Is Jesus God?

[jonathanbchristian]

Cannot pass this up:

If he said that what you said was what he said and then you said he is in need of a sound mind, would that also mean that you are in need of a sound mind. Oh!!! the paradox

What he did was change what I said by adding his ( ). He was not agreeing with me, he was being a smart elic.

 

[cfultz3]

What he did was change what I said by adding his ( ). He was not agreeing with me, he was being a smart elic.

Johnathan,

With or without those (), he did and does say that the Word did not change nature but that He added to His nature. Would you consider reading his post again?

 

[kenisyes]

God cannot loose His Godhood. You are in need of a sound mind.

This is a bible study forum. It's not about as sound mind, or even about theology. It is about accurate interpretation of the text of the Bible.

My position is not that Jesus is not God. My position is that you cannot say this fact in the Hebrew of the OT. It is a difference that was irrelevant until Israel became a nation and started speaking Hebrew as a living language. If speakers of Hebrew are to get saved, this issue is going to have to get solved.

 

[kenisyes]

You make an excellent point. We know from Phil. 2 that the change of μορφὴν relates to function rather than nature. No matter what μορφὴν he assumes, he is still God. He cannot un-god himself. What Paul does not suggest in Phi. 2 is that there was ever a reversal of this μορφὴν. In fact he will say later in 1 Tim 2:5, "there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, ..." Apparently, he is still man - glorified man. It would seem that he continues to occupy this μορφὴν of Phil. 2.

And this presents the same difficulty. Gill's commentary says morphe is nature, not function. So clearly there is no general agreement on what the words convey.

One God and one mediator. Is that two persons or one? If Paul is speaking of one, then Jesus and God the Father are the same? If Paul is speaking of two, then perhaps Jesus is not God, but the mediator? In fact, a mediator requires someone to mediate with, implying Jesus and God are NOT the same.

 

[GreenNnice]

Hello Antoni you are right Jesus and God are not the same person.

The Father’s superiority over the Son, as well as the fact that the Father is a separate person, is highlighted also in the prayers of Jesus, such as the one before his execution:“Father, if you wish, remove this cup [that is, an ignominious death] from me.Nevertheless, let, not my will, but yours take place.” (Luke 22:42) If God and Jesus are “one in essence,” as the Trinity doctrine says, how could Jesus’ will, or wish, seem different from that of his Father? —Hebrews 5:7, 8; 9:24.

Furthermore, if Jehovah and Jesus were the same, how could one of them be aware of things of which the other was not? Jesus, for instance, said regarding the time of the world’s judgment: “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father.”—Mark 13:32.

Jesus Christ himself said, “The Father is greaterthanI am” and referred to the Father as his God, “the only true God.” (Joh 14:28; 17:3; 20:17; Mr 15:34; Re 1:1; 3:12) On numerous occasions Jesus expressed his inferiority and subordination to his Father.

The Power of God is soooo great

 

[phil36]

It is very simple:


If Jesus is not God, then there is no basis of faith in Christianity.

If you say Jesus is not God, as some are despicably hinting at above then you are denying Jesus thus not Christian!

 

[Blain]

If Jesus is not God why did he say he was the I am?

 

[oldhermit]

kenisyes;1152579]And this presents the same difficulty. Gill's commentary says morphe is nature, not function. So clearly there is no general agreement on what the words convey.

Yes, μορφὴν is often translated as nature and rightly so. I am not suggesting the basic definition changes in Phil.2 . What I am suggesting is that μορφὴν in that text defines his embracing of a particular function. He become flesh to fulfill the function of sacrifice.

One God and one mediator. Is that two persons or one? If Paul is speaking of one, then Jesus and God the Father are the same? If Paul is speaking of two, then perhaps Jesus is not God, but the mediator? In fact, a mediator requires someone to mediate with, implying Jesus and God are NOT the same.

I posted a comment on the thread "Trinity" post #14 on the issue of linguistic valence. This discusses the inherent problems we encounter in trying to explain the concept of God from the limitations of human language. I would like you to read it If you have not and perhaps we can examine some of these ideas together. Please disregard the last paragraph. This was cut and pasted from another thread and I forgot to remove that paragraph.

