The Divinity of Christ

[Beth Stitely]

The only way we can come to understand what John means in John 1:1 is to consider the whole of John in its entirety. If we focus solely on one verse then its too easy to come to an incorrect conclusion. You have already acknowledged there is an aspect of distinction between God and the Word. We simply understand the 'WAS God' differently. I've provided sufficient scripture within John to argue that Jesus is the Son of God as distinct from God.

The argument based on reason is simple logic (ironically another meaning of the Greek word logos) that an infinite God is uncontainable, especially in the finite physical form such as a human body. Scripture once again echoes this argument:

But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded? 1 Kings 8:27

The only explanation of Christ's Divinity that makes sense IMHO is that Jesus reflects God's attributes perfectly. St Paul appears to support this view.

But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. 2 Corinthians 3:18

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 2 Corinthians 4:4

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature
Colossians 1:14-15

You quote 1 Kings 8:27! That's Solomon's dedication prayer for the temple. Likewise, you "must consider the whole of this chapter". You're taking this verse out of context and understanding. Don't you remember we discussed what it means for God to have His Name there? (v29) Are you holding yourself to the same requirements that you hold to me?

 

[Dawnofhope]

You quote 1 Kings 8:27! That's Solomon's dedication prayer for the temple. Likewise, you "must consider the whole of this chapter". You're taking this verse out of context and understanding. Don't you remember we discussed what it means for God to have His Name there? (v29) Are you holding yourself to the same requirements that you hold to me?

I agree that we always need to consider the context of any verse we quote. I'm aware that this verse is part of Solomon's dedication prayer for the temple but can not see how this makes a difference to the argument.

Solomon has said that God can not be contained in the temple:

But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded? 1 Kings 8:27

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who understands the God of the Jews.

It is a reasonable inference that if God therefore can not be contained in the temple, or indeed the heaven of heavens can not contain Him, then He can not be contained with a human being.

You refer to verse 29:

That thine eyes may be open toward this house night and day, even toward the place of which thou hast said, My name shall be there: that thou mayest hearken unto the prayer which thy servant shall make toward this place. 1 Kings 8:29

This doesn't detract from the above argument. Solomon is helping us understand the purpose of the temple and how it is to become a focus for the worship of God. Eventually, as we know, the temple will be destroyed and Jesus will become the new focal point of worship for the Christians. That however doesn't make Him God, anymore than the temple is God. Jesus does become the best place we can come to God and Solomon's temple helps us to understand that.

In regards to understanding context, an excellent example is the use of John 1:1 that has become the cornerstone for some Christians believing Jesus to be God in the flesh. However, it is the opening argument for John's gospel where a central theme is to be the Divinity of Christ. He is saying that Jesus is more than a mere human being and likens Him to God. As the story unfolds we understand what that means.

Another example of taking a verse out of context is John 14:6 where many Christians argue for the exclusivity of Christianity. Once we see the context that Jesus has informed His disciples (all Jews) that He is to be put to death, He comforts them by reiterating Himself to be the Promised One in their sacred scriptures. Some Christians have read too much into these words to imply a rejection of other religions, just as they have read too much into John 1:1 to imply that Jesus is literally God incarnate.

 

[Beth Stitely]

I agree that we always need to consider the context of any verse we quote. I'm aware that this verse is part of Solomon's dedication prayer for the temple but can not see how this makes a difference to the argument.

Solomon has said that God can not be contained in the temple:

But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded? 1 Kings 8:27

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who understands the God of the Jews.

It is a reasonable inference that if God therefore can not be contained in the temple, or indeed the heaven of heavens can not contain Him, then He can not be contained with a human being.

You refer to verse 29:

That thine eyes may be open toward this house night and day, even toward the place of which thou hast said, My name shall be there: that thou mayest hearken unto the prayer which thy servant shall make toward this place. 1 Kings 8:29

This doesn't detract from the above argument. Solomon is helping us understand the purpose of the temple and how it is to become a focus for the worship of God. Eventually, as we know, the temple will be destroyed and Jesus will become the new focal point of worship for the Christians. That however doesn't make Him God, anymore than the temple is God. Jesus does become the best place we can come to God and Solomon's temple helps us to understand that.

