The Divinity of Christ

[Dawnofhope]

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

Please make arguments based on scripture and reason.

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

There is uncertainly about the authorship of the book of John. Clearly the author was not illiterate.

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

Once again, that's not an argument.

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."

You may be further from God and the truth than you imagine. If I set up an idol in my living room and called it God, others could reasonably suggest there was a problem with my theology. You are simply idolising Jesus.

 

[Oeste]

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.

I don’t think the Trinity exalts man made beliefs at all, but reflects our best understanding of scripture.

(2) Therefore if you don't believe it, you don't believe in Christ or are not a true Christian

Back in the day perhaps, but not now. It’s been my experience only the fringe elements of Christianity use terms such as “true Christian” to describe members. As a general rule, mainstream Christianity tends to use the term “true Christian” as an ideal rather than as a comparative descriptor.

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

Arianism makes Jesus a junior or intermediate God in violation of scripture, specifically Isaiah 45:5 and Isaiah 43:11.

In the Trinity there is economic or relational subordination, but simply in what Jesus does but not to what Jesus is.

For example, a sergeant is subordinate to a colonel as to what they do (rank), but both are equal as to what they are (human). There is no ontological subordination between sergeant and colonel.

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.

I find the exact opposite. As such it's a good topic to discuss even if neither of us changes a mind.

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

If Arianism doesn’t make Jesus another God how do you retain consistent hermeneutics? For example, how would you answer the following questions? :

Ontologically speaking, the son of wolf is wolf, the son of man is man, and the son of God is ______?


How many wolves are in the above example? _____

How many men? _____

How many Gods? _____

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.

I’m sorry you’ve had such an experience but an inability to “tick off all the boxes” may simply mean you’re not part of a particular religious denomination. It doesn’t separate you from the body of Christ. (1 Corinthians 12: 12-30)

So while you may not be part of the eye, ear or pancreas, your ability to visit a part and "move on" may simply identify you more as a blood cell.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I don’t think the Trinity exalts man made beliefs at all, but reflects our best understanding of scripture.

The problem is when such a doctrine becomes a mandatory part of Christian belief enforced with the decree of the emperor or papal decree.

Back in the day perhaps, but not now. It’s been my experience only the fringe elements of Christianity use terms such as “true Christian” to describe members. As a general rule, mainstream Christianity tends to use the term “true Christian” as an ideal rather than as a comparative descriptor.

Actually, it remains my experience of Christianity both where I live and on RF. When you are mainstream it is hard to appreciate the experience of those who are not.

Arianism makes Jesus a junior or intermediate God in violation of scripture, specifically Isaiah 45:5 and Isaiah 43:11.

In the Trinity there is economic or relational subordination, but simply in what Jesus does but not to what Jesus is.

For example, a sergeant is subordinate to a colonel as to what they do (rank), but both are equal as to what they are (human). There is no ontological subordination between sergeant and colonel.

Perhaps. Jesus clearly fits the designation 'Son of God'. However God didn't have a Son like a man or a women has a son. The term 'Son of man' therefore becomes a designation where we understand Jesus to be great and unique in comparison to other people or even prophets.

I’m sorry you’ve had such an experience but an inability to “tick off all the boxes” may simply mean you’re not part of a particular religious denomination. It doesn’t separate you from the body of Christ. (1 Corinthians 12: 12-30)

So while you may not be part of the eye, ear or pancreas, your ability to visit a part and "move on" may simply identify you more as a blood cell.

I have been a Baha'i for over 25 years. I believe in the same God, Jesus, and bible as the Christians though often 'Christians' on this site go to great lengths to tell me I do not.

 

[Muffled]

Please make arguments based on scripture and reason.



There is uncertainly about the authorship of the book of John. Clearly the author was not illiterate.



Once again, that's not an argument.



You may be further from God and the truth than you imagine. If I set up an idol in my living room and called it God, others could reasonably suggest there was a problem with my theology. You are simply idolising Jesus.

I believe in saying that worshiping the one true God is idolatry you are committing blasphemy.

I believe I am closer than I ever imagined I would be.

I believe an honest assessment of the Book of John reveals that the author is the Apostle John. Just because He has not read much doesn't mean that he can't read or write.

 

[Oeste]

The problem is when such a doctrine becomes a mandatory part of Christian belief enforced with the decree of the emperor or papal decree.

Each Christian denomination will enforce the doctrine of the denomination, even your own, and each denomination will argue vehemently as to the truthfulness and veracity of their beliefs, even as we do now.

Actually, it remains my experience of Christianity both where I live and on RF. When you are mainstream it is hard to appreciate the experience of those who are not.

I cannot deny your experiences, nor what it’s like not to belong to a “mainstream” religion except to say I wasn’t always associated with a “mainstream” religion. Still, I’m not familiar with any traditional church that declares this church “true Christian” and this one not. That’s more for the fringe elements of Christianity.

