene Creed.

This particular denomination has already taken the liberty of criticizing Trinitarians earlier in this thread. Otherwise I would not have bothered.

Heard of a Divine mystery? It didn't need reconciliation.

Yes, there is Divine mystery, but I don’t see how this precludes reconciliation.

There is no uniformity between either Trinitarians or non-Trinitarians. The fact that there are concerns across a broad spectrum of beliefs says a lot. It doesn't require reconciliation. Regardless, the most helpful writing I have come across from my own faith.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 113-115

I disagree. We are called to testify (1 Peter 3:15, Acts 22:15). If our testimony is irreconcilable with our witness, how can anyone believe?

Likewise if the bible is irreconcilable with its own account, how can anyone believe the testimony within?

Not at all. I'm admitting to at least two persons, not two Gods. A couple is two persons but one couple. If I admit Harry is not Jane that does not mean I'm admitting to two couples. It means I am admitting to one. And when I say the Triune God is 3 persons I am not admitting to 3 Gods but one.

Therein lies the problem. You have the Father and Jesus being distinct, you call them both God, and then say they are One. Say it long enough and I suppose you just end up overlooking the obvious contradiction.

Okay, let’s look at it again. I have Harry and Jane being distinct. I call them a married couple, and then say they are one. No matter how many times I say it I don’t see an "obvious contradiction".

What am I overlooking?

God with us - a figurative designation rather than interpreted literally.

Isaiah 9:5-6 refers to the second coming or Returned Christ. There is no government of Christ's shoulders and He did not bring world peace as envisaged elsewhere in Isaiah.

As of yet, no.