In regards to understanding context, an excellent example is the use of John 1:1 that has become the cornerstone for some Christians believing Jesus to be God in the flesh. However, it is the opening argument for John's gospel where a central theme is to be the Divinity of Christ. He is saying that Jesus is more than a mere human being and likens Him to God. As the story unfolds we understand what that means.

Another example of taking a verse out of context is John 14:6 where many Christians argue for the exclusivity of Christianity. Once we see the context that Jesus has informed His disciples (all Jews) that He is to be put to death, He comforts them by reiterating Himself to be the Promised One in their sacred scriptures. Some Christians have read too much into these words to imply a rejection of other religions, just as they have read too much into John 1:1 to imply that Jesus is literally God incarnate.

You claim to make a "reasonable inference"; yet Paul warns against using sophia (human wisdom) when approaching the gospel (please read 1 Cor 1&2) and that is what you are doing. Your inference is that God would not become flesh and live among us...yet John says he does! (John 1) John says "I have seen his glory!"(John 1) Paul says it is the power of God (1 Cor)...is not God greater than your inferences?

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. 9"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts." Is 55:8-9

 

[Dawnofhope]

You claim to make a "reasonable inference"; yet Paul warns against using sophia (human wisdom) when approaching the gospel (please read 1 Cor 1&2) and that is what you are doing. Your inference is that God would not become flesh and live among us...yet John says he does! (John 1) John says "I have seen his glory!"(John 1) Paul says it is the power of God (1 Cor)...is not God greater than your inferences?

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. 9"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts." Is 55:8-9

Let's examine this. What is it that distinguishes the human from the animal? It is the human mind through which we can investigate truth and consider the mysteries of scripture and the phenomenal realm. Through the mind we have the arts and sciences as well as the capacity to perceive the spiritual realities within scripture. Are you suggesting that I should not think for myself? Should I blindly accept what is said to me? Am I not free to consider the deeper and hidden meanings within scripture? To the contrary Christ counsels "Seek and ye shall find, knock and the door shall open, ask and you will be given" (Matthew 7:7-8). He tells us that the truth shall set us free (John 8:32).

You wish me to blindly imitate my ancestors? If all the Jews had done that, none would have followed Christ for He fulfilled scripture in ways that were contrary to the expectations and beliefs of the Jewish leaders of that time. If all of the Greeks had used the prevailing wisdom of their time as their sole guide none would have followed Christ. Of course that is precisely what Paul means if we consider carefully the context of his words in regards to wisdom.

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
1 Corinthians 20-24

The great Christian thinkers actually drew on the wisdom of the Greeks when developing a new understanding of the world based on the gospels.

Christian philosophy - Wikipedia

It is not only my right to independently investigate the truth for myself, but a duty that God bestows upon each of us. I use both reason and scripture as my guide. They compliment each other and there is no contradiction.

 

[Beth Stitely]

Let's examine this. What is it that distinguishes the human from the animal? It is the human mind through which we can investigate truth and consider the mysteries of scripture and the phenomenal realm. Through the mind we have the arts and sciences as well as the capacity to perceive the spiritual realities within scripture. Are you suggesting that I should not think for myself? Should I blindly accept what is said to me? Am I not free to consider the deeper and hidden meanings within scripture? To the contrary Christ counsels "Seek and ye shall find, knock and the door shall open, ask and you will be given" (Matthew 7:7-8). He tells us that the truth shall set us free (John 8:32).

You wish me to blindly imitate my ancestors? If all the Jews had done that, none would have followed Christ for He fulfilled scripture in ways that were contrary to the expectations and beliefs of the Jewish leaders of that time. If all of the Greeks had used the prevailing wisdom of their time as their sole guide none would have followed Christ. Of course that is precisely what Paul means if we consider carefully the context of his words in regards to wisdom.

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
1 Corinthians 20-24

The great Christian thinkers actually drew on the wisdom of the Greeks when developing a new understanding of the world based on the gospels.

Christian philosophy - Wikipedia

It is not only my right to independently investigate the truth for myself, but a duty that God bestows upon each of us. I use both reason and scripture as my guide. They compliment each other and there is no contradiction.