That’s not to say it doesn’t happen either. I recall sitting in my church (Baptist) when the preacher, after making a scriptural defense of the Trinity, told us that Unitarians were on a bus headed straight to hell. I think he was trying to make the point that Arianism was heresy, but he shouldn’t have put it quite that way. This was about 30 years ago and I haven’t heard him mention it since, and it certainly wasn’t an “official” doctrine of the church. Somewhere there may have been an Arian minister claiming the same about Trinitarians.

Perhaps. Jesus clearly fits the designation 'Son of God'. However God didn't have a Son like a man or a women has a son. The term 'Son of man' therefore becomes a designation where we understand Jesus to be great and unique in comparison to other people or even prophets.

I feel it’s an inconsistent use of “Son of”. If the authors meant the “Son of Abraham”, the “Son of Isaac”, or the “Son of man” to be anything but human they would have used different terms. From here we can understand that the “Son of a jackal” will be jackal, and the “Son of a bear” will always be a bear cub.

You stated it’s different when “Son of” is applied to God. Yet the authors used the term “Son of God” knowing full well what the term “Son of” meant to the Jews. They were free to use differing terms, like “Precept of God”, “Designee of God”, or even “godlike God”. Instead, “Son of God” is what they used.

As such, I think interpreting the Son of Man as man and the Son of God as God is a much more consistent exegesis then saying the Son of God is a “designee” or “godlike God”. It allows the reader to use “Son of” in the same manner as other scripture without interjecting a “special case” rule. I also think it would certainly be an extremely unfortunate choice of words by the authors to say Jesus is the Son of God when they really meant “godlike”.

I have been a Baha'i for over 25 years. I believe in the same God, Jesus, and bible as the Christians though often 'Christians' on this site go to great lengths to tell me I do not.

Well you won’t hear that from me. I never heard of Baha’i until I read your posts, and it’s not up to me to run up and down each thread picking out who belongs to Christ and who doesn’t. I’ll leave that to the cults and to those who feel it's a pastime they'll enjoy.

In other words, I’ll argue certain doctrines “unchristian” but its not a label I attach to someone who accepts Christ as Lord. After all, the thief on the cross was saved because of his faith in Christ, not by a study of doctrine and scripture.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I believe an honest assessment of the Book of John reveals that the author is the Apostle John. Just because He has not read much doesn't mean that he can't read or write.

The point is that John is clearly a skilled writer. He is unlikely to have achieved that by being an unlearned fishermen.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Each Christian denomination will enforce the doctrine of the denomination, even your own, and each denomination will argue vehemently as to the truthfulness and veracity of their beliefs, even as we do now.

True

I cannot deny your experiences, nor what it’s like not to belong to a “mainstream” religion except to say I wasn’t always associated with a “mainstream” religion. Still, I’m not familiar with any traditional church that declares this church “true Christian” and this one not. That’s more for the fringe elements of Christianity.

I'm not so sure about that.

That’s not to say it doesn’t happen either. I recall sitting in my church (Baptist) when the preacher, after making a scriptural defense of the Trinity, told us that Unitarians were on a bus headed straight to hell. I think he was trying to make the point that Arianism was heresy, but he shouldn’t have put it quite that way. This was about 30 years ago and I haven’t heard him mention it since, and it certainly wasn’t an “official” doctrine of the church. Somewhere there may have been an Arian minister claiming the same about Trinitarians.

I was a Baptist before I became a Baha'i. That was in 1990. I feel reasonably positive about the Baptists though wouldn't want to turn the clock back. I see the Divinity of Jesus in that He is the most perfect reflection of the attributes of God. We are all created in the image of God, but Jesus manifests those attributes to the greatest excellence. So if God speaking through Jesus, says "I am God", this is true, for it as the sun reflected in the mirror. If He were to say, "I am a man like yourself"then this too is true, for distinction is made between the sun and the mirror, the source of Divinity and the greatest luminary.

I feel it’s an inconsistent use of “Son of”. If the authors meant the “Son of Abraham”, the “Son of Isaac”, or the “Son of man” to be anything but human they would have used different terms. From here we can understand that the “Son of a jackal” will be jackal, and the “Son of a bear” will always be a bear cub.

You stated it’s different when “Son of” is applied to God. Yet the authors used the term “Son of God” knowing full well what the term “Son of” meant to the Jews. They were free to use differing terms, like “Precept of God”, “Designee of God”, or even “godlike God”. Instead, “Son of God” is what they used.