 

[directline2iam]

I posted to this a while back. In English or in Greek, Jesus is God. Not in Hebrew. The reason is that Hebrew lacks the generic term for God, and has only words for God the Father, or a general term used for pagan gods and powerful men. Greek and English consider "god" to be any heavenly being carrying ultimate authority, and this certainly includes Jesus (by I Cor. 15:25, Eph. 1:22, Heb. 2:8). The early church, being mostly Greek, transmitted correctly to us that Jesus is God. The recent growth in the presence of the Messianic Jews, who often think in Hebrew, are returning to understanding Yeshua as the Son of God, consistent with that language. The NT lacks any direct statement that Jesus is God, only the less precise "one with the Father", thus allowing both interpretations.

Direct statement John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto Him, my Lord and my God.

 

[kenisyes]

I posted a comment on the thread "Trinity" post #14 on the issue of linguistic valence. This discusses the inherent problems we encounter in trying to explain the concept of God from the limitations of human language. I would like you to read it If you have not and perhaps we can examine some of these ideas together. Please disregard the last paragraph.

The problem I see in the quoted passages is that they do not free themselves from cultural assumptions. "Music is based on chords" Rogers tells us, and that's the problem I have. Music is based on chords in Western European tradition from 1500 AD, elsewhere is it not. The same is true of the definition of God. Because of history since 400AD, we today have no choice but the think of the Christian God, and in three persons yet. There is no reason to assume the Jews saw the word that way, and reason to assume they did not. Your comments strike to the very heart of the matter. Linguistic valence is the issue. I don't think the quotes from Lanier or Rogers are helpful because although they point up the problem, they are not broad enough in the culture they examine to apply to it. For the NT, we need to realize that god was known more to the Greeks as Zeus, for example.

 

[kenisyes]

Direct statement John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto Him, my Lord and my God.

All that proves is what Thomas thought. It does not say Jesus is God.

If you use it to prove you can say "God" in Hebrew, recall Jesus said "my God, why have you abandoned me". We have those Hebrew words, "El" is not an equivalent of our word for God, but only for the Hebrew word for any power in a person. The crowd didn't even understand it.

 

[oldhermit]

The problem I see in the quoted passages is that they do not free themselves from cultural assumptions. "Music is based on chords" Rogers tells us, and that's the problem I have. Music is based on chords in Western European tradition from 1500 AD, elsewhere is it not. The same is true of the definition of God. Because of history since 400AD, we today have no choice but the think of the Christian God, and in three persons yet. There is no reason to assume the Jews saw the word that way, and reason to assume they did not. Your comments strike to the very heart of the matter. Linguistic valence is the issue. I don't think the quotes from Lanier or Rogers are helpful because although they point up the problem, they are not broad enough in the culture they examine to apply to it. For the NT, we need to realize that god was known more to the Greeks as Zeus, for example.

I feel that truth has to be rooted in the grammatical structure of the text, not in the cultural or history of the time in which it was written. The text must always stand over and above time and history as an equacultural document. BTW I am Glen Rogers.

 

[kenisyes]

Glad to meet you Glen. The culture determines the meaning of the word itself. Certainly you are old enough to remember when a hard drive was taking a fullly loaded semi up a mountain road, and cleaning your hard drive was washing the bugs off the windshield later?

Part of my approach is pastoral in character. I am trying to account for the relatively new idea that Jesus might not be God. I find some of the source potentially in the return to Hebrew thinking brought about by the Messianic Jews, new since about 30 years ago.

 

[oldhermit]

Glad to meet you Glen. The culture determines the meaning of the word itself. Certainly you are old enough to remember when a hard drive was taking a fullly loaded semi up a mountain road, and cleaning your hard drive was washing the bugs off the windshield later?

I am not suggesting that the meaning of language in not rooted in its culture but, we cannot deny that the Holy Spirit elevates language to describe things of the non-natural world that we would otherwise have no point of reference to understand. The use of Logos in John 1 is a perfect example.

 

[kenisyes]

I am not suggesting that the meaning of language in not rooted in its culture but, we cannot deny that the Holy Spirit elevates language to describe things of the non-natural world that we would otherwise have no point of reference to understand. The use of Logos in John 1 is a perfect example.