What I am saying is that you have declared that you have made an inference from scripture (1 Kings 8:27) that Jesus is not God and that God is not incarnate in Jesus. You said:

"It is a reasonable inference that if God therefore can not be contained in the temple, or indeed the heaven of heavens can not contain Him, then He can not be contained with a human being."

First, what you infer clearly contradicts scripture:

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us," John 1:14

Second, you've taken what Solomon has said out of context. 1Kings8:27 is a statement of humility. Solomon has built a temple with human hands and how humbling that God would even consider dwelling there! Ezekiel talks about the glory of God departing the temple so we know God was there. In fact, Solomon built the temple specifically for God to dwell within and scripture tells us that is exactly what God did.

1 Kings 8:10-12):

10 And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the Lord,

11 So that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud: for the glory of the Lord had filled the house of the Lord.

12 Then spake Solomon, The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness.

13 I have surely built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide in for ever.

Third, I'm saying to be careful upon relying on your sophia as God works outside the realm of man's sophia, hence the reference to 1 Cor 1 where Paul likewise supports this and says that the message of the cross is foolish to some: God incarnate crucified, fully paying the penalty for human sin, resulting in eternal life and salvation...all to be received as a GIFT to those who believe: salvation by grace through faith. Therefore, Paul says to boast in what others see as foolish- redemption in a crucified Messiah. This is the truth you seek.

 

[Dawnofhope]

What I am saying is that you have declared that you have made an inference from scripture (1 Kings 8:27) that Jesus is not God and that God is not incarnate in Jesus.

You make it sound as if I have crossed some red line and erred in the sight of God. I'm simply following in the footsteps of theologians, philosophers, and thinkers that have come before me, and reached exactly the same conclusion. This is not a new controversy. It goes back to the third century when Arius spearheaded a movement within Christianity that believed much the same thing.

Arianism - Wikipedia

The controversy resulted in the first supposedly ecumenical council called by the emperor Constantine in NIcea 325. Despite the best efforts to put an end to this ideology through the decree of the emperor himself, the movement continued.

The narrative that Jesus really is God was probably driven by similar thinking that lead Christians to conclude that the earth was the centre of universe. The difference between the two ideas is one can now be easily refuted by science whereas logic and reason are required to refute the latter. Both can be refuted by a careful examination of all scripture.

The Jesus is God narrative was able to endure in ages past. It simply lacks credibility in these times when we have a more educated population. However the main basis that I'm using to refute this commonly held Christian belief is not just the verses from 1 Kings 8 but many other biblical verses including some I've already mentioned.

You said:

"It is a reasonable inference that if God therefore can not be contained in the temple, or indeed the heaven of heavens can not contain Him, then He can not be contained with a human being."

First, what you infer clearly contradicts scripture:

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us," John 1:14

It only contradicts scripture if we interpret logos in the way you would like it to be interpreted. The belief that Jesus is God in the flesh is just as much an inference from scripture as the inference made that He can not possibly be. The difference is that you believe in the former, whereas I believe in the latter.

Second, you've taken what Solomon has said out of context. 1Kings8:27 is a statement of humility. Solomon has built a temple with human hands and how humbling that God would even consider dwelling there! Ezekiel talks about the glory of God departing the temple so we know God was there. In fact, Solomon built the temple specifically for God to dwell within and scripture tells us that is exactly what God did.

Did God not command the construction of the temple? It was God's intention for the temple to be built. He does not dwell there in that is where He makes His earthly abode, it is just a figure of speech to help us understand God's presence there. If we took this verse as being literally true and from God, then God would be a liar as the temple was destroyed. God could not dwell there forever. His presence is simply more intensely felt in the temple as it is more closely experienced when we turn to Christ.

Third, I'm saying to be careful upon relying on your sophia as God works outside the realm of man's sophia, hence the reference to 1 Cor 1 where Paul likewise supports this and says that the message of the cross is foolish to some: God incarnate crucified, fully paying the penalty for human sin, resulting in eternal life and salvation...all to be received as a GIFT to those who believe: salvation by grace through faith. Therefore, Paul says to boast in what others see as foolish- redemption in a crucified Messiah. This is the truth you seek.

You may like to quote the verse where it says "God incarnate crucified, fully paying the penalty for human sin, resulting in eternal life and salvation" in 1 Corinthians 1. Are those your words? Like anyone who studies the bible I rely on what all scripture says, reason and experience through living the life. It is my duty before God to do so.