As such, I think interpreting the Son of Man as man and the Son of God as God is a much more consistent exegesis then saying the Son of God is a “designee” or “godlike God”. It allows the reader to use “Son of” in the same manner as other scripture without interjecting a “special case” rule. I also think it would certainly be an extremely unfortunate choice of words by the authors to say Jesus is the Son of God when they really meant “godlike”.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

I wrote some thoughts about Jesus as 'Son of God' a while back

A Baha'i perspective on Jesus as the 'Son of God'

Well you won’t hear that from me. I never heard of Baha’i until I read your posts, and it’s not up to me to run up and down each thread picking out who belongs to Christ and who doesn’t. I’ll leave that to the cults and to those who feel it's a pastime they'll enjoy.

Sounds positive

In other words, I’ll argue certain doctrines “unchristian” but its not a label I attach to someone who accepts Christ as Lord. After all, the thief on the cross was saved because of his faith in Christ, not by a study of doctrine and scripture.

Sounds positive as well although I believe it is through both faith and deeds we are 'saved'.

 

[MJFlores]

We have contradictory statements in the Gospels about the reality of Christ. For example:

- Jesus is God

- Jesus is the 'Son of God'

- Jesus is the 'son of man'.

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

Could these principles be applicable to other faiths?

There are no contradictory passages in the Bible about the nature of my Lord Jesus Christ. It is just that people are presuming, making assumptions and suppositions.

What is my belief - Jesus is a man by his nature.
He is not God
He is the Son of God
He is the Son of Man

With regards to Catholics and Protestants, they believe in a complex concept of God - either the Trinity, or separate persons in a Godhead or Oneness or even Christ being a former archangel. One Bible multiple beliefs because of too many invented doctrines.

 

[Muffled]

The point is that John is clearly a skilled writer. He is unlikely to have achieved that by being an unlearned fishermen.

I believe that is an assumption that John was unlearned. How about the fact that individuals took turns reading the Torah in the Synagogue? How could one do that without some language training?

 

[metis]

What is my belief - Jesus is a man by his nature.
He is not God
He is the Son of God
He is the Son of Man

With regards to Catholics and Protestants, they believe in a complex concept of God - either the Trinity, or separate persons in a Godhead or Oneness or even Christ being a former archangel. One Bible multiple beliefs because of too many invented doctrines.

And supposedly how do you know that what you posted above are not "invented doctrines"?

 

[Dawnofhope]

I believe in saying that worshiping the one true God is idolatry you are committing blasphemy.

The problem is Jesus isn't God.

I believe I am closer than I ever imagined I would be.

Or further away than you think...

I believe that is an assumption that John was unlearned. How about the fact that individuals took turns reading the Torah in the Synagogue? How could one do that without some language training?

This is exactly my point, that we make unquestioning assumptions. The skills of reading and writing go together as well as listening and speaking. It is human development that in an age of near universal education in the West we take for granted. Most people in the time of Christ were illiterate. There would be no need for a fisherman to be literate, and I can't see why as a fisherman he would be required to read in the synagogue. It raises the question as to whether the author of the gospel of John is the apostle John.

 

[MJFlores]

And supposedly how do you know that what you posted above are not "invented doctrines"?

After the last apostle died (John) in 100 AD, a lot of false prophets appeared one of them is:

Tertullian (/tərˈtʌliən/), full name Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, c. 155 – c. 240 AD, was a prolific early Christian author from Carthage in the Roman province of Africa. Of Berber origin, he was the first Christian author to produce an extensive corpus of Latin Christian literature. He also was an early Christian apologist and a polemicist against heresy, including contemporary Christian Gnosticism. Tertullian has been called "the father of Latin Christianity" and "the founder of Western theology."

Though conservative in his worldview, Tertullian originated new theological concepts and advanced the development of early Church doctrine. He is perhaps most famous for being the first writer in Latin known to use the term trinity (Latin: trinitas). According to The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Tertullian's trinity [is] not a triune God, but rather a triad or group of three, with God as the founding member". A similar word had been used earlier in Greek, though Tertullian gives the oldest extant use of the terminology as later incorporated into the Nicene Creed at the 2nd Ecumenical Council, the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, or as the Athanasian Creed, or both. Other Latin formulations that first appear in his work are "three persons, one substance" as the Latin "tres personae, una substantia" (itself from the Koine Greek "treis hypostases, homoousios"). Influenced by Stoic philosophy, the "substance" of Tertullian, however, was a material substance that did not refer to a single God, but to the sharing of a portion of the substance of the Father (the only being who was fully God) with the Son and, through the Son, with the Holy Spirit. He wrote his understanding of the three members of the trinity after becoming a Montanist.

Tertullian - Wikipedia

Who is my Lord Jesus according to himself?
Let us read from a Catholic Version of the Bible:

John 8:40New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)

but now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.


He did not say I am a man-god who told you the the truth that I heard from myself
He did not say I am god who told you the the truth that I heard from myself
That would be silly.