Agreed. It becomes a question of drawing the line between God's power for elevation, and His foregoing using all His power at once out of love for us. If language is elevated too far, it gets misunderstood. My hard drive example would likely be over the heads of anyone under age 15. Another perfect example is noting that Gregorian chant did not use chords until it was brought into the new musical culture. That example is over the head of almost anyone under age 50.

 

[phil36]

My position is not that Jesus is not God. My position is that you cannot say this fact in the Hebrew of the OT. It is a difference that was irrelevant until Israel became a nation and started speaking Hebrew as a living language. If speakers of Hebrew are to get saved, this issue is going to have to get solved.

Hi Keneseys

This is nonsense. Hebrew speakers are being saved as are those of all languages.. your trying to make an intellectual argument over nothing,, and nothing of relevance to Jesus.

 

[kenisyes]

Hi Keneseys

This is nonsense. Hebrew speakers are being saved as are those of all languages.. your trying to make an intellectual argument over nothing,, and nothing of relevance to Jesus.

Can you show me an explanation of the trinity online in the Hebrew language that I could look at to verify what you say is true?

It is not nonsense to the Messianic Jews I have been talking to.

 

[phil36]

It's not unknown that the jews knew of some sort of plurality, they just did not understand it... why is that?

God's dealing with his people is progressive, his revelation is progressive until the messiah came.

in an attempt to be to be intellectual you are missing a glaring hint.. the Messiah and how this notion came to the jews particularly in second temple Judaism. Did they understand who and what the mission of the Messiah would be..of course they didn't.

Another point is as Christians we read the OT through the eyes of the cross. we don't as the Jews do hold to just the Old. For you to try and do that would be foolish because you would not be sharing the whole revealed word of God. you would only be showing a shadow of it..but not the full revealed glory of GOD'S REDEMPTIVE PLAN.

Personally the term Messianic Jew, is not a very good label, it states that somhow they are different from other Christians, its like the party politics paul scolds the Corinthians for. they are plain and simply Christians.. for there is neither jew nor greek for we are all one in Christ. secondly, to be a Christian they will have to had to believe in Jesus the Messiah and what scripture tells them.. so there should be no struggle as you seem to suggest. if they are a 'messianic jew' (whatever that means) they have already met the messiah of scripture and the one to come expressed in all of scripture...

So why you feel the need to try and prove Christ is God from the OT, and not look back using the New really belies belief.

The jews of Jesus' time did not recognise even though they had the scriptures that as jesus said testify to him and they still do. The New explains the Old in Christ, in fact there is o real New or Old they are all God's revealed revelation of what he has done, is doing and will do for his people.

so what you are trying to do is rely on human intellectualism using the Hebrew language to prove Jesus is God. It beies belief because many Hebrew speakers belive in the good news of all the promises made on the old fulfilled in Jesus.. the Christ...God.

 

[oldhermit]

Can you show me an explanation of the trinity online in the Hebrew language that I could look at to verify what you say is true?

It is not nonsense to the Messianic Jews I have been talking to.

I don't know the first thing about Hebrew but, what I see in the O.T. leads me to believe that the Hebrews not only understand that there was one God, they also understood that God was a unity, or at least the evidence was there. How would they have understood the Abrahamic theophany of Gen. 19:20 "Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven?"

 

[kenisyes]

Personally the term Messianic Jew, is not a very good label, it states that somhow they are different from other Christians, its like the party politics paul scolds the Corinthians for. they are plain and simply Christians.. for there is neither jew nor greek for we are all one in Christ. secondly, to be a Christian they will have to had to believe in Jesus the Messiah and what scripture tells them.. so there should be no struggle as you seem to suggest. if they are a 'messianic jew' (whatever that means) they have already met the messiah of scripture and the one to come expressed in all of scripture...

You will have to take that up with them. Many of them view Jesus as the SON of God. It is the gentile Christians who want to convince them that Jesus is God. I'm just trying to get Gentile Christians (like you) to understand the scope of the difference. From this post, I think I am not successful.