 

[omega2xx]

I agree that we always need to consider the context of any verse we quote. I'm aware that this verse is part of Solomon's dedication prayer for the temple but can not see how this makes a difference to the argument.

Solomon has said that God can not be contained in the temple:

But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded? 1 Kings 8:27

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who understands the God of the Jews.

It is a reasonable inference that if God therefore can not be contained in the temple, or indeed the heaven of heavens can not contain Him, then He can not be contained with a human being.

You refer to verse 29:

That thine eyes may be open toward this house night and day, even toward the place of which thou hast said, My name shall be there: that thou mayest hearken unto the prayer which thy servant shall make toward this place. 1 Kings 8:29

This doesn't detract from the above argument. Solomon is helping us understand the purpose of the temple and how it is to become a focus for the worship of God. Eventually, as we know, the temple will be destroyed and Jesus will become the new focal point of worship for the Christians. That however doesn't make Him God, anymore than the temple is God. Jesus does become the best place we can come to God and Solomon's temple helps us to understand that.

In regards to understanding context, an excellent example is the use of John 1:1 that has become the cornerstone for some Christians believing Jesus to be God in the flesh. However, it is the opening argument for John's gospel where a central theme is to be the Divinity of Christ. He is saying that Jesus is more than a mere human being and likens Him to God. As the story unfolds we understand what that means.

Evidently you don't understand what it means. You Are forcing an interpretation to try and make it fit your theology. That is backwards. The verse does not "liken" Jesus to God. What is it about "was" that is hard for you to understand.

Another example of taking a verse out of context is John 14:6 where many Christians argue for the exclusivity of Christianity.

You are the one taking it out of context. What could be more comforting that to tell them that what they have come to believe is correct. If that verse is not true just as Jesus stated, He would be lying and not without sin. This is another example of you trying to make it fit your theology.

Once we see the context that Jesus has informed His disciples (all Jews) that He is to be put to death, He comforts them by reiterating Himself to be the Promised One in their sacred scriptures. Some Christians have read too much into these words to imply a rejection of other religions, just as they have read too much into John 1:1 to imply that Jesus is literally God incarnate.

That verse is not rocket surgery. It is stated in very simple, easy to read words. We take it for what it says. That is how to understand the Bible, not to distort it to fit your theology,


I will bless those who bless you(Abraham)---Gen 3:15
The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham--Mt 1:1

 

[Dawnofhope]

That verse is not rocket surgery. It is stated in very simple, easy to read words. We take it for what it says. That is how to understand the Bible, not to distort it to fit your theology,

I think you mean rocket science.

If Jesus were truly God incarnate as you interpret John 1:1 to mean then why are there so many references to Jesus being distinct from the father? If he were really God incarnate why did He not know the hour of His return and said only the Father knew?

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Mark 13:32

If He were truly God incarnate why on the cross did He cry out to His Father

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Matthew 27:46

Who is trying to distort scripture by insisting that God be contained within a man? When the obvious contradiction is highlighted you say its all beyond the comprehension of man anyhow.

 

[Oeste]

If Jesus were truly God incarnate as you interpret John 1:1 to mean then why are there so many references to Jesus being distinct from the father? If he were really God incarnate why did He not know the hour of His return and said only the Father knew?

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Mark 13:32

If He were truly God incarnate why on the cross did He cry out to His Father

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Matthew 27:46

This seems to mix up a lot of folks and I’ve thought about starting a separate thread (which would be my first on this forum) to address the issue. For now, let’s just say Jesus and the Father are not the same person, but they are one God.

Jesus is also God and man, not part God, nor partially man, but fully each.So it was Jesus as man that spoke at Matthew 27:46.

Who is trying to distort scripture by insisting that God be contained within a man? When the obvious contradiction is highlighted you say its all beyond the comprehension of man anyhow.

I can't speak for Omega but I don't see the contradiction.

There is one Triune God and while I understand the mileage of others may vary, from my perspective Trinitarianism has been the only effective way to reconcile Jesus’ claim of Divinity without jumping off the cliff and taking a flying leap into polytheism.