What did he say?
Jesus said he was a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God

 

[Dawnofhope]

What is my belief - Jesus is a man by his nature.
He is not God
He is the Son of God
He is the Son of Man

I actually agree with this. The Son of God of course is not a literal son like humans have sons and daughters. It is a designation of profound spiritual mystery that helps us understand the uniqueness and greatness of Jesus in regards to other men, and being the most perfect reflection of Divine perfections and attributes.

 

[Dawnofhope]

John 8:40New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)

but now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.


He did not say I am a man-god who told you the the truth that I heard from myself
He did not say I am god who told you the the truth that I heard from myself
That would be silly.

What did he say?
Jesus said he was a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God

I don't know if I would go as far as to call Tertullian a false prophet. He just did what many of the early Christian thinkers did, and that was add to the NT writings by introducing his own human understandings. The various councils during the 4th century and beyond, including those in Nicea formalised such thoughts in doctrine that took an authority parallel to the bible itself.

Where in the bible did God give these councils this authority? Nowhere.

 

[MJFlores]

I don't know if I would go as far as to call Tertullian a false prophet. He just did what many of the early Christian thinkers did, and that was add to the NT writings by introducing his own human understandings. The various councils during the 4th century and beyond, including those in Nicea formalised such thoughts in doctrine that took an authority parallel to the bible itself.

Where in the bible did God give these councils this authority? Nowhere.

These councils were sponsored by Emperor Constantine

Constantine the Great - Wikipedia

More significantly, in 325 he summoned the Council of Nicaea, effectively the first Ecumenical Council (unless the Council of Jerusalem is so classified), most known for its dealing with Arianism and for instituting the Nicene Creed.

The Bible is enough to describe who is God and who is not.

Deuteronomy 12:32 New International Version (NIV)

See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.

1 Corinthians 4:6 New International Version (NIV)

Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.

What Tertullian did and what the Ecumenical Councils did was to go beyond what was written hence the whole world was deceived into thinking that Jesus is God when in fact, the bible says otherwise.

 

[Dawnofhope]

These councils were sponsored by Emperor Constantine

Constantine the Great - Wikipedia

More significantly, in 325 he summoned the Council of Nicaea, effectively the first Ecumenical Council (unless the Council of Jerusalem is so classified), most known for its dealing with Arianism and for instituting the Nicene Creed.

The Bible is enough to describe who is God and who is not.

Deuteronomy 12:32 New International Version (NIV)

See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.

1 Corinthians 4:6 New International Version (NIV)

Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.

What Tertullian did and what the Ecumenical Councils did was to go beyond what was written hence the whole world was deceived into thinking that Jesus is God when in fact, the bible says otherwise.

We may have disagreements but we are on the same page on this. When we disagree we will be looking at actual scripture, rather than doctrine. One of the problems when having meaningful discussions about the bible, is they soon regress into unconscious discussions about doctrine.

There is a wealth of scripture to clearly indicates that Jesus can not possibly be God.

 

[metis]

After the last apostle died (John) in 100 AD, a lot of false prophets appeared one of them is:

As you have repeatedly done, you didn't deal with what I posted and did not answer my question, and then you took off on a tangent.

And then you say that Tertullian is a "false prophet", and yet you provide not one shred of evidence to support such a claim. Just because you may not agree with some of his interpretations doesn't mean he's intrinsically a "false prophet". I don't believe in the literal trinitarian concept, nor do I believe that Jesus is God or a literal "son of God", but I certainly won't claim that this somehow makes Tertullian a "false prophet".

BTW, a "prophet" speaks as a conduit from God to people, and Tertullian did not claim that for himself, at least as far as I know.

 

[MJFlores]

As you have repeatedly done, you didn't deal with what I posted and did not answer my question, and then you took off on a tangent.

And then you say that Tertullian is a "false prophet", and yet you provide not one shred of evidence to support such a claim. Just because you may not agree with some of his interpretations doesn't mean he's intrinsically a "false prophet". I don't believe in the literal trinitarian concept, nor do I believe that Jesus is God or a literal "son of God", but I certainly won't claim that this somehow makes Tertullian a "false prophet".

BTW, a "prophet" speaks as a conduit from God to people, and Tertullian did not claim that for himself, at least as far as I know.

That came from Tertullian.

If there is proof of the Trinity in the Bible and...if the distinction of the Trinity is clearly displayed - Tertullian was speaking the truth, if not....

 

[metis]

That came from Tertullian.

If there is proof of the Trinity in the Bible and...if the distinction of the Trinity is clearly displayed - Tertullian was speaking the truth, if not....

None of that has anything to do with your allegation that he was a "false prophet".

 

[MJFlores]

None of that has anything to do with your allegation that he was a "false prophet".

Maybe false teacher give or take?

How can my Lord Jesus be God when it is so clear that he is not? Let us take a verse often used and often heard from people:

John 3:16 New International Version (NIV)

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Who gave? God gave
Who was given? His only Son

There was a giver and the given - two beings
One is God and the other is the Son