And yes, God is a mystery beyond our comprehension. Any attempt to take the mystery out of God (which seems to be a recurrent quirk of many post-Millerite religious movements) is simply an effort to recast God in our own image. So what is the net result? We end up with a more explainable and/or comprehensible god, just like Zeus or Jupiter, custom made by man for man. It’s simply not something I see as the biblical God.

 

[Dawnofhope]

This seems to mix up a lot of folks and I’ve thought about starting a separate thread (which would be my first on this forum) to address the issue. For now, let’s just say Jesus and the Father are not the same person, but they are one God.

Jesus is also God and man, not part God, nor partially man, but fully each.So it was Jesus as man that spoke at Matthew 27:46.

I'm pleased its clear to you, because it makes no sense to me.

I can't speak for Omega but I don't see the contradiction.

There is one Triune God and while I understand the mileage of others may vary, from my perspective Trinitarianism has been the only effective way to reconcile Jesus’ claim of Divinity without jumping off the cliff and taking a flying leap into polytheism.

It looks like polytheism trying to be monotheism.

And yes, God is a mystery beyond our comprehension. Any attempt to take the mystery out of God (which seems to be a recurrent quirk of many post-Millerite religious movements) is simply an effort to recast God in our own image. So what is the net result? We end up with a more explainable and/or comprehensible god, just like Zeus or Jupiter, custom made by man for man. It’s simply not something I see as the biblical God.

God is a mystery for certain. The Trinity was the churches efforts to explain that mystery. Who is recasting God in our own image?

If it works for you then great. The problem is your religion insists that everyone believe as you do, and the irony is, its not even biblical.

 

[Muffled]

That's your choice.



Again your choice.



No, but it was one of them



Is there any chance that is based on your lack of understanding?


...nor are you to break any bone of it----coming to Jesus, when they saw He was dead, they did not break His legs---for these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, not a bone of Him shall be broken.

I believe my choice to use logic instead of fantasizing about things or jumping to false conclusions is the best approach.

I believe I understand things quite well and the reason that some doctrines appear mysterious is due to the fact that they are irrational.

 

[Muffled]

I agree that we always need to consider the context of any verse we quote. I'm aware that this verse is part of Solomon's dedication prayer for the temple but can not see how this makes a difference to the argument.

Solomon has said that God can not be contained in the temple:

But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded? 1 Kings 8:27

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who understands the God of the Jews.

It is a reasonable inference that if God therefore can not be contained in the temple, or indeed the heaven of heavens can not contain Him, then He can not be contained with a human being.

You refer to verse 29:

That thine eyes may be open toward this house night and day, even toward the place of which thou hast said, My name shall be there: that thou mayest hearken unto the prayer which thy servant shall make toward this place. 1 Kings 8:29

This doesn't detract from the above argument. Solomon is helping us understand the purpose of the temple and how it is to become a focus for the worship of God. Eventually, as we know, the temple will be destroyed and Jesus will become the new focal point of worship for the Christians. That however doesn't make Him God, anymore than the temple is God. Jesus does become the best place we can come to God and Solomon's temple helps us to understand that.

In regards to understanding context, an excellent example is the use of John 1:1 that has become the cornerstone for some Christians believing Jesus to be God in the flesh. However, it is the opening argument for John's gospel where a central theme is to be the Divinity of Christ. He is saying that Jesus is more than a mere human being and likens Him to God. As the story unfolds we understand what that means.

Another example of taking a verse out of context is John 14:6 where many Christians argue for the exclusivity of Christianity. Once we see the context that Jesus has informed His disciples (all Jews) that He is to be put to death, He comforts them by reiterating Himself to be the Promised One in their sacred scriptures. Some Christians have read too much into these words to imply a rejection of other religions, just as they have read too much into John 1:1 to imply that Jesus is literally God incarnate.

I believe God can't be contained in Jesus but God resides in Jesus. That can't be said of the Temple. God can be there but He can't make the Temple move from place to place or speak but in Jesus He can do what humans can do. I believe it is the residence of God in Jesus that identifies Him as God. Normally we don't define a person by his spirit but Jesus has His Spirit speak so much that it becomes the defining characteristic of Him.

I believe He does not liken Him but tells what took place:
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.

I believe you are correct that Christians misinterpret the portion of this about coming to the Father but it is indicative that Jesus is God in the context of these verses:
John 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and dost thou not know me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; how sayest thou, Show us the Father?

I believe the verse is saying that Jesus is exclusively the Way , the Truth and the Life.

I believe it is not a matter of reading things into this verse but of interpreting it in context of the things that Jesus has said indicating that He is God.

 

[Muffled]

You claim to make a "reasonable inference"; yet Paul warns against using sophia (human wisdom) when approaching the gospel (please read 1 Cor 1&2) and that is what you are doing. Your inference is that God would not become flesh and live among us...yet John says he does! (John 1) John says "I have seen his glory!"(John 1) Paul says it is the power of God (1 Cor)...is not God greater than your inferences?

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. 9"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts." Is 55:8-9

Welcome to RF. I believe I am sure you will learn much.

It would be nice if his inference were reasonable but it is not. He has reasoned that a lack of containment of God means that Jesus can't be God but that is not how it works. God is one so He is God wherever He is. The fact that God is in Jesus makes Him God.

 

[Oeste]

I'm pleased its clear to you, because it makes no sense to me.

Apparently you're not alone, but the question is why? Disagreeing with Trinity doctrine is one thing, saying it "makes no sense" another. What is it about Trinity doctrine that doesn't make sense to you?

It looks like polytheism trying to be monotheism.

As soon as you make anything or anyone else God but God, you have polytheism. As stated previously, the Trinity is able to reconcile scripture without doing that. Arianism does not.

God is a mystery for certain.

Agreed!

The Trinity was the churches efforts to explain that mystery.

Yes, but only to the extent the mystery is actually explained in scripture. The Trinity is able to reconcile Christ’s scriptural claim to Divinity with other passages but I don't see it doing much to unravel the mystery of God.

Who is recasting God in our own image?

How else can Arians explain Jesus except as “another God” when monotheism has only one?

If it works for you then great. The problem is your religion insists that everyone believe as you do, and the irony is, its not even biblical.

Thank you! I had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Trinity but it really does work for me.

However your last sentence may be casting too wide a net. I suppose it depends on whether by religion you mean a specific Christian denomination, Christianity as a whole, or as an appeal to pluralism.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Apparently you're not alone, but the question is why? Disagreeing with Trinity doctrine is one thing, saying it "makes no sense" another. What is it about Trinity doctrine that doesn't make sense to you?

Lets look at the Trinity doctrine and where it came from.

Nicene Creed - Wikipedia

Trinity - Wikipedia

It became formalised as part of the doctrine of the Christian Church 325, nearly 300 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. The problem with this doctrine as a whole:
(1) The Trinity exalts man made belief to the level of the words of Jesus.
(2) Therefore if you don't believe it, you don't believe in Christ or are not a true Christian

As soon as you make anything or anyone else God but God, you have polytheism. As stated previously, the Trinity is able to reconcile scripture without doing that. Arianism does not.

Arianism avoids the problem, as Jesus is subordinate to the Father and therefore does not make Jesus God.

Arianism - Wikipedia

Yes, but only to the extent the mystery is actually explained in scripture. The Trinity is able to reconcile Christ’s scriptural claim to Divinity with other passages but I don't see it doing much to unravel the mystery of God.

Perhaps it would be better to say I don't agree with it. It appears to create confusion and fails to resolve the apparently contradictory statements Christ made about Himself.

How else can Arians explain Jesus except as “another God” when monotheism has only one?

Arianism doesn't make Jesus another God. There is only one God, the father.

Thank you! I had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Trinity but it really does work for me.

However your last sentence may be casting too wide a net. I suppose it depends on whether by religion you mean a specific Christian denomination, Christianity as a whole, or as an appeal to pluralism.

We all have our experiences with Christian denominations. My experience has been that if you don't tick all the boxes then you are not part of the body of Christ. That no longer bothers me, because I've moved on.

 

[omega2xx]

I believe my choice to use logic instead of fantasizing about things or jumping to false conclusions is the best approach.

Logic is a poor teacher of spiritual truths and you do not have the ability to say I m fantasing.

I believe I understand things quite well and the reason that some doctrines appear mysterious is due to the fact that they are irrational.

Nothing God does is irrational. If you think they are, it is because you don't understand it.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I believe God can't be contained in Jesus but God resides in Jesus. That can't be said of the Temple. God can be there but He can't make the Temple move from place to place or speak but in Jesus He can do what humans can do. I believe it is the residence of God in Jesus that identifies Him as God. Normally we don't define a person by his spirit but Jesus has His Spirit speak so much that it becomes the defining characteristic of Him.

Is Jesus God incarnate?

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."

Mark 13:32
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

1 KIng 8:27
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Scripture seems to imply that Jesus can not possibly be God incarnate.

I believe He does not liken Him but tells what took place:
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.

If that were so then John would not have written:

1 John 4:12 No one has seen God at any time
John 5:19 The Son can do nothing of Himself
John 7:29 He sent me
John 8:28 My Father taught me
John 12:49-50 as the father told me
John 14:28 My father is greater than I

The meaning of logos can be understood in a myriad of ways:

For example John may have been referring to Philo's perspective of the Logos:

Philo (20 BCE – 50 CE), a Greek Jew, used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being. Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world. The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God."

I believe you are correct that Christians misinterpret the portion of this about coming to the Father but it is indicative that Jesus is God in the context of these verses:
John 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and dost thou not know me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; how sayest thou, Show us the Father?

I believe the verse is saying that Jesus is exclusively the Way , the Truth and the Life.

For His Jewish audience, perhaps. An Omniscient All-Loving and Compassionate God that sends people to hell who have never had the opportunity to hear Christ's words seems an oxymoron to me. There are many real problems taking verses that were written nearly two thousand years ago and interpreting them in this manner.

I believe it is not a matter of reading things into this verse but of interpreting it in context of the things that Jesus has said indicating that He is God.

It is about considering all the verses. Perhaps it would be better to think of Jesus as being a perfect image or reflection of Gods' divine attributes?

Colossians 1:15 in regards to Jesus
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature"

John 5:19
Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

John 8:28
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

 

[Muffled]

Logic is a poor teacher of spiritual truths and you do not have the ability to say I m fantasing.



Nothing God does is irrational. If you think they are, it is because you don't understand it.

I found it a very good teacher. Jesus said the spirit is like the wind. You can't see it but you can see its affects on the leaves of the trees and you can see the affects the Spirit has on people.

I believe I can tell when you are not using correct logic and when your concepts have no supporting evidence.

God isn't irrational but the people who think up doctrines often are.

 

[Muffled]

Is Jesus God incarnate?

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."

Mark 13:32
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

1 KIng 8:27
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Scripture seems to imply that Jesus can not possibly be God incarnate.



If that were so then John would not have written:

1 John 4:12 No one has seen God at any time
John 5:19 The Son can do nothing of Himself
John 7:29 He sent me
John 8:28 My Father taught me
John 12:49-50 as the father told me
John 14:28 My father is greater than I

The meaning of logos can be understood in a myriad of ways:

For example John may have been referring to Philo's perspective of the Logos:

Philo (20 BCE – 50 CE), a Greek Jew, used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being. Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world. The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God."



For His Jewish audience, perhaps. An Omniscient All-Loving and Compassionate God that sends people to hell who have never had the opportunity to hear Christ's words seems an oxymoron to me. There are many real problems taking verses that were written nearly two thousand years ago and interpreting them in this manner.



It is about considering all the verses. Perhaps it would be better to think of Jesus as being a perfect image or reflection of Gods' divine attributes?

Colossians 1:15 in regards to Jesus
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature"

John 5:19
Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

John 8:28
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

It only seems that way because you do not understand it and do not know enough about God.

I would highly doubt it since John was a fisherman who probably hadn't read much.

I believe that just re-affirms how little you know about God.

I believe that is not better because it depersonalizes God. It would be like sending someone a picture and saying "see I am with you."

 

[omega2xx]

I found it a very good teacher. Jesus said the spirit is like the wind. You can't see it but you can see its affects on the leaves of the trees and you can see the affects the Spirit has on people.

Spiritual truths cant be proven and therefore not subject to logic.

I believe I can tell when you are not using correct logic and when your concepts have no supporting evidence.

And I believe everything I say is logical. If you disagree, you are illogical. It is amusing that everyone thinks every thing they believe is logical and if someone does not believe like they do, they are illogical.

God isn't irrational but the people who think up doctrines often are.

True